Who wants to lawsuit Paris Hilton?

A $35 million lawsuit against Paris Hilton which alleged she failed to promote a range of hair extensions has been dropped.

The 30-year-old socialite was accused of missing a launch party for HairTech International products in 2007, and was also seen wearing a competitor’s extensions.

The company had paid her $3.5 million to be the face of their Dream Catchers range of clip-in locks.

However, the company’s founder and CEO Chris Volek has now admitted the allegations were wrong and has dropped the case against her.

The blonde star – who had countersued for $2.1 million in damages and had missed the launch party because she was in jail for violating the terms of her probation as a result of a reckless driving charge - admits she is pleased with the decision.

She said: “It is certainly not unusual for businesspeople to have their disagreements, but I am glad that Chris has acknowledged the hard work and dedication I put into promoting his products.”

Discussing why he had dropped the case, Chris – who had claimed her failure to turn up to the party had lost the company $6.6 million in lost revenue on its own – confessed the information he had received about her actions had been incorrect.

He said in a statement: “The information I received from others and on which I based the lawsuit was not accurate.” - Bang Showbiz

Clint Arthur settles lawsuit against Louis Vuitton over MOCA sale of 'limited edition' Murakami art

Clint Arthur and Louis Vuitton have settled the highly unusual lawsuit the Los Angeles man brought against the luxury goods seller after he became disenchanted with artworks by Pop artist Takashi Murakami that he'd bought at a boutique Louis Vuitton had set up during the 2007-08 Murakami exhibition at L.A.'s Museum of Contemporary Art.

Arthur became suspicious that the two limited edition works he'd bought for $6,000 each might not be quite so limited -- and as it turns out, they were literally cut from the same cloth as mass-produced canvas handbags that Murakami had designed for Louis Vuitton.

But Arthur's federal suit lost most of its potential financial bite when a judge in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles ruled there was no fraud involved in Louis Vuitton's not specifying that the Murakami canvases were handbag material.

Arthur settled in mid-December for what Louis Vuitton had offered from the start: a $12,000 refund, plus interest. But documents in the case contain some interesting details about Murakami's process, and the settlement still leaves open the question of whether Louis Vuitton is vulnerable to a follow-up suit by the California attorney general or L.A.'s city attorney or the county district attorney for having possibly violated the state Fine Prints Act.

Click here for the full story, and here for details on how Murakami turned 214 pieces of handbag material worth less than $100 each into $1.4 million, while apparently barely looking at them.

To read the most relevant portions of the Fine Prints Act, click here and here.

Reas more on NYTimes http://tinyurl.com/4lhvo4f