Author: JOLT Page 34 of 50

By: Ryan Suit,

DNA testing first came about in 1985 and took only two years until it was first successfully used as evidence in a trial in 1987, when Floridian Tommie Lee Andrews was convicted of rape and sentenced to 22 years in jail.[1] Since then, thousands of other criminals have been convicted of crimes in large part due to DNA evidence linking the accused to the scene of a crime.[2] However, a recent study has shown that DNA found at a crime scene might not always mean the accused person was there.[3] The study has shown that the secondary transfer of DNA, or the transfer of DNA of one person to somewhere else by another person, not only exists but actually may be a common phenomenon.[4] This could have significant repercussions for the justice system.

“Touch DNA” is DNA from skin cells that is transferred when one person touches another person or object.[5] The amount of DNA left behind from a person touching something can vary based on the duration and extent that something was touched, and it is possible that no touch DNA can be left behind at all.[6] In the alternative, DNA from a person can be found on something even when that person never touched the object.[7] This is secondary transfer. The study showed that this was possible by conducting an experiment in which “pairs of volunteers [shook] hands for two minutes, after which they handled knives that were later swabbed for DNA samples. In 85 percent of the cases, DNA from the person who did not directly touch the knife was transferred in sufficient quantity to produce a profile. In one-fifth of the samples, that person was identified as the main or only contributor of DNA to the potential weapon, despite never having touched it.”[8]

One of the first documented and recognized cases of secondary transfer DNA involved Lukis Anderson, a 26-year-old man charged with murder in California.[9] The victim was killed during an armed robbery of his home, and paramedics took his body from the scene to the hospital. Upon examining the body, forensic experts found Anderson’s DNA on the victim, and charges were later filed against him. However, during the time of the armed robbery, Anderson had a verified alibi: he was passed-out drunk in the hospital with a .40 BAC. Anderson had been found on the streets and taken to the hospital by the same paramedics who later went to the scene of the armed robbery. While touching the victim’s body, the paramedics must have transferred Anderson’s DNA onto the victim.[10]

The charges against Anderson were dropped, but this single event raises questions about the validity of DNA evidence. DNA tests are 99% accurate in identifying who the DNA is from, but it is now less certain that those tests can be as accurate in placing a person at the scene of a crime.[11] The study may have repercussions felt throughout the criminal justice system. DNA evidence linking someone to a crime may no longer be dispositive. Attorneys will need to put on experts to explain the issue of secondary transfer, and juries will have to give less weight to DNA evidence that used to make or break a case. Old cases may have to be reopened, as innocent men could be behind bars after being wrongfully convicted due to the secondary transfer of their DNA. In sum, this study on DNA evidence may have secondary effects that transfer to the legal world.

 

[1] Randy James, A Brief History of DNA Testing, Time (June 19, 2009), http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1905706,00.html.

[2] Id.

[3] Study raises questions about DNA evidence, ScienceDaily.com, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/10/151028133944.htm.

[4] Id.

[5] Suzanna Ryan, Touch DNA. What is it? Where is it? How much can be found? And, how can it impact my case? (January 2012), http://www.ryanforensicdna.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/Touch_DNA_article.59101908.pdf.

[6] Id.

[7] Id.

[8] Study, supra note 3.

[9] South Bay Paramedics Likely Brought Innocent Man’s DNA to Murder Scene, CBS SF Bay Area (June 28, 2013, 12:41 AM), http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2013/06/28/south-bay-paramedics-likely-brought-innocent-mans-dna-to-crime-scene/.

[10] Id.

[11] James, supra note 1.

 

Photo Source:  http://www.finalcall.com/artman/uploads/2/justice_dna300x225.jpg

By: Sarah Jessee,

If you have been on a plane recently you may have noticed the decreasing leg-room and shrinking seat width, but the seating changes may becoming more drastic.[1] On October 1, 2015 Airbus, a European aircraft manufacturer, filed a patent for stacked seating in airplanes.[2] The patent explained the justification for stacked seating and described the seating design proposal:

In modern means of transport, in particular aircraft, it is very important from an economic point of view to make optimum use of the available space in a passenger cabin… [i]n order to still more efficiently use the space in a passenger cabin of an aircraft, U.S. Pat. No. 4,066,227 proposes to position an elevated deck structure on a main deck floor in the passenger cabin of a wide-body aircraft for providing mezzanine seating area in a substantially unused upper lobe of the aircraft fuselage.[3]

Many concerns arise with the idea of stacked seating in an airplane. Is this “unused upper lobe” referring to the already limited space designated for carry-on items? How will flight attendants be able to assist those on the upper level? Are passengers expected to climb a ladder to get to their seats?[4] Most importantly, how could passengers be evacuated in case of an emergency? Despite the uncertainties and concerns with stacked seating, there are some possible benefits.

