Since 2021, Confusion is not a concrete harm that supports a Trademark infringement case. It must cause a concrete harm to the business.
https://harvardlawreview.org/p... has a great, easy to read review of the impact.

Two excerpts, first from introduction, second from the takeaway:
"""
In TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez,the Supreme Court held that a legal violation is not an injury in fact unless it entails concrete harm.
to be concrete, the injury must have a “close historical or common-law analogue.”
Part III argues that the modern conception of likely confusion flunks the concrete-harm test because trademark law traditionally required business harm to producers.
In the absence of business harm, the injury that trademark owners sustain from others’ use of their marks is closer to a nonjusticiable moral injury.
When trademark owners do not establish business harm, courts must dismiss their claims on standing grounds.
"""
Still, if this textualist Court really means what it says, then trademark law requires an overhaul.
The legal injury of likelihood of confusion bears none of the hallmarks and boasts none of the traditional pedigree of a bona fide injury in fact.
Without proof of business harm, trademark claims must fail.
In the words of Justice Kavanaugh, “No concrete harm, no standing.”

I didn't read to the end when I posted. The final lines are great:

"""
Still, if this textualist Court really means what it says, then trademark law requires an overhaul. The legal injury of likelihood of confusion bears none of the hallmarks and boasts none of the traditional pedigree of a bona fide injury in fact. Without proof of business harm, trademark claims must fail. In the words of Justice Kavanaugh, “No concrete harm, no standing.”

Before 2021, Automattic had a great case. After, not much, as Supreme court strengthened requirements of concrete harm.
Hard to prove that Automattic.CSS is causing concrete business harm to Automattic, when it's adoption encourages adoption of Wordpress and the Automattic ecosystem.

Notable exerpts from the Harvard Law Review: https://harvardlawreview.org/p...

in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez,the Supreme Court held that a legal violation is not an injury in fact unless it entails concrete harm.
to be concrete, the injury must have a “close historical or common-law analogue.”
Part III argues that the modern conception of likely confusion flunks the concrete-harm test because trademark law traditionally required business harm to producers.
In the absence of business harm, the injury that trademark owners sustain from others’ use of their marks is closer to a nonjusticiable moral injury.
When trademark owners do not establish business harm, courts must dismiss their claims on standing grounds.

--
Kavaughs addition:
      Suppose that a woman drives home from work a quarter mile ahead of a reckless driver who is dangerously swerving across lanes. The reckless driver has exposed the woman to a risk of future harm, but the risk does not materialize and the woman makes it home safely.
      As counsel for TransUnion stated, that would ordinarily be cause for celebration, not a lawsuit.
      What the Court was after was a collision between risk and reality. Until the crash, there was no material consequence to the woman and thus no concrete harm. One could imagine cases where an unrealized risk was far from a “cause for celebration”
---
Under TransUnion, to be concrete, an alleged injury must have a “close historical or common-law analogue,” although not “an exact duplicate.”
The legal injury of likely confusion is not concrete because trademark injury traditionally meant business harm to trademark owners.
---
In the absence of actual or sufficiently imminent business harm, the harm that trademark owners incur from others’ use of their marks is probably closer to a moral injury
[...]
Whether or not these complaints are sympathetic, they are not legal injury under the Lanham Act, much less concrete injury under Article III.
A defendant’s gain is not in itself a brand’s loss.

So, the paper they are describing, which has been discussed for months in the industry, and published as linked: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2502.177... -- all a hoax?

DM is a common high, was all the rage from like the 90s and early 2000s. Gives hallucinations, supposedly much like Ketamine. The high lasts about 4 to 6 hours.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

I get by just fine with a flip phone. I dropped my WIndows Phone when Uber upgraded their app in store to require IE 11 (Windows Phone maxes out at IE10), and moved to a flip phone in 2022. Had no issues before or since.

What do you mean "so much here in the states requires a person to have one" I have lived in the San Francisco area with only a WIndows Mobile PHone thru 2014, then Windows Phone (through 2022), and never felt like I "required" an android or ios phone to make use of apps.

What sort of apps do you use that are "required"? As I haven't experinced anything of the sort.

Permanent Employees can't be fired unless the company is about to go out of business -- but they can sure try to coerse people to quit.

Transferring people to former storage rooms, and assigning people no work to do. (and against policy to use phone for personal use during work hours), and hope that people faced with sitting in a quiet room meditating for 8hrs a day without distraction will soon quit (which ... ususally works. I for one only lasted about 6 weeks before I felt like I couldn't handle doing nothing all day anymore.

In France, paternity tests are illegal short of obtaining an explicit court order in a legal proceeding (e.g. contested inheritance) . It prevents society from being controlled by biology. And would likely disrupt too many families. "Fatherhood is determined by society, not biology."

All aspects of insurance policies must be approved by the state regulator before any changes in payout, pricing, or coverage is allowed.

The new legislation isn't mandatory.

