An Orthodox Jewish woman from Monsey, N.Y. is suing the Lancome cosmetics firm, claiming that its 24-hour makeup does not last as long as advertised and thus prevents her from looking good all Shabbat.

Rorie Weisberg of Monsey, N.Y. said in her lawsuit that Lancome’s Teint Idole Ultra 24H foundation does not last 24 hours and that the company is practicing false advertising, a violation of New YorkState business law, the New York Post reported Wednesday.

Weisberg’s lawsuit says her son is having a bar mitzvah next month and that she tried the Lancome foundation in advance to see if she could look good in her makeup for the entire 25-hour celebration. Jewish law prohibits removing and replacing makeup during the Sabbath.

“The 24-hour claim was central to plaintiff’s purchase decision, as a long-lasting makeup assists with her dual objectives of compliance with religious law and enhancement to her natural appearance,” according to the lawsuit.

The suit seeks unspecified damages from Lancome and its parent firm, L’Oreal, for Weisberg and other makeup purchasers, as well as a “corrective advertising campaign.”

A spokeswoman for L’Oreal said in a statement that the lawsuit has no merit and Lancome stands behinds its products.

“We will strenuously contest these allegations in court,” the spokeswoman said. “Consistent with our practice and policy, however, as this matter is currently in litigation, we cannot comment further.”

Former IDF soldier Anat Kam, who has been sentenced to three and a half years in prison after being convicted on an illegal possession of classified information, on Thursday sued the newspaper Ha’aretz, its reporter Uri Blau, and former news desk chief Avi Zilberberg, to the tune of 2.6 million shekel ($720 thousand).

Kam contends that she was exposed as the source of Blau’s information, leading to her arrest. In an unusual move, Kam asked the court to order the reporter to pay much of the money out of his own pocket, for his “special role in causing great injustice” to her, she said. The newspaper has not yet responded to the suit.

During her military service as a clerk in the office of the Central Command, Kam was exposed to “presentations and documents of various level of security classification,” including summaries of discussions, deployment of forces, investigations and status assessments. In advance of her discharge, she copied the documents to a CD that she took home. About a year after her discharge, she offered the documents to the military correspondent of Yediot Aharonot, Yossi Yehoshua, but in the end did not give away the material.

In October, 2008, the lawsuit relates, Kam met up with Blau, they chatted and discovered that they had attended the same high school. Blau offered Kam a ride to Jerusalem, where her parents live, and during the trip told her about his journalistic background and his own exposure to military matters.

“She had the impression that Blau was a serious and responsible journalist, and since it was clear to her that, in any case, his reports at Ha’aretz would be subject to military censorship restrictions,” she decided to hand over to him the CD containing the documents.

According to Kam, before delivering the CD to Blau, she demanded that he would never reveal where he obtained the documents, and that he tell no one at Ha’aretz that she was his source.

A few days later, Blau called her on his cellphone and told her he was excited about the material. The two had a few more discussions, until finally Blau published his story in November, 2008. The report incorporated photographs of two documents he had received from Kam. A few months later, another article appeared, incorporating another classified document.

On December 15, 2009, Kam’s world came crashing down, the lawsuit says, referring to the day when the GSS called her in for questioning.” Kam tried to contact Blau, but a mutual acquaintance said he was on a long trip abroad. At the GSS, her interrogators told her that they’re checking the leak to Blau. Kam confessed, and spent nearly two years under house arrest, with an “overseer.” She had to quit her job and could only leave her home to report at the police, or to visit a doctor. A year and a half ago, she was sentenced to four and a half years in prison, and three months ago the Supreme Court shortened her sentence by one year.

The lawsuit suggests that Ha’aretz was responsible for her exposure, since publishing the classified documents left only Kam, the clerk who handled those documents at Central Command, as the most logical suspect. It also argues that the chief military censor advised to Ha’aretz against publishing the actual documents, in order to shield their source.