           [5]

Other than reduced airline costs, the design proposal may actually create more legroom.[6] Many airplane passengers dread that moment the flight attendant comes on the speakers reporting they have reached the appropriate altitude and passengers can recline their seats. This reduces the already limited legroom. However, with Airbus’s stacked seating design, not only would passengers’ legroom increase when the passenger above you reclined, but passengers would be able to recline further.[7] The stacked seating design would allow passengers on both the upper and lower level to fully recline.[8] Despite these advantages, there are still concerns with space when the seats are in an upright position. [9]

However, we may never know how a flight attendant will deliver the after-dinner coffee to upper level passengers because this is one of the 600 patents Airbus files a year.[10] The company stated, “Airbus Group and its divisions apply for hundreds of patents every year in order to protect intellectual property… [t]he vast majority of items and processes patented never become fully realized technology or products.”[11] So whether you were excited or terrified by the idea, it is unlikely you will see yourself in a stacked airplane seat in the future.[12]

 

 

 

[1] Alison Griswold, New Airbus Patent Would Stack Passengers on Top of Each Other, Slate, Oct. 9, 2015, http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2015/10/09/airbus_files_patent_to_ stack_airline_passengers_on_top_of_each_other.html.

[2] U.S. Patent No. 4,066,227 (filed Oct. 1, 2015).

[3] Id.

[4] Hugo Martin, Are Stacked Seats the New Plan to Pack in Airline Passengers?, L.A. Times, Oct. 11, 2015, http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-are-stack-seats-the-next-trend-in-airline-seating-20151009-story.html.

[5] Suzy Strutner, These ‘Stacked’ Plane Seats Could End the Legroom Problem Forever, huffinton Post, Oct. 7, 2015, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/airbus-stacked-seats_561509c7e4b0fad1591a1338.

[6] Id.

[7] Id.

[8] Id.

[9] Griswold, supra note 1.

[10] Strutner, supra note 5.

[11] Martin, supra note 4.

[12] Strutner, supra note 5.

 

 

Photo Source:  http://i.onionstatic.com/onion/4365/16×9/600.jpg

By: Matt O’Toole

Have you ever wondered what kind of tablet applications are out there for disabled people? You probably aren’t the only one. In fact, part of your answer may to do with the fact that they are little out accommodating those affected with disabilities.

When the ADA was enacted in 1990, the Internet was only in its nascent stage, and e-commerce as we think of it today was unheard of.[1] Nevertheless, some courts have extended the ADA’s reach to websites that offer and sell goods or services to the public, mandating that websites are accessible to persons with disabilities.[2]

Putting aside the merits of whether the ADA, in its current form, should apply to websites at all, the question that is then raised is: how do companies make their websites fully accessible?[3] Unfortunately, there currently are no generally accepted ADA standards for website construction and that seems like a big issue that gets very little attention.[4]

How can this country be so advanced in its technology but yet be so behind on its advances to folks with disabilities?

According to the United States Bureau, 8.4% of our population has a disability, under the age of 65.[5] There is certainly a market out there and whether legislation has done enough to reach that remains to be seen.

Congress instituted section 508 in 1998 to make new online opportunities available to people with disabilities and to encourage the development of software and technologies to help make this happen.[6] An amendment of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Section 508 requires federal agencies to make their electronic and information technology available to disabled citizens.[7]

In 2006, the National Federation of the Blind brought Target to district court and charged that Target’s Website is inaccessible to the blind and violates the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, along with several other California human rights act.[8]

“What this means is that any place of business that provides services, such as the opportunity to buy products on a Web site, is now a place of accommodation and therefore falls under the ADA,” said director of user experience for Mindshare Interactive Campaigns LLC Kathy Wahlbin.[9]

As baby boomers start to turn the corner, the number of disabled users increases and the software continues to develop.[10] Section 508 will continue to be relevant and I’m not sure that it’s necessarily the government at fault here. It is just that the advancement of technology comes more people, and more disabled user. It is just that we shouldn’t leave them behind.

With technology now moving to much greater heights than just the internet, I think instead of making more updates to Snapcaht, folks should consider making phone applications more accessible to those in need.

