Category: Blog Posts Page 35 of 75

By: Jacob Newton

Playing casino style slot machines in Virginia may soon become a reality. House Bill 4 Lottery Board; regulation of casino gaming (the “Bill”), proposes an amendment to the Code of Virginia, which would expand gambling and gaming rights throughout the Commonwealth to include classic slot machine casino gambling.[1] The Bill will give the power to grant gambling to localities and Virginians across the Commonwealth will get the chance to vote if they want casino gambling inside local communities.[2] The Bill is still subject to the Governor’s approval, but Virginia lawmakers have given approval to the Bill to allow voters in Bristol, Danville, Richmond, Norfolk and Portsmouth to hold local referendums later this year to approve casinos.[3] The Governor has until 11:59 p.m., April 11, 2020 to take action on the Bill.[4]

Lawmakers are conflicted by the desire to keep the revenue of Virginian gamblers inside the state’s economy,^[5] and the negative morality associated with gambling. Due to this conflict, they have been continuously making exceptions to Virginia Code § 18.2-326, the statute penalizing illegal gambling.^[6] Even though lawmakers have been making exceptions to the general rule against gambling, they have been reluctant to legalize the most common type of gambling, the casino style slot machine^[7]

Gambling machines that look and operate similar to the classic casino style slot machine are common within Virginia, even though the casino style slot machine is currently illegal in within the state’s borders.[8] The legality of these casino-like slot machines are possible because the exceptions to Virginia Code § 18.2-326 have been expanded or exploited to make the machines fit under specific exceptions.[9] The advancement of technology has transformed the gambling industry and created gray areas in need of defining.^[10] One prevalent example of these exceptions to Virginia Code § 18.2-326 is Va. Code Ann.§ 18.2-340.15 (the charitable gaming exception).

The charitable gaming exception was legalized in 1973, making it the earliest exception to the criminality imposed upon gambling in Virginia.[11] It provides charitable gaming shall be permitted in the Commonwealth as a means of funding qualified organizations.[12] A qualified “organization” is defined by the statute as a volunteer emergency services organization operated exclusively for religious, charitable, community or educational purposes; athletic association or booster club; veterans; fraternal association or corporation operating under the lodge system; local chamber of commerce; or any other nonprofit organization that raises funds by conducting raffles that generate annual gross receipts of $40,000 or less, provided such gross receipts from the raffle, less expenses and prizes, are used exclusively for charitable, educational, religious or community purposes.[13] The list of qualified organizations is implicitly an exhaustive list meant to target specific types of organizations.

The types of gambling allowed under the exception permits qualified organizations to conduct raffles, bingo, network bingo, and instant bingo games.[14] Instant bingo closely resembles the classic slot machine and is provided for by statute.[15] Electronic pull-tabs are an electronic version of a single instant bingo card or pull-tab. The electronic pull-tab is a predetermined game outcome in electronic form, distributed on-demand from a finite number of game outcomes by a distributed pull-tab system.[16] The specifics of the machines are highly regulated by the charitable gaming board, but the machines still resemble a slightly watered down version of a classic slot machine because they operate at the press of a button and display symbols in the form of a crisscross.[17]

Some companies are charging potential gamblers a nominal lifetime membership fee to use the electronic pull tab machines and claiming to fall under the lodge system definition of qualifying organizations.[18] Specific companies are not listed because they do not advertise this on any platform. Companies using this method have essentially placed themselves in this category already carved out by the charitable gaming statute, and the Charitable Gaming Board has yet to condemn or approve this method. This is just one example of a gray area surrounding the legal boundaries of gambling in Virginia.

The legislative trend is moving toward complete legalization of casino slot style gambling in Virginia. However, “dancing” around compete legalization puts stress on local government and law enforcement to maintain the gray boundaries of the expanding amount of exceptions. If the Governor signs House Bill 4 Lottery Board; regulation of casino gaming, then Virginia will be one step closer to alleviating the pressure of maintaining those boundaries.

[1] Va H.R. 4, 1127 Leg. Session (2020).

[2] See id.