It's a carrot.

IF an insurer meets the threshhold of covering 85% of MarketShare% of HighRiskUnitInState.

THEN the insurer will be allowed to use catastrophe modelling to detetrmine future risk (as is done in most other states)

AND the insurer will be allowed to pass on reinsurance rates to clients (is currently not legal to do so)

So, by extending policies in high risk areas, they gain two huge benefits to set rates, and offload costs to policyholders.

And it's not a huge increase.
    Say 1% of all units are high risk. Insurer has 10% market share. Insurer must write 10% * 85% * 1% = 0.085% of high risk units.
  In numbers: (1%) 1,000,000 units are high risk. Insurer writes (10%) 10,000,000 total policies. Insurer must write 85,000 high-risk policies. to qualify.

It's poor because that's the official wording in every single published report, document, and presentation.

That is, if 1% of total properties in the state are high-risk, insurers would have to have 0.85% (85% or 1%) of their policies be high risk.

Getting to that (correct) statement, is not as intuitive to people seems.

Walking through it step by step

The law requires 85% of Market Share Percentage of high-risk units to be covered.

• Insurer Market Share = 10%.
• Minimum percentage of state-wide high-risk unit coverage: 10% * 85% = 8.5%.
• 1,000,000 high-risk units exist in state.
• 85,000 policies must be written

The other summary fault -- this is not mandatory. Insurers can choose to not insure in high-risk areas at all. There is nothing forcing them into this regime.
The carrot provided is: "By serving (distressed unit minimums), insurers will be allowed to use catastrophe modelling to determine risk and set rates, and allow to pass on reinsurance costs to customers. Both are not currently allowed due to state law."

The bad summary is due to how it's worded in all documents and publications.

Increasing Insurance Availability and Access: The strategy seeks a commitment from insurance companies to write a minimum of 85% of their statewide market share in wildfire distressed areas identified by the Insurance Commissioner. This ensures that insurance remains available, especially for homeowners in high wildfire-risk regions -- FAQ on Insurance Commitments for Wildfire Distressed Areas

Policy Announcement:

What it means: Insurance companies must increase coverage in wildfire-prone regions, ensuring they write policies for at least 85% of their statewide market share, with annual increases until the threshold is met.

Big one is lawsuits from the insurance industry against unfair competitive advantage of a publically funded non-profit system.

After insurance industry lawsuits and fierce lobbying against all attempts to create a state run home insurance system, the resulting analysis from the state showed it would be detrimental to state budget.

The risk pool of policyholders would be heavily skewed towards uninsurable and high-risk properties that commercial insurance wants to avoid. With a state option, this further incentivizes existing companies to divest themselves of higher risk policyholders and maintain the profitable low-risk policyholders. The state option requires a healthy mix of high and low risk policyholders. Regulation to ensure such a mix is anticipated to draw extensive high cost legal proceedings as by design the polices will reduce the total revenue entering the private market, and siphon away low-risk policy holders.

Options to provide a state wide mandatory insurance policy are no longer viable. The state insurance coverage was dismantled in the 50s to allow private insurers to enter the market and compete for profit. Had the non-profit approach remained in force, the state would be able to have 100% capture, and lower rates for all, managing the market with ability to offset prices. This model assumes private insurance would create a secondary market to provide add-on premium insurance policies in a dual state-private ecosystem.

I'm in California, which has an all-in pricing law for ticket sales and hotels.

Many Las Vegas hotels are already compliant when accessed from California.

MGM shows. "109.50 Avg Room Rate + $50 Daily Resort fee = (bold) 159.50 Avg/Night

Resort World. "145.87 Avg Per Night + $150 Resort Fees = Fri Jan 10: 199.20, Sat Jan 11: $139.20, Sun Jan 12: 99.20, Resort Fees: $150.00, Total Tax: $78.62 = Total (Bold) $666.22

Circus Circus. (they do the *) $40.68 per night per room **. Click on the (i)** popup: SHows: Nightly Rates, Taxes and Fees (*Resort Fee: 176.88; Occupancy Tax: $21.77), and Total ($361.35)

The EU Directive requires all earning revenue on a digital service, via the Digital Services Act.
The developer must " notify the name, postal address, email address and telephone number of their legal representative to the Digital Services Coordinator in the Member State where that legal representative resides or is established."

Failure to provide full information is subject to fines, for failing to provide adequate direct contact to reach the developer.

Failure to provide verified name, address, and phone number, or failure to publish the information clearly, is in direct violation of EU law.

More specifically, Article 30:

Providers of online platforms allowing consumers to conclude distance contracts with traders shall ensure that [...] they have obtained the following information, applicable to the trader:

1 (a) the name, address, telephone number and email address of the trader;

7 The provider of the online platform allowing consumers to conclude distance contracts with traders shall make the information referred to in paragraph 1, points (a), [...] available on its online platform to the recipients of the service in a clear, easily accessible and comprehensible manner