Photo Source: http://icdn5.digitaltrends.com/image/old-people-with-ipad-655×400.jpg

 

 

[1] Kyle David, Web Accessibility: Section 508 Compliance , Blog, (Oct. 28, 2015), http://www.corpcounsel.com/id=1202728515700/New-ADA-Lawsuits-Target-Website-Accessibility?mcode=0&curindex=0&curpage=ALL. [hereinafter David]

[2]Id.

[3] Michael J. Chilleen and Brad Leimkuhler, New ADA Lawsuits Target Website Accessibility, Corporate Counsel (June 5, 2015), http://www.corpcounsel.com/id=1202728515700/New-ADA-Lawsuits-Target-Website-Accessibility?mcode=0&curindex=0&curpage=ALL&slreturn=20150929131629

[4]Id.

[5]United States Census Bureau. (Oct. 28, 2015), http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045214/00.

[6]See David supra, note 1.

[7]Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Pub. L. No. 93-112, 87 Stat. 355 (1973).

[8] Nat’l. Fed’n of Blind v. Target, 452 F.2d 946, 956 (2006).

[9]See David supra, note 1.

[10]Id.

By: Curtis Hazelton,

In our society, it makes perfect sense for one to be accountable for his or her actions, so why should unmanned aircrafts be any different? The Department of Transportation and the Federal Aviation Administration have recently proposed a possible fix to this accountability issue.

Traditionally, unregistered aircrafts (manned or unmanned) could fly up to 600 feet above ground level, a rather empty section of the skies, where they were unlikely to fly into anything.[1] Although600 feet above ground level seems spacious fordrone users, not every drone user flies their drone within the 600 feet fly-zone nor do they follow the guidelines of drone-free locations. According to Department of Transportation Secretary, Anthony Foxx, “Registration will help us enforce the rules against those who operate unsafely, by allowing the FAA to identify the operators of unmanned aircraft.”[2] Regulation of the traditionally unregistered aircraft may make it easier to address the important issues of insurance and liability.

The increase of personal drone purchase and operation in the United States has caused many problems.The FAA stated that so far in 2015, pilots reported unsafe activity by unmanned aerial vehicles about 100 times a month.[3] In July, 5 “unmanned aircraft systems” prevented California firefighters from dispatching helicopters with water buckets for up to 20 minutes over a wildfire that roared onto a Los Angeles-area freeway, burning out cars.[4] During the second round match of the U.S. open between FlaviaPennetta and Monica Niculescua drone flew over the stadium and crashed into the stands. Subsequently, the match was stopped for a period while officers examined the drone and the operator arrested for reckless endangerment and operating a drone in a New York City public park outside of prescribed area.[5] The aforementioned situations highlight the need to impose liability on drone operators for accidents caused by drones.

Although some people are wary about government regulation, the registration proposal by the FAA and DoT could be the best way to ensure that drones and other unmanned aircraft are used safely. Though the Department of Transportation is still working to finalize their efforts to require drone registration before the holiday season, drone users, new and old, should be on the lookout for a change in legislation.

Photo Source: http://skift.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/travel-channel-drone-australia.jpg

 

 

 

[1] Jordan Golson, The Feds Want a National Drone Registry by Christmas,

Wired (Oct. 19, 2015, 2:28 PM) www.wired.com/2015/10/the-feds-want-a-national-drone-registry-by-christmas/.

[2]Id.

[3] Renee Marsh and Ben Brumfield, U.S. announces task force aimed at mandatory drone registration, CNN (Oct. 19, 2015 6:11 PM)www.cnn.com/2015/10/19/politics/drone-registration-task-force-announced/index.html

[4]Id.

[5] Laura Wagnor, Drone Crash At U.S. Open; New York City Teacher Arrested, National Public Radio (Sep. 4, 2015, 2:24 PM) www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/09/04/437539727/drone-crash-at-u-s-open-new-york-city-teacher-arrested.

By: Jenni Lyman,

On Sundays, each NFL play seems to be sandwiched in between a series of incessant testimonials touting the ease of winning thousands of dollars from onlinedaily fantasy football. Both DraftKings and FanDuel are on target to spend $150 million in Q3. [1] It is reasonable to believe these two companies will remain a staple of sportsprogramming considering the amount of cash in their quiver devoted to marketing. However, there appear to be a slew of legal principles tailored to prevent unfairness to consumers that may put an end to the two companies. [2] Recent promo codes such as ‘Win’, ‘Success’, or ‘Fun’ could change to ‘Fraud’.