[3] See Associate Press, Virginia to expand gambling options, legalize casinos, WHSV 3 (Mar. 08, 2020, 4:48 PM), https://www.whsv.com/content/news/Virginia-to-expand-gambling-options-legalize-casinos-568611311.html

[4] See HB 4 Lottery Board; regulation and control of casino gaming, Virginia’s Legislative Information System (last visited Oct. 6, 2008), https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?201+sum+HB4.

[5] See Gregory S. Schneider, ‘Boring’ no more? Virginia has already begun embracing casino-style gaming, Wash. Post (July 7, 2019, 1:00 PM), https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-news/boring-no-more-virginia-has-already-begun-embracing-casino-style-gaming/2019/07/07/79477f62-9db1-11e9-85d6-5211733f92c7_story.html.

[6] See Va. Code Ann.§ 18.2-340.15; Va. Code Ann.§ 18.2-334.3; Va. Code Ann.§ 59.1-364.

[7] Riverboat Gaming Commission with riverboat gaming, Va H.R. 2400, 1110 Leg. Session (1995).

[8] See generally House Bill 1609 (describing the functions of the historic horse racing machines); 11 Va. Admin. Code § 15-40-410 (2019) (describing electronic pull-tab bingo).

[9] See Va. Code Ann.§ 18.2-340.15; Va. Code Ann.§ 18.2-334.3; Va. Code Ann.§ 59.1-364.

[10] See IN THIS ISSUE: CULTURAL PRODUCTION IN A DIGITAL AGE: Digital Gambling: The Coincidence of Desire and Design, 597 Annals 65.

[11] See Va. Code Ann.§ 18.2-340.15.

[12] See id.

[13] See Va. Code Ann.§ 18.2-340.16.

[14] See Va. Code Ann.§ 18.2-340.22.

[15] See id.

[16] See 11 Va. Admin. Code § 15-40-410 (2019).

[17] See id.

[18] See Va. Code Ann.§ 18.2-340.16.

image source: https://thesportsdaily.com/2019/06/04/free-slot-machine-games/

By: Ryan Leonard

Artificial intelligence (AI) is a buzz-phrase of sorts that refers to at least two classifications of computational technology.[1]  First, there is weak AI, which refers to the a computer system (broadly defined) with the ability to perform a specific task, better (more accurately, more efficiently, etc., depending on the task) than its human counterparts.[2]  For example, in 1997, a program was developed that could defeat the world’s best chess players in a game of chess.[3]  In 2016, Tesla Motor Company unveiled cars capable of driving more safely than their human counterparts.[4]

 

The second broad category of AI is strong AI, which refers to a not-yet-existent technology that is capable of performing all tasks better than its human counterparts.[5]  Because of the rate of advancement in computational technology,[6] strong AI is likely to be developed unless humanity is destroyed, or severely incapacitated, first.[7]

 

Strong AI has the potential to have a snowball effect because, logically, it would be able to build more sophisticated AI than humans were able to build in the first place.[8]  The AI that was built by AI would itself be able to produce a superior version of itself, ad infinitum.  Putting aside spooky hypotheses that such advancement would leave humanity at the mercy of its robot overlords, there is still the issue of how the US economy, or any economy for that matter, would operate.

 

Weak AI alone is already, at least for the time being, a threat to certain low-skill jobs.[9]  Truck drivers, toll booth operators, among others, can, and to some extent, already have seen their jobs taken over by machines.[10]  Strong AI poses a threat not just to low-skill repetitive jobs, but to highly complex jobs as well.[11]  Therefore, in theory, strong AI would be able to produce engineers, surgeons, and programmers with skills far superior to any human that has every lived.  In a world in which computer-powered machines can do everything better than humans, there would not be a single job that a human would be better suited to perform than a computer (by definition).  And yet, with machines doing the farming, the building, the transporting, the diagnosing, etc., there would be no shortage of goods or services.  In a world of perfect abundance, but 100% unemployment, Congress will need to change all currently existing laws relating to social programs and supplant them with new legislation establishing a universal basic income (UBI).

