Michaels

5/5

The Michaels breach, which occurred between May 8, 2013, and January 27, 2014, may have affected about 2.6 million cards, or about 7 percent of payment cards used at its stores during the period, the retailer said in a statement. A separate breach on Aaron Brothers’ payment systems from June 26, 2013 to February 27, 2014, may have exposed another 400,000 cards.

Haik Tahmaseb Azizian’s agreement with Michaels Stores Inc. is enforceable and he waived his ability to bring claims on behalf of a proposed class, Judge Cynthia Valenzuela said in a July 30 order that was docketed Aug. 1. The US District Court for the Central District of California granted Michaels’ motion to compel arbitration.

Michaels Stores said it intended to enforce its arbitration agreement with Armstrong in multiple filings before its motion to compel arbitration, but believed it couldn’t until the US Supreme Court ruled that class action waivers in employment contracts are enforceable, Koh said. Although the company waited 10 months, it participated in only minimal discovery and didn’t file any substantive motions, she said.

The named plaintiffs, who work in the company’s warehouse distribution center in Lancaster, Calif., allege they weren’t compensated for time spent during security checks several times a day.

Michaels Stores Inc. and Michaels Stores Procurement Co. Inc. (Michaels) agreed to enter into a consent decree and pay $1.5 million, the Justice Department announced today. The decree resolves allegations that Michaels failed timely to report to the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) information regarding a large glass vase that injured consumers between 2007 and 2009.

Michaels Stores, a Texas-based arts and crafts supplier, has agreed to pay $1.8 million to settle deceptive-advertising charges leveled by New York state regulators.

<table> <thead> <tr> <th>Cycle</th> <th>Total</th> <th>Democrats</th> <th>% to Dems</th> <th>Republicans</th> <th>% to Repubs</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td>2020</td> <td>$3,185</td> <td>$2,944</td> <td>94.91%</td> <td>$158</td> <td>5.09%</td> </tr> <tr> <td>2018</td> <td>$885</td> <td>$885</td> <td>100.00%</td> <td>$0</td> <td>0.00%</td> </tr> <tr> <td>2016</td> <td>$2,909</td> <td>$2,551</td> <td>87.69%</td> <td>$358</td> <td>12.31%</td> </tr> <tr> <td>2014</td> <td>$0</td> <td>$0</td> <td>0.00%</td> <td>$0</td> <td>0.00%</td> </tr> <tr> <td>2004</td> <td>$6,700</td> <td>$200</td> <td>2.99%</td> <td>$6,500</td> <td>97.01%</td> </tr> <tr> <td>2002</td> <td>$48,000</td> <td>$0</td>

works with outside vendors who supply goods and artwork. It's unclear how much control Michaels has over how its vendors produce their products. A bigger AI backlash While Michaels was working to remove the wolf canvas art from its website and stores, the topic began to gain steam on TikTok, leading to a new batch of videos digging into the rest of the company’s fall catalog. One user analyzed some canvas prints of spooky houses, arguing that details like asymmetry and unusual stylization point to AI use, and another found prints of candles, a cat, and a witch that she believed to be computer-generated. Fast Company circled back to Michaels for additional clarification on these examples.  “As the largest arts and crafts retailer in North America, Michaels will always support and prioritize artists in all the mediums they use to create,” the company responded in a statement. “This artwork was all created by real artists and was licensed for use by the artist and creator of the artwork.” The backlash against Michaels comes amid a greater discussion of how AI tools should (or shouldn’t) be integrated into creative practices, especially when profit is involved. AI tools are certainly becoming more ubiquitous for digital artists, as features like Adobe Firefly offer advantages for brainstorming new concepts and cutting down on production time. Attempting to stop the wave of AI tech now is a moot point—but calls for transparency around AI usage are getting louder.  Earlier this summer, Etsy committed to adding new tags to products to clarify a seller’s role in the creation process, as well as debuting a series of vaguely anti-AI ads highlighting the importance of human artists. And last month, artists across social media took to labeling their work with a “Created With Human Intelligence” badge to show that human creators won’t be replaced by AI image generators.  Michaels has admitted only to discovering an AI image layer in the wolf print, emphasizing that it “prioritizes artists.” Still, the controversy highlights a deeper worry from the creative community that art-based companies may begin turning to AI without their knowledge. If major craft stores want to maintain customer trust, it may be time to implement clear guidelines and labeling to let buyers know how their purchases were created.

Nea Vizcarra sued in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, saying the crafting and home-decor chain deceptively advertises its products as discounted even though they are always available for at least 20% less than the purported “regular” price.

A distribution unit of craft-store chain Michaels defeated most claims in a lawsuit alleging it failed to provide proper pay and breaks to a temporary worker assigned to a California warehouse.

8(a)(3) Discharge (Including Layoff and Refusal to Hire (not salting))