https://www.reviewjournal.com/business/casinos-gaming/mgm-resorts-sues-ftc-agency-chair-over-cyberattack-investigation-3034150/ Amazing. Part of their argument is that since the chair was a guest while the hack was unfolding, there's a conflict of interest and that is what brought 15 consumer class actions against MGM. I wish I was smart enough to make up this nonsense.
Based on what I read, the suit is to have the chair recused from the FTC case against MGM as its a conflict of interest. Seems fair to me as she could have some bias from being there during the event. MGM was quoted saying that the publicity from the chairs stay triggered 15 class action lawsuits but I didn't see anything about the suit stating anything about that.
If I was the attoney for the plaintiffs of the class actions suits I would be happy with this developement. It shows that MGM acknowledges that being a guest during the hack was so horrible and traumatic that even the head of a major Federal Agency tasked with enforcing the law can't be unbiased.
That was so they could consolidate all cases in one, which makes the process far more efficient in providing compensation to the victims.
Actually they sued to get an order saying that since they met the federal guidelines for security at the event they weren't liable
That argument is batshit crazy. Put another way, “The bad publicity was caused by the mere presence of a federal official most Americans couldn’t pick out of a lineup, and not by the fact that we, a top-2 casino operator in the country, were out of commission for nearly a month”.
I agree that part is insane, but based on the wording in the article that was a comment MGM made and is not what the suit is asking for. They are just asking for that official to be recused in the investigation.
I support her recusal 110%, but those lawsuits were always going to happen- they were as inevitable as the sun rising in the east.
LOL, can ANYONE follow the logic in this one? Jeesh! IANAL, but it seems like a rat maze of assertions!
I'm not going to fully defend MGM here because I don't know their strategy and didn't read through the entire filings, but my sense after reading through the coverage is that they're trying to get rid of the FTC's Civil Investigative Demand, which is sort of like a document subpoena but on a massive scale. The FTC can theoretically request an incredibly broad range of materials, and MGM presumably doesn't want to deal with the FTC when it's also dealing with federal and state law enforcement, gaming, the SEC, and civil lawsuits. And so their primary argument is that the FTC's jurisdiction here is pretty tenuous, that it's duplicative of all the other investigations that are going on, and that Chairwoman Khan is "conflicted" by having been a guest at the time (which I think is code for, "the FTC is trying to get involved because the agency's leader is mad"). So again, while I can't say for sure, it seems like their issue is less that they think they didn't do anything wrong, and more that they think the FTC doesn't need to add to the pile-on.
MGM are attempting to establish potential conflict of interest as a reason to recuse by virtue of: 1. Saying that the CIDs closely track Khan's well-publicized personal experience 2. Because she was directly affected, and that is public knowledge, she is known to be a potential plaintiff and witness in civil cases The hightlighted bit is just kind of a snide remark. They probably should have left it out. They're not claiming there wouldn't have been any publicity if Khan wasn't there or that publicity about her is the reason for the civil suits. Point 8 is just to establish that suits exist so that they can make point 9. FTC says: 1. Our rules don't allow recusal 2. Even if they did, Khan's involvement/experience isn't legally significant MGM says: #1 and other things violate due process. DC Case 1:24-cv-01066 https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/lgvdnbrwyvo/MGM v FTC - 20240415.pdf
