FOX NEWS YOU NETFLIX TRIAL

Instead of giving clarity, Arroyo continued saying, 'I don’t know. He was though immediately interrupted by the baffled host asked, “Wait, wait, wait, when did I mention measles?” “You know I was watching an episode of 'You' where measles came up,' Arroyo said in the middle of a discussion.

What ensued was a hilarious miscommunication on Live television much to the amusement of the viewers.

The reference was completely lost on Ingraham. During a conversation on measles, panellist Raymond Arroyo made a reference to the hugely popular show 'You' where Joe’s (Penn Badgley) son Henry gets sick after contracting the disease from an unvaccinated family.

FOX NEWS YOU NETFLIX TRIAL

“The decision not only affirms the trial court’s condemnation of Netflix’s conduct, but also ensures that the rights and choices of employees will remain protected.Who would have thought that a show on something as serious as measles could turn hilarious in a matter of seconds? But that's exactly what happened when news anchor Laura Ingraham of Fox News failed to understand a Netflix reference made by a guest on her show 'The Ingraham Angle'. “The Court’s ruling definitively ends years of unlawful poaching by Netflix,” he said. Netflix declined to comment on the ruling.ĭaniel Petrocelli, who represented Fox, said the ruling puts the issue to rest. Netflix appealed the Fox ruling in September 2020, arguing that it was time to strike a blow against the “Hollywood establishment” and its restrictive employment terms. A separate judge issued a similar injunction that barred Netflix from poaching Viacom employees last year. Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Marc Gross granted Fox’s request for an injunction in December 2019. “he social interest in protecting Fox’s legitimate expectancy of stable and predictable economic relationships outweighs any arguable competitive interest that could have been advanced by Netflix’s interference.” “Netflix’s interference could not be justified as promoting an interest or right that the targeted employees had voluntarily relinquished,” Kim wrote for the panel. In other words, they had voluntarily relinquished their mobility as employees in exchange for the security of a fixed-term contract, and it was not Netflix’s job to liberate them. Hoffstadt, found that Waltenberg and Flynn were “sophisticated executives,” who had agreed to extend the term of their contracts in arm’s length negotiations. Netflix argued that Fox coerced its employees into extending its contracts in mid-term, effectively holding employees longer than the seven-year limit. California law makes it illegal to hold an employee under contract longer than seven years.

Both were on two-year contracts at the time, and Fox had a unilateral option to extend those contracts for another two years.įox filed a poaching suit later in 2016, and Netflix countersued, arguing that the contracts were unenforceable. A few months later, Netflix hired Tara Flynn, an executive at Fox21, also doubling her salary. The case began in late 2015, when Netflix hired Marcos Waltenberg, 20th Century Fox’s vice president of promotions, enticing him to leave by doubling his salary. Netflix’s argument, had it succeeded, could have upended how Hollywood studios do business.īut on Thursday, a three-judge appellate panel upheld the injunction, finding that Fox’s contracts are a legitimate way to provide “stability and predictability” in its employment relationships. Netflix has argued that Fox’s contracts are illegal under California law, and that they unfairly restrict employee mobility. The streaming service has been battling Fox since 2016 over the practice of locking midlevel executives into fixed-term contracts. Netflix has lost an appeal of a 2019 ruling that ordered the streaming service to stop poaching employees from Fox.

Fox news you netflix