A series of videos created by Boston law firm Choate Hall & Stewart echoes the "Mac vs. PC" ads created by Apple. The video series, called "Choate vs. Megafirm," features a frustrated Megafirm employee complaining about his firm, while a self-assured Choate employee sings her employer's praises.

However, sometimes law firms recognize when their attempts to be hip go too far. Los Angeles firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges pulled a video from their Web site before it even went live. The video, titled "A Day in the Life of an Associate," followed a jeans-wearing associate named Ivey who plays Ultimate Frisbee in between meetings with partners.

"Some of the associates, some of the partners, thought it was too contrived; maybe corny was probably a better word," said A. William Urquhart, the firm’s hiring partner.

Monica Prestia, who began working for Bloomberg LP as a sales representative in 1997, filed a suit in June claiming the company discriminated against her after she became pregnant in February of 2005.

The company treated her differently than similarly employed male workers and subjected her to "harassment, hostile work environment and other forms of discrimination," the complaint said.

The suit seeks unspecified damages and is pending in court.

On Thursday, the EEOC accused the New York-based company of similar discrimination, saying it engaged in a pattern of demoting women, diminishing their duties and excluding them from job opportunities after they disclosed they were pregnant.

Bloomberg LP spokeswoman Judith Czelusniak did not respond to a request for comment on the Prestia case; in court papers the company denied the allegations. About the EEOC suit on Thursday, Czelusniak said: "We believe strongly that the allegations are without merit and we intend to defend the case vigorously."

The agency brought the suit on behalf of three senior employees who had filed complaints with the EEOC regarding Bloomberg LP, saying the activities occurred with malice or reckless indifference to federal anti-discrimination laws. The EEOC is the federal agency charged with interpreting and enforcing laws passed to prevent discrimination in the workplace.

The women were expected to bring their own motion in court next week that further details their claims. They were identified by the EEOC as Tanys Lancaster, Jill Patricot and Janet Loures.

Lancaster was said to be earning close to $300,000 in a senior position in the company's Transaction Products Department when she announced her pregnancy.

"Almost immediately I began to suffer demotions, decreases in compensation as well as retaliation after I complained to Human Resources," she said in a statement.

Lancaster is no longer employed with Bloomberg. Patricot and Loures are still working there.

Patricot, who worked as a manager in the Global Data Division, claims that after returning to her job following maternity leave, she was demoted to an entry level position because her schedule had changed due to child care demands.

Loures was also a manager in the Global Data Division, and said her duties and staff were reduced starting with her first maternity leave and continuing through a second one. She is now employed in an entry-level clerical position, the EEOC said.

The EEOC said the women's claims of discrimination due to gender and pregnancy "were echoed by a number of other female current and former employees who have taken maternity leave."

Richard Roth, an attorney for the woman in the separate suit filed in June, said in an interview Friday that the EEOC complaint "helps expose what's really going on behind the scenes at Bloomberg."

It is a culture that Michael Bloomberg, who is a potential presidential candidate, was accused of fostering while he headed the company. Bloomberg stepped down as CEO to run for mayor in 2001 but retains a 68 percent stake in the company. A spokesman for Bloomberg declined to comment on the cases Friday.

While Bloomberg was CEO, a female sales executive accused him in a lawsuit of sexual harassment and other claims similar to these new allegations.

The suit, filed by Sekiko Sakai Garrison in 1997, claimed that he and other male managers displayed a discriminatory attitude toward pregnant women and new mothers.

It said that when he found out Garrison was pregnant, he told her "Kill it!" and said "Great! Number 16!" -- an apparent reference to the number of women in the company who were pregnant or had maternity-related status at the time.

It also claimed Bloomberg and other men at the company made "repeated and unwelcome" sexual comments, overtures and gestures, contributing to an offensive, locker-room environment.

Bloomberg adamantly denied the accusations; the suit was settled in 2000. Terms were not disclosed.

"They violated the integrity of the game," Mayer's attorney, Bruce Afran, told The Associated Press. "This is a way of punishing Belichick and the Patriots."

Mayer is seeking more than $184 million in damages for Jets ticket holders.

Belichick was fined $500,000 by NFL commissioner Roger Goodell, and the team was fined $250,000 for violating a league rule that prohibits clubs from using a video camera on the sidelines for any purpose -- including recording signals relayed to opposing players on the field. New England also must forfeit a first-round draft pick next year if it makes the playoffs or a second- and third-rounder if it doesn't.

"They were deceiving customers," said the 48-year-old Mayer. "You can't deceive customers."

The lawsuit maintained that because other teams found illegal videotaping by the defendants, Jets ticket holders should be compensated for all games played in Giants Stadium between the Jets and Patriots since Belichick became head coach in 2000.

The two calculated that because customers paid $61.6 million to watch eight "fraudulent" games, they're entitled to triple that amount -- or $184.8 million -- in compensation under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act and the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.

"How many times have the Patriots done this? We find it hard to believe they did it just once," Mayer said. "We just want to get to the truth of the matter of what the Patriots did to the Jets. I think the ticket holders are genuinely concerned about it. This is a type of misrepresentation."

Patriots spokesman Stacey James declined to comment on the lawsuit.