 

UBI, if implemented, would be a program that would send a specified amount of money to all citizens and permanent residents in regular intervals.[12]  In contemporary politics, UBI, as recently popularized by former presidential candidate Andrew Yang, would set that specified amount at $1,000 per month for every adult.[13]  In a world with strong AI, Congress would need to consider an amount far higher, as the amount would need to be an income that could be entirely relied upon by everyone.  Among many serious scientists, the emergence of strong AI is considered a viable possibility, if not a certainty.[14]  Congress should begin considering the appropriate legal framework for keeping a functioning economy in place.

 

 

 

 

[1] See Kathleen Walch, Rethinking Weak vs. Strong AI, Forbes (Oct. 4, 2019, 6:30 AM), https://www.forbes.com/sites/cognitiveworld/2019/10/04/rethinking-weak-vs-strong-ai/#740863696da3.

[2] See id.

[3] See Samuel Gibbs, AlphaZero AI Beats Champion Chess Program After Teaching Itself in Four Hours, Guardian (Dec. 7, 2017, 7:41 AM), https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/dec/07/alphazero-google-deepmind-ai-beats-champion-program-teaching-itself-to-play-four-hours.

[4] See Marco della Cava, Tesla Announces Fully Self-Driving Cars, USA Today (Oct. 19, 2016, 8:05 PM), https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2016/10/19/tesla-announces-fully-self-driving-fleet/92430638/.

[5] See Walch, supra note 1.

[6] See David Chandler, How to Predict the Progress of Technology, MIT (March 6, 2013), http://news.mit.edu/2013/how-to-predict-the-progress-of-technology-0306.

[7] See Sam Harris, Can We Avoid Digital Apocalypse?, Sam Harris (Jan. 16, 2015), https://samharris.org/can-we-avoid-a-digital-apocalypse/.

[8] See Kelsey Piper, Why Elon Musk Fears Artificial Intelligence, Vox (Nov. 2, 2018, 12:10 PM), https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2018/11/2/18053418/elon-musk-artificial-intelligence-google-deepmind-openai.

[9] See Gwen Moran, Your Job Will Be Automated – Here’s How to Figure Out When AI Could Take Over, Fortune (Aug. 1, 2019, 6:00 AM), https://fortune.com/2019/08/01/predicting-job-automation-ai/.

[10] See id.

[11] See Harris, supra note 7.

[12] See Abby Vesoulis, This Presidential Candidate Wants to Give Every Adult $1,000 a Month, Time (Feb. 13, 2019), https://time.com/5528621/andrew-yang-universal-basic-income/.

[13] See id.

[14] See Piper, supra note 7.

image source: https://assetsds.cdnedge.bluemix.net/sites/default/files/styles/very_big_2/public/news/images/universal_basic_income2.jpg?itok=kjhwIDi4

[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ _builder_version=”3.0.47″][et_pb_row _builder_version=”3.0.48″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”3.0.47″ parallax=”off” parallax_method=”on”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”3.11″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat”]

By: Symposium Speaker, Lucy Bassli

Law firm relationship management has been driven by personal connections and personal relationships. Very little has changed, but the future methods of relationship management will veer away from the personal and move towards more objective and empirical foundations. Data will become a staple in those relationships and will drive which relationships continue and which ones may end.[1]

Data allows law firms to answer corporate legal departments’ most basic questions about legal work: How many? What kind? How much? When those questions are accurately and capably answered, relationship management is optimized.

The two-pronged mission is to look for ways in which data can make firms more effective while delighting their clients with insights they don’t currently have. Think of it this way: as providers of a service, if there is some aspect of the work that is repeat business from a client, there are always valuable insights that the client might not have access to. Perhaps the client would enjoy a summary, with some visuals, that clearly outlines basic data points: how many matters, what types, total fees, applicable discounts, etc.

There are three steps through which data will enhance client relationship management. First, collect the data, which sounds easy but law firms for the most part are still largely lagging behind on that score. Next, have efficient methods to access and analyze the data across the firm. Finally, use the first two steps to come together with the corporate legal department/client in essentially new, transparent ways of working together, where everyone is on the same page, everyone is accessing credible data and where outcomes, both operationally and financially, are visible and understood.