In the end, according to the Kam lawsuit, the GSS was willing to give her immunity from charges on the documents which reporter Blau handed back to the military, so that, essentially, had he given back everything – she could have been spared much of her sentence.

Now she wants to make him pay.

Twitter is being sued for about $50 million in France for failing to honor a court ruling which ordered it to identify users who posted anti-Semitic hate speech.

The Union of Jewish French Students, or UEJF by its French acronym, filed the lawsuit on Wednesday with a Paris correctional tribunal, according to the French news agency AFP.

UEJF President Jonathan Hayoun said his organization filed the lawsuit because the California-based website has “ignored” a civil court ruling from Jan. 24, which gave Twitter two weeks to comply with UEJF’s demand that Twitter identify people who broke France’s laws against hate speech.

As an American company, Twitter argued in court that it adheres to U.S. laws and protected by the First Amendment and the broad free speech liberties it ensures. But the judge said that comments by Internet users in France are subject to France’s stricter legislation against racist and hateful expression.

“Twitter is playing the indifference card and does not respect the ruling,” Hayoun told AFP on Wednesday. “They have resolved to protect the anonymity of the authors of these tweets and have made themselves accomplices to racists and anti-Semites.”

UEJF sued Twitter last year shortly after the hashtag “unBonJuif,” French for “aGoodJew,” became the third most popular on French Twitter. A hashtag is a phrase which, when preceded by the symbol #, is used to index relevant tweets. Many users posted Holocaust jokes and calls to kill Jews under #UnBoJuif.

UEJF wants to deposit any damages it is awarded in a trial against Twitter with an organization working to preserve the memory of the Holocaust, AFP reported.

A New York City department called the New York City Commission on Human Rights has sued a group of religious store owners in Brooklyn. What terrible “crime” have these Torah Jews committed? They require modest clothing to be worn in their stores and do not allow shorts or bare feet, etc.

As with recent state aggression in other countries against shechita and b’rit milah, this lawsuit is anti-Semitism under the guise of lofty social interest. Instead of “animal welfare” or “children’s rights,” the state’s claim is now “equality” and “anti-discrimination.” The bottom line is it’s anti-Semitism in each instance because the government seeks to crush the fulfillment of Judaic values and duties.

Concerning the New York lawsuit, there is also a broader attack against a cornerstone that transcends any religious context: the rights of private property. Simply put, those store owners in Brooklyn could just as well require cowboy boots as prohibit shorts; it’s their business and corresponding right to transact based on these proprietary preferences. As James Madison wrote in The Federalist Papers, “Government is instituted no less for protection of the property, than of the persons of individuals.” As former attorney Rabbi Steven Pruzansky similarly notes in a discussion of the 2005 Supreme Court case Kelo v. City of New London, “It’s well-established that private property…is respected and even celebrated in Torah life.” (See 21:50 here.)

Such protection goes both ways. If wealthy Jew haters want to exclude us from their yacht clubs, it’s both obnoxious and ridiculous to pursue state action against them.

In 2013, America is acutely alienated from these founding principles. “Civil rights” today has become a mechanism by which federal, state, and local governments trample on property rights to further assorted ideological ends. As the legal scholar Richard Epstein has observed vis-a-vis the aftermath of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act:

In the modern context it [civil rights] has become a term that refers to limits on freedom of  association. It has thus repeated the fundamental official mistake of earlier generations  [imposing segregation, for example] by sanctioning active and extensive government  interference in private markets. Civil rights  quickly assumed an imperial air. It now allows the  state (or some group within the state) to force others to enter into private arrangements that  they would prefer to avoid.

New York’s lawsuit extends this imperial, coercive machinery. “The enemies of the Torah are working overtime,” Rabbi Avigdor Miller zt”l remarks in his perush to the Hovot HaLevavot. Now their hostility masquerades as human rights. Defense of both Torah and American values demands opposition to such tyrannical forces.