Online daily fantasy sports are not regulated under the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 because they are considered games of skill as opposed to raw gambling. Slate. See also. Act. [3]

Last Thursday, Draft Kings player, Adam Johnson filed a class action lawsuit in federal court in Manhattan. [4] The complaint alleges the two companies violated the laws of three states—New York, FanDuel’s corporate headquarters, Massachusetts, where DraftKings maintains its principal place of business, and Kentucky, where Johnson resides. [5]

First, the complaint alleges the two companies acted in concert. [6] Moreover, they follow the same rules regarding employee participation and issue numerous joint statements on their website. [7] The linchpin of the suit is the fact that employees of both companies had access to data and information that is not public. [8] The suit alleges that analytics are run to determine how lineups on FanDuel would fare if they were entered into DraftKings contests. [9] Finally, Johnson alleges the “companies failed to take reasonable steps to prevent insiders from competing against members of the proposed class of plaintiffs.”[10] Shockingly, DraftKings employees have won around $6 million in winnings from the $2 billion awarded by FanDuel so far. [11]

So, if Johnson can prove the two companies had knowledge of the insider trading, he has a successful claim for fraud and could recover his money by proving he would not have paid $100 to play a rigged game. [12]

To add to the legal fire, even if Johnson is unable to prove insider trading exists, there is also a possible claim of negligence. The claim alleges the companies failed to take reasonable steps to prevent competition from insiders against the proposed class of plaintiffs. [13] The suggested class is only those who dished out money in a DraftKings account prior to October 6, 2015. [14] Lastly, violations of the Kentucky consumer protection statute and the New York false advertising law are included in the suit. [15]

As we settle in for another weekend of FanDuel and DraftKings commercials spattered with football, could Johnson v. FanDuel be a season ender?

 

 

 

[1] Anthony Crupi, Fantasy Sports Sites DraftKings, FanDuel September Spend Tops $100 Million, Advertising Age, Sept. 30, 2015, http://adage.com/article/media/draftkings-fanduel-spe/300658/.

[2]John Culhane, The DraftKings Crash, Slate, Oct. 13, 2015, http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2015/10/the_insider_trading_scandals_could_bring_down_draftkings_and_fanduel.html.

[3]Id.

[4] Darren Rovell, Class action lawsuit filed against DraftKings and FanDuel, ESPN, Oct. 9, 2015, http://espn.go.com/chalk/story/_/id/13840184/class-action-lawsuit-accuses-draftkings-fanduel-negligence-fraud-false-advertising.

[5]John Culhane, The DraftKings Crash, Slate, Oct. 13, 2015, http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2015/10/the_insider_trading_scandals_could_bring_down_draftkings_and_fanduel.html.

[6]Id.

[7]Id.

[8]Id.

[9] Darren Rovell, Class action lawsuit filed against DraftKings and FanDuel, ESPN, Oct. 9, 2015, http://espn.go.com/chalk/story/_/id/13840184/class-action-lawsuit-accuses-draftkings-fanduel-negligence-fraud-false-advertising.

[10]Culhane, supra note 4.

[11]Rovell, supra note 8.

[12]John Culhane, The DraftKings Crash, Slate, Oct. 13, 2015, http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2015/10/the_insider_trading_scandals_could_bring_down_draftkings_and_fanduel.html.

[13]Id.

[14] Darren Rovell, Class action lawsuit filed against DraftKings and FanDuel, ESPN, Oct. 9, 2015, http://espn.go.com/chalk/story/_/id/13840184/class-action-lawsuit-accuses-draftkings-fanduel-negligence-fraud-false-advertising.

[15]Culhane, supra note 11.
Photo Source: http://images.performgroup.com/di/library/sporting_news/3f/f1/fanduel-draftkings-100615-getty-ftrjpg_1p54pimj33xpv1ul6hwkremi6f.jpg?t=1051596368

By: Manny Olojede,

Welcome to the future, Marty. Self-driving or autonomous cars will actually become a “thing” soon. But whose fault is it if the self-driving car runs a red light? The driver or the car? The manufacturer or some other third party? The chicken or the egg? Are robot cars even legal? With Tesla Motors’ recent announcement regarding its new “Auto-Pilot” software, there are numerous questions of legality and liability brought to the forefront of lawmakers’ agendas.