Step 1
Every law firm sits on oceans of data. They probably know this in some intrinsic way because every legal department craves more and more of it and wants to use the existing data more efficiently.

But how do they collect the data trove efficiently and coordinate among practice groups throughout the firm? How do they access the data they have, especially in their time-keeping and billing systems? These are problems that need immediate attention because every attorney, whether in-house, law firm, legal aid, or other area can use data to improve the quality of the service or the relationship with the client.

Data should be used to optimize processes, to support additional resources, to increase efficiencies, for public relations and social outreach, and most importantly, to justify innovative changes.

Beyond the basic operational aspects, are there additional, more substantive data points that will give clients some perspective that they have obtained only anecdotally?

At a minimum, the following data must be collected

-Information about how many items of work or matters have been done by the firm within any given period of time (month, quarter,year). In data speak this is volume.

-Information about the actual work is always interesting to the clients. Even having the ability to show the categories of work helps inform the client at a more macro level about the kind of legal work that the business is requesting.

-Patterns about the work is the next level of the categorization of the work.

-The ultimate value, as perceived by the business, is data about the timeliness of the legal support. How long things take in legal is always valuable data when a client or business (almost inevitably) complains about how long legal review takes.

Step 2
Leveraging and communicating in a concise way relevant data allows law firms to easily answer the client’s most basic questions about the legal work, including how information is gathered, analyzed and what it means to new and ongoing relationships.

It is amazing how much value a client can and should derive from an analysis of basic data points. A good example of data-influenced decisions is found in tracking turn-around times. Gone should be the days when lawyers say “it depends” when asked how long a piece of work should take. An “operationally inclined lawyer” should be able to analyze the oceans of data related to past work experience and give a good estimate of when the work will be completed. As in other types of services, there can be caveats for unexpected scenarios or complications, but there must be an expectation set with the clients, because they deserve it. Law firm clients should be treated like customers of a service — after all, we are used to it from Nordstrom and Amazon, why not from the most expensive law firms? Or any law firm?

There is nothing like data in order to create efficiencies. Gathering easily available information embodies two ideas: find and organize the information and make it readily accessible for effective, actionable analysis.

Data also helps inform substantive aspects of the legal practice. Collecting data about the terms in negotiated contracts will help to inform the position of the legal department and will increase speed of negotiations going forward. Sample terms and standard templates can only be improved upon once data shows that the existing terms are constantly negotiated, and resulting terms show a pattern. Litigation data is similar, when litigating similar issues. Tracking outcomes becomes critical, so that mistakes are not repeated. Surely this is not novel, but how the data is collected is key. It should be searchable and reportable in an easily consumable format. Other areas where there is recurring work (patent applications, employment law questions, acquisitions, and so on) there is always data that can be collected and analyzed for future similar work.

Relationships managed with data are transferable when partners retire or want to train upcoming junior partners. These relationships allow for continuity and the relationship then becomes broader than two people: it is between a law firm and a corporate legal department.

Step 3
While the first and second steps may seem daunting enough, it is actually the third step that requires the greatest change management and reconsiderations of culture. Judging the quality of a relationship based on empirical data is quite different from subjective sentiment and historical context of a personal relationship.

The real magic happens when the law firms and their corporate clients collaborate together on the data analysis. It is important to remember that there are three parties for whom the data is critical. Beside the firm and the corporate legal department they support, there is the actual corporate business. That is the ultimate customer of the legal service. The law firm and legal department have to align forces to deliver the best service. Only the combination of data from both entities will provide the full picture.

For example, to truly understand how long a piece of legal work takes, it is just as important to assess how long it was in the hands of the corporate legal team, as in the hands of the law firm. Those two data points are critical in order to understand the experience of the business owners who are seeking the legal support, and undoubtedly need it in a timely fashion. By coming together on these data points, the legal teams together will best serve the business.