Mayer and Afran, who consider themselves public interest lawyers, have been thorns in the side of New Jersey politicians for years, filing lawsuits and demanding investigations to advance their grievances. They are well known in the state but generally have had little success in their causes.

Both have lost bids for elected offices, and Mayer once served as a presidential campaign adviser to Ralph Nader.

Their demand in March for a probe of Gov. Jon S. Corzine's gifts to a former girlfriend was rejected by a federal prosecutor. In 2006, a judge vetoed their effort to block Corzine's appointment of Rep. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., to fill the governor's seat in the U.S. Senate.

They also failed to get a court to order a special election to replace Gov. James E. McGreevey when he resigned in 2004.

Now, they're taking on the Patriots.

Their latest lawsuit asserted that the secret videotaping violated the contractual "expectations and rights" of Jets ticket holders "to observe an honest match played in compliance with all laws and regulations."

The actions of Belichick and the Patriots violated federal and state racketeering laws, as well as the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and New Jersey Deceptive Business Practices Act, according to the lawsuit.

"Having been a lifelong Jets fan, as soon as I heard this, I was completely outraged," Mayer said. "The NFL just slapped them on the wrist. I'm a consumer lawyer, and this is consumer fraud."

The measures, part of the government's proposed package of spending and taxes for 2008, were debated at a Cabinet meeting that stretched over about 12 hours, beginning late Friday afternoon and ending early Saturday.

Prodi's center-left coalition has been struggling to stay intact virtually since it began governing in May 2006, and some of his allies have been predicting that if his coalition unravels, early elections, eagerly sought by conservative opposition leader Silvio Berlusconi, would be the consequence.

The government's popularity has been sagging in opinion polls, and Berlusconi, the media mogul and former premier who Prodi defeated in 2006 elections, has been pressing for a return to the ballot box.

Prodi's description of the proposed national budget for next year sounded both like a pep talk to keep his coalition partners enthusiastic and a campaign rally in case elections are near.

"We are proud of this outcome of team play which will help families, businesses and citizens and the weakest members" of society, Prodi told a news conference at the premier's office.

The premier boasted that the overall euro11 billion (US$15.6 billion) budget was nearly one-third less than the current year's budget.

The budget must be passed by Parliament by the end of 2007, and if past years are any guide, many of the measures approved by the Cabinet could be revised several times before becoming law.

With his often rebellious, far-left coalition partners, including Communists, balking over Prodi's aim to reform Italy's generous pension system, the Cabinet decided to put off a decision on that thorny issue until Oct. 12.

The far-left had gone into the Cabinet session threatening not to approve the budget unless welfare spending took priority over tax cuts.

Prodi told the news conference that reforms to the pension system and hiring rules would be approved at the Oct. 12 session.

Economy Minister Tommaso Padoa-Schioppa said Italy's economic growth rate was declining, "but the drop is not dramatic."

He also sounded an optimistic note, saying that mortgage crises that have hit financial institutions and consumers hard in the United States, does not seem to be hitting Italy.

The government "is keeping all its promises" and "we are operating in a context of healing" Italy's finances, Padoa-Schioppa said.

Far-left parties already have forced Prodi to briefly resign over Italy's military mission in Afghanistan, and their opposition to economic reforms has stifled or watered down attempts to liberalize the country's economy and reduce public spending.

No examples were given, but Chinese television channels have increasingly broadcast late-night infomercials featuring scantily clad women, as well as ads for products that claim to boost sexual performance.

Regulators have already targeted ads using crude or suggestive language, behavior, and images, tightening their grip on TV and radio a few weeks ahead of a twice-a-decade Communist Party congress at which some new senior leaders will be appointed.

The latest ban by the State Administration of Radio, Film and Television, or SARFT, also bans advertisements for sexual aids including tonics and sex toys, along with "inelegant images" in ads for what it referred to simply as "adult products."

The notice indicated that regulators were concerned about both lascivious imagery and outrageous or insupportable claims about some products' benefits or effectiveness.

"Illegal 'sexual medication' advertisements and other harmful ads pose a grave threat to society," said the SAFT notice, issued last week and seen Sunday on the administration's Web site.

"They not only seriously mislead consumers, harm the people's health, pollute the social environment, and corrupt social mores, but also directly harm the credibility of public broadcasting and affect the image of the Communist Party and the government," the notice said.

China has already also issued strict rules for TV talent shows, including the banning of "American Idol"-style mass audience voting by mobile phone text message or the Internet.

A few weeks ago, SARFT ordered 11 radio shows off the air in southern and central China for talking too explicitly about sex or for broadcasting material of an "extreme pornographic nature."

Regulators have also banned television shows about cosmetic surgery and sex changes, and a talent show that they deemed coarse.

While dozens of mortgage companies have closed due to soaring defaults of home loans made to borrowers with weak, or subprime, credit, those problems previously had occurred among non-bank lenders such as New Century Financial Corp. NetBank, in contrast, is federally regulated.

Loose mortgage standards in recent years - especially among lenders catering to subprime borrowers - have resulted in a spike in home loan defaults.

Bert Ely, a banking consultant based in Alexandria, Va., said NetBank was in "deep trouble" before the subprime mortgage market's woes accelerated this year. Regulators, he said, "should have closed it a long time ago."

While some Internet-only banks are successful, he said, operating one without retail branches can be a difficult strategy to maintain.