On October 14, 2015, Tesla Motors became the first automotive company to roll out advanced auto-pilot technology into its vehicles.[1] The Tesla Version 7.0auto-pilot software update will allow its Model S car to steer within lanes, change lanes, manage speed by using active, traffic-aware cruise control and scan for a parking space, alert [the driver] when one is available, and parallel park on command.[2] Though these features are an advancement in autonomous car technology, Tesla emphasizes that this update does not mean the car is fully autonomous and hands free.[3] In order for this software to function, your hands must be touching the wheel; otherwise the car will revert to manual mode after a few seconds.[4] Tesla is cautiously rolling out this technology, as it is aware of the few regulations surrounding autonomous vehicles.[5] However, Tesla does seek to allow its cars to be hands free in the future as new regulations are implemented and the technology improves.

Currently, the law surrounding self-driving cars in the United States has been ambiguous at best. In the majority of states, autonomous cars are not illegal, though New York is the only state that requires a “driver” to have his hands on the wheel at all times.[6] Only fourteen states have considered legislation regulating self-driving cars and nine of those have failed to pass bills specifically legalizing the cars, leaving the area of self-driving cars relatively grey.[7] Consequently, Tesla’s announcement has put on pressure on lawmakers to clarify these grey areas.

The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration has declined to comment on Tesla’s announcement but lauded the potential safety benefits of autonomous technology in statements made by Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx earlier this year.[8] “The Department wants to speed the nation toward an era when vehicle safety isn’t just about surviving crashes; it’s about avoiding them,” Foxx said. “Connected, automated vehicles that can sense the environment around them and communicate with other vehicles and with infrastructure have the potential to revolutionize road safety and save thousands of lives.”[9] Based on these statements, autonomous technology seems to align with the future goals of the NHTSA and this may give a clue to as how regulations will be shaped surrounding them. However, it remains to be seen how the law will evolve.

Though the legal landscape surrounding self-driving cars in the United States has not been fully carved out, carmakers such as Volvo, Mercedes-Benz, and Google have indicated that they will likely accept the legal liabilities for their cars in the United States when they are put on sale to the general public. Volvo, in particular, has promised to accept full liability whenever one of its cars is in autonomous mode.[10] Though this promise may indicate car makers’ current confidence in the technology and hold carmakers strictly liable, Volvo, along with Mercedes and Google, have expressed that as the technology improves, they will expect fewer and fewer accidents.[11]

Ultimately, as the development of self-driving car technology quickly improves, it will be important for lawmakers to tackle these tough questions in a timely fashion. Carmakers have set the pace, and if the law does not catch up soon, there will be many more questions and problems for the government to answer about self-driving cars.

 

 

[1] Grayson Ullman, Tesla’s Self-driving Software: Is It Legal?, Fed scoop (October 16, 2015, 5:43 PM), http://fedscoop.com/teslas-self-driving-update-how-is-it-legal.

[2]Id. (citing Tesla Motors Team, Your Autopilot Has Arrived, Tesla Motors Blog (October 14, 2015), http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/your-autopilot-has-arrived)

[3] Molly McHugh, Tesla Cars Now Drive Themselves, Kinda, WIRED.com (October 14, 2015 6:19 PM), http://www.wired.com/2015/10/tesla-self-driving-over-air-update-live.

[4]Id.

[5]Id.

[6]Ullman, supra note 1.

[7]Id.

[8]Id. (citing Catherine Howden, Transportation Secretary Foxx Announces Plan to Add Two Automatic Emergency Braking Systems to Recommended Vehicle Advanced Technology Features, National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (January 22, 2015), http://www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/Press+Releases/NHTSA-sets-AEB-plans,-highlights-lives-saved-repoot)

[9]Id.

[10]Mark Harris, Why You Shouldn’t Worry About Liability for Self-Driving Car Accidents, IEEE Spectrum (October 12, 2015, 8:00PM), http://spectrum.ieee.org/cars-that-think/transportation/self-driving/why-you-shouldnt-worry-about-liability-for-selfdriving-car-accidents (citing Press Release, Volvo Car Group, US Urged to Establish Nationwide Federal Guidelines for Autonomous Driving (October 7, 2015), available athttps://www.media.volvocars.com/global/en-gb/media/pressreleases/167975/us-urged-to-establish-nationwide-federal-guidelines-for-autonomous-driving).

[11] Neil Briscoe, Car Makers to Accept Liability for Self-driving Cars, The Irish Times (October 12, 2015, 2:16 PM), http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/motors/car-makers-to-accept-liability-for-self-driving-cars-1.2388608.