Relationships managed with data are transferable when partners retire or want to train upcoming junior partners. These relationships allow for continuity and the relationship than becomes broader than two people: it between a law firm and a corporate legal department.

^[1] The concepts in this chapter is derived from my book, The Simple Guide to Legal Innovation, and from articles, speeches and courseware presentations.

[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section]

By: Rebecca Meadows

image source: https://www.bluerangetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/gsuite-managedservices.png

Students of all ages are familiar with the increasing role of technology in the classroom. Outpacing all rival technology brands working on educational technology, Google is working especially hard to make its presence known in this sphere.[1] By 2017, over 30 million school students –over half of the school students in the country – were using Google education applications.[2] In addition to offering Chromebooks for educational use, Google offers G Suite for Education – a collection of easy to use tools for collaborative learning.[3] It took Google only five years to create this kind of presence by using creative sales methods, such as working directly with teachers and administrators to test and promote Google’s products.[4]

However, Google is hoping that these students will continue as Google customers by encouraging them to eventually transition from educational Google accounts to regular consumer Google accounts and applications.[5] This is significant because Google earns most of its revenue through online advertising, which it customizes through sophisticated use of personal data.[6] This has parents very concerned that Google is using data from the online activities of students.[7]

The attorney general of New Mexico raised these concerns in a complaint filed against Google on February 20, 2020.[8] The complaint alleges that Google has used effective marketing strategies to drive adoption of their services in schools, including advertising as a free and purely educational tool, but also including claims that Google takes data privacy very seriously.[9] Google promised that it would never collect students’ data for its own commercial purposes, but the New Mexico complaint alleges that Google intentionally did just that.[10]

The complaint alleges that Google has violated the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA).[11] According to COPPA, any online service that collects personal information from children must provide notice to the child’s parent about its data collection practices, and must obtain consent from the parent prior to any collection or use of data.[12] Google Education collects personal information such as physical location, website history, contact lists, and behavioral information.[13] Furthermore, Google ordinarily does not allow children under the age of 13 to have a Google account, because Google is aware of COPPA and its rules for children.[14] However, Google was using the unique position of Google Education to get around that limitation.[15] Google did not notify parents of the types of personal information that it collects from the children, and also did not attempt to obtain parental consent for this data collection.[16]

The complaint also alleges that Google’s data collection in violation of COPPA constitutes a deceptive act that unfairly affects commerce, and therefore also violates the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act.[17] Google’s deceptive practices include the harvesting of personal data without the knowledge or consent of students’ parents, as well as committing material misrepresentations by having students sign a Student Privacy Pledge that was misleading and omitted the extent of the privacy violations.[18]

The third and final cause of action listed in the complaint is that Google intruded upon seclusion of all New Mexico citizens.[19] This claim explains that citizens of the state have reasonable expectations for their privacy, and Google intentionally intruded on those private affairs by intentionally designing the Google Education services to improperly gain data.[20]

Google has previously been accused of violating federal children’s privacy law, and just last September had to pay $170 million to settle a lawsuit regarding the illegal harvesting of children’s personal data through YouTube.[21] However, in 2015, Google had signed a pledge on student privacy, promising to not “collect, maintain, use or share student personal information beyond that needed for educational purposes”, as well as promising not to collect data for behavioral ad targeting.[22] These data privacy lawsuits against show that Google has broken that pledge and the law by continuing to gather children’s data for their own commercial uses.[23]

[1] See Natasha Singer & Daisuke Wakabayashi, New Mexico Sues Google Over Children’s Privacy Violations, N.Y. Times (Feb. 20, 2020), https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/20/technology/new-mexico-google-lawsuit.html.

[2] See Natasha Singer, How Google Took Over the Classroom, N.Y. Times (May 13, 2017), https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/13/technology/google-education-chromebooks-schools.html.

[3] See id.; G Suite for Education, Google, https://edu.google.com/products/gsuite-for-education/?modal_active=none.

[4] See supra note 2.

[5] See id.

[6] See id.

[7] See id.

[8] See Complaint, New Mexico v. Google LLC, (D.N.M. 2020), No. 1:20-cv-00143-NF-KHR, 2020 WL 837510.

