0.2: Good Meat and a Bad Beef
I'm billing for this.
THIS WEEK: A fight over who really has the Good Meat, legal protections for kid influencers, and a new suit against Big Law over law student diversity fellowships.
Who has the Good Meat?
Earlier this month, beef between two companies (not to be confused with the fight between viral Youtuber Mr. Beast and Virtual Dining Concepts over the ghost kitchen, Mr. Beast Burgers.) over “Good Meat” made it’s way into federal court. Let me set the table for you: the plaintiff, Good Meat Project, is a non-profit that “provides education and support ranchers and farmers who employ holistic grazing, regenerative, organic, grass-fed, pastured, and sustainable meat production methods.” On the opposite side of the meat spectrum, you have the defendants, Good Meat Inc. and it’s parent, Eat Just Eat, Inc. While also pursuing food sustainability, Good Meat, Inc. instead focuses on lab cultivated meat from animal cells. Similar mission, completely different approaches.
So how did we get here? Well, Good Meat Project has owned the trademark (standard character) for “Good Meat” and (design) for “Good Meat Breakdown” since October 2, 2022 and has allegedly been using both since at least 2018. Good Meat, Inc. is in the process of obtaining a trademark (design) for “Go od Meat” and has already been operating as Good Meat.
I think you see where is this is going.
Good Meat Project filed their action and argue, among other things, that defendant’s misappropriation of their trademark will/have caused consumers to be confused/mislead into thinking that Good Meat Projects is effectively in the business of lab grown chicken cutlets.
Stay tuned as this case continues to heat up (alright I’ll stop).
Kidfluencers Take Center Stage
Earlier this month, Illinois passed a new law requiring parents of child influencers to set aside a portion of revenue from video content featuring their children. It was inspired by a letter from a 16-year-old constituent, Shreya Nallamothu, and is modeled after the Coogan Act which protects child actors.
This piece of legislation is unlikely to impact your many acquaintances who regularly feature their adorable children in all of their Instagram stories. Instead, the law aims to protect children who are featured in video content that generates at least 10 cents per view, if they are included in at least 30 percent of that content over a 30-day period. In short, monetized Illinois based families.
Similar to how the Coogan Act in California operates for Hollywood child stars, this new legislation requires Illinois parents to set aside a specific portion of the earnings in a trust for the minor (available when they turn 18).
So what happens if the child turns 18 and the money is squandered? Well, the legislation creates a right of action for children who weren’t properly compensated by their parents.
Will we see similar legislation in other states? Likely. Will we see a lawsuits against parents who didn’t properly compensate their kids? Definitely.
Big Law, Big Lawsuit
Two Big Law firms are facing legal action over one of their diversity, equity, and inclusion programs. American Alliance for Equal Rights (AAER) (effectively Edward Blum of the Harvard & UNC affirmative action cases) seeks to end Perkins Coie’s and Morrison Foerster’s law student diversity fellowships.
Specifically, AAER claims that the two firms are engaging in discrimination against one of it’s members (a white, heterosexual male), by not allowing this individual to be considered for their respective law student diversity fellowships and, as a result, are seeking an end to the programs.
This suit follows the Supreme Court’s decisions in the Harvard/UNC cases (holding that using affirmative action in college admissions is unconstitutional) and Senator Cotton’s letter to 51 Big Law firms about ‘warn[ing] their clients of the risks of ‘race-based hiring quotas and benchmarks.’”
As the complaint was just filed today (August 22, 2023), neither firm has made an appearance. I’ll provide an update once the firms appear and (presumably) file their motions to dismiss.
A Couple of 0.1s
Bill This to Me
Enable 3rd party cookies or use another browser
Point Two is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.