 

Photo Source: http://www.forcegt.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/volvo_road_train-10.jpg

 

By: Curtis Hazelton,

Is there a common place between security and privacy, and between data protection and freedom of expression; two schools of thought circling around the same idea of consumer protection.

As the Internet battles starring Taylor Swift and Nicki Minaj, and Drake and Meek Mill simmer down, a larger battle over internet control has been spotlighted. In recent months, there has been a standoff between the U.S. and the EU over internet governance. Since 1988 internet domain oversight power has rested in the hands of the U.S. Commerce Department.[1] This oversight has allowed the American government and businesses to enjoy the free penetration into multinational markets. While this may seem as a positive to Americans, the EU has voiced many concerns.

This battle, in the eyes of the EU, is not about internet control, but rather about creating a network of protection for all involved in international trade. The EU’s introduction of the Digital Single Market plan has been framed as an extension of the EU’s project to unite a patchwork of national economies, consolidating the regulatory maze of 28 member states into a simplified market.[2] Similarly in the field of taxation, this plan seeks to address any possible abuses by multinational companies, of tax minimization practices or of the European Union’s State Aid rules, regardless of where they are headquartered.[3]

In efforts to combat the negativity over the US’ control over the internet, the US and Europe have proposed a data transfer agreement that would allow companies to move digital information like people’s web search histories and social media updates between the European Union and the United States.[4] That agreement was ruled invalid by the European Court of Justice.[5] The agreement between these world leaders was flawed, according the European Court of Justice.[6] The Court explained its resistance to the agreement by stating that the agreement would allow American government authorities to gain routine access to Europeans’ online information. [7] By way of Edward Snowden, it was clear to the European Court that American intelligence agencies had almost unfettered access to the data, infringing on Europeans’ right to privacy.[8]

In the times of data leaks and aggressive ad tracking, is anyone safe anymore? Looking through the lenses of consumer protection laws and the right to privacy, it seems we should be.

 

 

 

[1] Hamza Shaban, U.S. Maintains Control Over Internet Governance For A Bit Longer, Buzz Feed News (Aug. 19, 2015, 8:03 PM), http://www.buzzfeed.com/hamzashaban/us-maintains-control-over-internet-governance-for-a-bit-long#.elePLm0Q.

[2] Hamza Shaban, Digital Single Market Isn’t Anti-American, Says EU Commissioner, Buzz Feed News (May 28, 2015, 5:23 PM), http://www.buzzfeed.com/hamzashaban/digital-single-market-isnt-anti-american-says-eu-commissione#.laaDkr1X

[3] David O’Sullivan, Stop the Hysteria. Of Course Europe Wants an Open Internet, Wired (Apr. 30, 2015, 11:00 AM) http://www.wired.com/2015/04/eu-ambassador-on-open-internet/.

[4] Mark Scott, U.S.-Europe Data Transfer Agreement Is Ruled Invalid, N.Y. Times, OCT. 7, 2015, AT B1.

[5] Id.

[6] Id.

[7] Id.

[8] Id.

 

Photo Source: http://www.searchgi.com/admin/assets-13//February-2014/google-vs-eu.jpg

By: Quinn Novak

“Uber is evolving the way the world moves. By seamlessly connecting riders to drivers through apps, we make cities more accessible, opening up more possibilities for riders and more business for drivers.”

– UBER[1]

We’ve all been there. You’re out on a Friday night, drinking and having fun with friends. Then, all of a sudden, it’s 2am and you realize you’re exhausted. All you want to do is go home, get under your covers with a family-size box of Cheez-Its, and crash. Lucky for you, there’s an app for that. You pull out your smart phone, carefully type in your home address, and request an Uber driver. Within minutes, you’re picked up in someone’s personal car, with a discreet “U” taped on the window, and driven to your apartment. At the end of the trip, you don’t have to worry about tipping the driver or paying with cash. In fact, you probably checked how much the trip would cost before you requested your Uber, and the fair is automatically transferred when your trip ends.