[9] See id. at 2, 4

[10] See id. at 4, 5.

[11] See id. at 59.

[12] See id. at 60.

[13] See id. at 5.

[14] See id. at 8.

[15] See id.

[16] See id. at 67, 69.

[17] See id. at 73.

[18] See id. at 77, 80.

[19] See id. at 88.

[20] See id. at 89, 91.

[21] See supra note 1.

[22] Id.

[23] See id.

By: William Nash

Currently, there are numerous undergraduate schools and law schools alike cancelling in person classes and moving to a remote learning solution for the foreseeable future due to the fast spreading nature of the Coronavirus in America.[1] New York School of Law was the first to close doors on March 4th.[2] This stark switch to remote learning for law schools poses obvious questions to the learning environment and its effectiveness in today’s law schools. In communities heavily based on communication and personal interaction, questions of professor’s capabilities, course engagement, and timely completion of courses are all raised.[3]

The moving conditions under Coronavirus have also raised concerns regarding the standards of the American Bar Association.[4] Standard 306 of the ABA Standards and Rules of Procedure define remote education and actually limits for credits for all ABA schools.[5] The ABA also wrote a guidance memo regarding the issues at hand, stating while remote learning might be necessary, there is a serious concern for schools with a lack of the necessary technology, as well as professors who are inexperienced with this method of teaching.[6]

There has been a relative amount of advocation for remote learning within law schools.[7] In California (a state who has pushed to legitimize remote learning law schools) has found there to actually be a higher bar pass rate for remote learning law schools compared to traditional law schools.[8] In addition, there has already been a steady increase in online tools including readings, quizzes, and lectures present in traditional law schools.[9] Video conferences have even become more prevalent for hands on questions.[10] It is important to note however, while we are in the wake of this pandemic, the remote learning that has been advocated for is relatively well prepared, unlike the remote learning we may see from schools in the coming months.

There are numerous issues from student’s perspective with the current regime, including but not limited to a lack of structure and a complete change in learning method.[11] Students have been learning primarily through a Socratic method but are now having to study more by application.[12] Likewise, there is concern with adequate study space while libraries are closing.[13] While these are more general concerns, there are many more concerns specific to certain students including items like childcare and health affecting one’s ability to learn under this regime.

Because of the issues that might harm a student’s ability to learn, many schools have shifted to a pass/fail grading regime as opposed to the traditional curved grading.[14] Gillian Lester, the Dean of Columbia Law School, stated in a recent release that the shift is in regards to the “fairness among students.”[15] While the shift may cause issues such as job searches for students, many schools thus far have agreed that the benefit to “even the playing field” outweighs the burden.[16]

The new remote learning as well as the changes in policies will be closely viewed in the coming weeks regarding their effectiveness and efficiency.

 

 

[1] See Staci Zaretsky, T14 Law School Cancels Classes Due to Coronavirus Outbreak, Above the Law (Mar. 9, 2020, 12:12 PM), https://abovethelaw.com/2020/03/t14-law-school-cancels-classes-due-to-coronavirus-outbreak/.

[2] See Amanda Robert & Stephanie F. Ward, Coronavirus and Law Schools: More Universities Shifting to Online Classes, ABA Journal (Mar. 12, 2020, 10:47 AM), https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/coronavirus-and-law-schools-more-universities-shifting-to-online-classes.

[3] See Jen R. Reise, Your Law School Went Online – Now What? Here’s How to Adapt to Remote Learning, ABA for Law Students (Mar. 11, 2020), https://abaforlawstudents.com/2020/03/11/coronavirus-your-law-school-went-online-now-what/.

[4] See generally Amanda Robert & Stephanie F. Ward, Coronavirus and Law Schools: More Universities Shifting to Online Classes, ABA Journal (Mar. 12, 2020, 10:47 AM), https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/coronavirus-and-law-schools-more-universities-shifting-to-online-classes.

[5] See id.

[6] See id.