Simply put, Uber is inexpensive, convenient, fast, and user-friendly. The company is fundamentally changing the way people get around. And, with the service based in sixty countries, with more than eight million users, many people can attest.[2]

However, Uber’s business model has recently been challenged and there is currently a class action lawsuit pending against the service in California.[3] Originally, the action was brought on behalf of three Uber drivers, alleging violations of the California Labor Law and seeking monetary damages.[4] However, a California federal judge extended the class to apply to all Uber drivers in the state.[5] Fortunately for Uber, most of their 160,000 drivers in California cannot participate in the class action lawsuit because they waived their right to class action arbitration through Uber’s updated, 2014 contract.[6]

The remaining drivers who can participate in the suit are upset because they claim that they were misclassified as contractors but are actually employees of the company, entitled to requisite benefits, health insurance, and expense reimbursements.[7] If the appellate court finds that Uber drivers are classified as employees, rather than independent contractors, Uber must reimburse their employees for expenses that are required to do their job, such as gas reimbursements and expenses accrued from general wear and tear of their vehicles, all of which Uber drivers are currently required to pay themselves.[8] Other costs may include Social Security, workers’ compensation, and unemployment insurance.[9]

If Uber is forced to compensate its’ driver as employees, the company’s costs will increase and, more than likely, Uber’s comparatively low cost of transportation will increase.[10] In addition, categorizing drivers as employees could affect the company’s valuation, which is currently above $40 billion, and could affect other similar companies that rely on large networks of individuals to provide rides.[11]

The issue of whether Uber drivers are contractors or employees is not a new topic of interest. In May 2015, “Uber lost a bid to force arbitration in a federal lawsuit brought in San Francisco by its’ drivers” and, earlier in 2015, a San Francisco federal court rejected Uber’s classification of its drivers as independent contractors.[12] Similarly, a Florida state agency recently ruled that Uber drivers are employees, not contractors.[13]

Now the question is left to the California federal court of appeals, after Uber appealed the lower courts’ decision that the case does not have to go through arbitration and may be brought as a class action suit.[14] Uber is insisting that the all disputes be taken to an arbiter and cannot be brought in a class action lawsuit.[15] Uber claims that their drivers go to work for their service for different reasons, are free to turn on or off the application as they choose, and, therefore, do not have enough in common to sue as a class.[16]

The appellate court must decide whether or not the lower court was correct in allowing a class action lawsuit against Uber. In addition, a future question the court must address is whether or not Uber drivers are employees or contractors.

For now, Uber-users can rest easy that no decision has been made and the price of transportation won’t dramatically increase anytime soon due to Uber redesigning its’ business model to reimburse its’ “employees.” So, feel free to continue using the app when you’re out late at night and all you want to do is go home and climb into bed. Uber is still cost efficient… for now.

 

 

 

[1] Home, UBER, https://www.uber.com/about (last visited Sept. 1, 2015).

[2] Our Cities, UBER, https://www.uber.com/cities (last visited Sept. 1, 2015); Craig Smith, By the Numbers 24 Amazing Uber Statistics, DMR: Digital Marketing/Stats/Strategy/Gadgets (Sept. 30, 2015), http://expandedramblings.com/index.php/uber-statistics/.

[3] Laura Sydell, A Suit Against Uber Could Redefine The Sharing Economy, NPR (Sept. 2, 2015, 5:20 AM), http://www.npr.org/2015/09/02/436820824/california-court-grants-uber-drivers-class-action-status.

[4] A.J. Kritkos, A Lawsuit to Break the Gig Economy: Uber drivers claim they are legally employees, but that doesn’t reflect reality, Wall St. J (Sept. 20, 2015, 6:30 PM), http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-lawsuit-to-break-the-gig-economy-1442788712.

[5] Laura Lorenzetti, Everything to Know About the Uber Class Action Lawsuit, Fort. (Sept. 2, 2015, 1:53 PM), http://fortune.com/2015/09/02/uber-lawsuit/.

[6] Id.

[7] Id.

[8] Sydell, supra note 3.

[9] Sarah McBride & Dan Levine, Uber Drivers are Employees, Not Contractors California Labor Commission Rules, Huffington Post: TECH (May 17, 2015, 10:40 AM), http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/17/uber-drivers-lawsuit_n_7603630.html.

[10] Lorenzetti, supra note 5.

[11] McBride, supra note 9.

[12] Id.

[13] Id.

[14] Laura Northrup, Judge: Uber Contract Forcing Drivers Into Arbitration Contradicts Itself, Consumerist (Sept. 21, 2015), http://consumerist.com/2015/09/21/judge-uber-contract-forcing-drivers-into-arbitration-contradicts-itself/.

[15] Id.

[16] Id.

 

 

Photo Source:  https://fortunedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/rtr3vkj9.jpg?quality=80&w=1024

Photo Source:  http://www.adweek.com/files/imagecache/node-blog/blogs/uber-safe-hed-2015.png

 

By: Ryan Suit,

Lining up to be the first person to get the latest and greatest device has become a cultural phenomenon, and to some it could even be called a religion.[1] Just this past weekend, Apple sold 13 million new iPhones.[2] But when you get that iPhone 6S or 6S Plus, will you throw away your iPhone 6? And what ever happened to your iPhone 5, 4, 3, 2, or even original iPhone? Concern over so-called “e-waste” has lead many jurisdictions to pass legislation to combat the accumulation of technological garbage.[3]

E-waste is the broad term for any piece of technology that has an electric cord or battery that is thrown away. The term is a catch-all for phones and computers to refrigerators and appliances.[4] The problem of e-waste is worldwide. 41.8 Million tons of e-waste were dumped globally in 2014, yet less than a sixth of that was properly recycled.[5] When many people think of e-waste, they conjure images of computer dumps in Africa, China, and India, where old pieces of technology are burned and scavenged for leftover precious metals.[6] That is obviously a huge problem, but the issue is not solely abroad.[7] In 2014, the United States was responsible for 7.1 tons of e-waste, over 1 million more tons than any other country.[8] The need for legislation to deal with e-waste is not just apparent, it is pressing.

Currently, the EPA recommends that e-waste such as phones, computers, and televisions be recycled at your local e-waste collection center.[9] Additionally, the EPA has made it the responsibility of the e-recycler to erase all the data on devices being recycled.[10] One of the most notable problems of e-waste recycling is the risk of identity theft.[11] If old hard drives or devices still have private or personal information stored on them, there is a risk that such information could be recovered.[12] Although the risk of identity theft is present, many recycling centers can wipe storage devices clean, or can destroy the devices entirely.[13] That being said, the EPA’s recommendation has only done so much to curb the threat of identity theft and increase rates of e-waste recycling.

Most e-waste recycling policies are left to the states.[14] To date, twenty eight states have passed legislation to deal with e-waste.[15] Most of the legislation places the responsibility of recycling e-waste on the manufacturers of the products. However, only about 1 million of the 7.1 million tons of e-waste in the U.S. was recycled last year.[16] Such a low rate of e-waste recycling, coupled with close to half of the states in the U.S. still not having any e-waste laws on the books, makes for a bleak outlook.

States have not done enough to combat e-waste. The EPA’s recommendation has fallen short of what it aims to achieve. E-waste is becoming more common, and the constant creation of new tech products only creates more e-waste. Now is the time for federal legislation to tackle the e-waste problem. Pull out your new iPhone to look up where your local landfill is located. If legislation is not passed soon, that landfill may be filled with e-waste.

 

[1] Philip Elmer-DeWitt, “Welcome to the Church of Apple”, Fortune (Sept. 27, 2015), http://fortune.com/2015/09/27/apple-church-temple/.

[2] James Vincent, “Apple sells 13 million iPhones in opening weekend record”, The Verge (Sept. 28, 2015), http://www.theverge.com/2015/9/28/9407767/apple-iphone-sales-6s-6s-plus.

[3] Sophia Bennett, “It’s 2015: Which States Have E-Waste Legislation?”, Electronic Recyclers Internation, Inc. (July 2, 2015), http://electronicrecyclers.com/2015/07/it-s-2015-which-states-have-e-waste-legislation.

[4] Id.

[5] Alister Doyle, “U.S., China top dumping of electronic waste; little recycled”, Reuters (April 20, 2015), http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/20/us-environment-waste-idUSKBN0NA00V20150420.

[6] Samantha L. Stewart, “Ghana’s e-Waste Dump Seeps Poison”, Newsweek (July 25, 2011), http://www.newsweek.com/ghanas-e-waste-dump-seeps-poison-68385.

[7] Id.

[8] Supra note 5.

[9] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Frequent Questions, http://www3.epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/materials/ecycling/faq.htm.

[10] Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, Computer and Electronics Recycling, http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Programs/LandProtectionRevitalization/RecyclingandLitterPreventionPrograms/ElectronicsRecycling.aspx.

[11] ForeRunner Recycling, http://www.forerunnerrecycling.com/faq.html#What_if_we_needed_destruction_of_the_drives_to_insure_the_data_is_secure.

[12] Id.

[13] Id.

[14] Supra note 5.

[15] Supra note 3.

[16] Supra note 5.

 

Photo Source:  http://www.mesacounty.us/assets/0/79/162/190/7eae68b9-5e0c-4e9b-8961-038eab6127e7.jpg