[7] See Martin Pritikin, California’s New Frontier: Accreditation of Distance Learning Law Schools, The National Jurist (July 23, 2019, 9:33 AM), www.nationaljurist.com/national-jurist-magazine/california’s-new-frontier-accreditation-distance-learning-law-schools.

[8] See id.

[9] See id.

[10] See id.

[11] See Jen R. Reise, Your Law School Went Online – Now What? Here’s How to Adapt to Remote Learning, ABA for Law Students (Mar. 11, 2020), https://abaforlawstudents.com/2020/03/11/coronavirus-your-law-school-went-online-now-what/.

[12] See id.

[13] See Gabriel Kuris, The Impact of the Coronavirus on Legal Education, U.S. News (Mar. 23, 2020), https://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/law-admissions-lowdown/articles/the-impact-of-the-coronavirus-on-legal-education; id.

[14] See Bob Van Voris, Harvard, Other Top Law Schools Drop Grades as Classes Go Online, Bloomberg (Mar. 23, 2020, 10:03 AM), https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-23/harvard-other-top-law-schools-drop-grades-as-classes-go-online.

[15] See id.

[16] See id.

image source: https://www.pressherald.com/2020/03/18/students-enter-uncharted-territory-of-learning-at-home/

By: Cassidy Crockett

By now, we’ve all heard of Bitcoin, the digital money (cryptocurrency) that can be traded anonymously (the only identifiable information is your chosen username) and securely, despite having no physical presence.[1] This is done via “blockchain,” a way of keeping publicly accessible, decentralized records.[2] Bitcoin is no longer the only cryptocurrency, joined by a multitude of digital currencies, but they all use the same technology and base idea — a currency that is tracked by all users and almost completely anonymous. Many people believed that cryptocurrency would be the money of the future, and many still believe this currency could change the way the world works.[3] However, it continues to fall out of favor, and many people believe that its only use is on the dark web or by criminals.[4]  It continues to baffle people around the world who see it as a new way for criminal activity to spread.

Many see cryptocurrency as a never before seen technology. It allows people to buy illegal items with untraceable money. It allows criminals to be paid for their acts without a way to track them down. But is this really new? Physical currency has been used in many forms throughout history, including our current paper money. Physical money is also untraceable. When a person takes their change from the cashier and gives it to another cashier or puts it into a friend’s birthday card, there is no ledger writing the serial number of that bill and tracing it to the person spending it. The only new action here is buying an item remotely. Rather than buying drugs in a physical alleyway, it is now possible to buy them on the internet. Criminals can launder money via a virtual blockchain transaction instead of having to go through the effort of setting up a business. Corporations can use blockchain to move money in secret rather than offshore it.[5] These bad actions are happening now and have been happening for a long time. Cryptocurrency didn’t invent these actions, it just made them easier. It seems that bitcoin functions almost exactly like cash, but with the added element of remote activity.

As is often the case, people look to analogies to explain life around them and cryptocurrencies are not any different. Even I have already analogized them to cash. This is also the case in the crafting of new laws or stretching of old law to fit a new concept.[6] Economists have argued over how to regulate bitcoin, as a currency, security, or as a new entity entirely.[7] However, it seems that bitcoin is not the thing in need of regulation here. If bitcoin is just as anonymous as cash, it seems that the action or those allowing the actions should be regulated. Of course, criminal actions such as drug trafficking and piracy are already heavily regulated and penalized. If one were to separate the actors and technology you would have the people transacting with the cryptocurrency, the blockchain technology itself and cryptocurrency/blockchain operators.

In order to properly regulate the criminal activity that the anonymity of cryptocurrency brings, it is essential to regulate thing. Here, it would likely make the most sense to regulate blockchain. As the ledger is publicly available, operators can monitor the transactions in real time.[8] This would allow investigators and law enforcement to follow the money. Responsibility placed on these actors would be more likely to be administrable due to the fact that they are not anonymous, and they are able to be held accountable.

If cryptocurrency is to become the money of the future, it is imperative that it is regulated properly. As of now, most people who are not involved in the tech world or economics see cryptocurrency as criminal cash or an abstract concept. The reality is that cryptocurrency isn’t a scary new concept but just a remote version of paper cash. As such, it should be subject to at least some form of regulation and as it is decentralized and unbacked by any government, responsibility must lie with either the cryptocurrency or blockchain administrators. As long as this money is coming in through these anonymous channels with no oversight, it is too easy to launder and evade taxes.[9] The best option we have is to place this in the hands of the administrators who know this best and hold them responsible rather than trying to force this technology into a box it doesn’t quite fit into.

[1] Jake Frankenfield, What is Bitcoin?, Investopedia (Oct. 26, 2019),  https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/bitcoin.asp

[2] Nathan Rieff, Blockchain Explained, Investopedia (Feb. 1, 2020), https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/blockchain.asp

[3] Ameer Rosic, What is Cryptocurrency? [Everything You Need to Know], BlockGeeks (2017), https://blockgeeks.com/guides/what-is-cryptocurrency/

[4]See, e.g., Nathaniel Popper, Bitcoin Has Lost Steam. But Criminals Still Love It., N.Y. Times (Jan. 28, 2020), https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/28/technology/bitcoin-black-market.html

[5] See, e.g., Alma Angotti and Anne Marie Minogue, Risks and rewards: Blockchain, Cryptocurrency and Vulnerability to Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Tax Evasion, 2018 PRINDBRF 0250 (Nov. 19, 2018) (Westlaw Practitioner Insight Commentary).

[6] See generally, Cass R. Sunstein, On Analogical Reasoning Commentary, 106 Harvard L. Rev. 741, 743 (1992)(outlining how the law is shaped by the use of analogies).

[7] Brian Edmonson, Can Bitcoin Regulations Make Cryptocurrency Safer?, The Balance (Mar. 11, 2019), https://www.thebalance.com/can-bitcoin-regulation-make-cryptocurrency-safer-4173836

[8] See Angotti & Minogue supra note 5.

[9] See id.

By: Paxton Rizzo

The gray wolf (Canis lupis) is a member on the endangered species list, protected in the United States under the Endangered Species Act.[1] It has been included under the Federal Endangered Species Act since 1974 in the lower 48, with some exceptions for populations that have been deemed recovered, (Minnesota, Idaho and Montana).[2] However, in the last several years, the pendulum of the gray wolves’ legal status as endangered has started to sway. In 2019, the Secretary of the Interior announced that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services would seek to end the federal endangered status of the gray wolves.[3] This change would return the management of the species to individual states and tribes.[4] When this change was proposed many experts pointed out that the wolves’ status had just been restored in some areas and that their current range is still not that of their historical range, and removal of their protected status may very well ensure that they never reach their historical range.[5]

 

The endangered status of the gray wolf has long been contested by farmers and hunters in the areas where the wolf population spread.[6] Many wolf researchers and conservationist are worried wolf recovery would stall if protection of the species was completely turned over to the states to be managed.[7] Conversely, this November in Colorado, a reintroduction program for the wolves will be on the ballot of the state elections.[8] This was included on the ballot when Colorado’s secretary of state determined that there were enough signatures submitted by the “Restoration of Gray Wolves” campaign.[9] If voted into action this proposal would require the Colorado Parks and Wildlife to develop a plan to reintroduce gray wolves to the western part of the state by 2023, along with a program to reimburse ranchers who do lose livestock to wolves.[10]

 

Understanding how the wolf population is doing is important to the recovery process of the gray wolves and their classification as an endangered species. The most common form of technology associated with the wolf recovery program is the radio collars that are put on several of the wolves.[11] While not an invasive devise itself, the process of putting a radio collar on an individual wolf can prove socially invasive to the wolves and has some health risk associated with it.[12] Wolves must be captured and sedated before a radio collar can be put on them; capturing them stress the individual wolf and the pack socially, whereas sedating an individual wolf, depending on the temperatures, can lead to health issues since a sedated wolf cannot regulate its temperature.[13] In the last several years, researchers have been working on with biological acoustics to identify individual wolves by their howls.[14] Another, newer use of technology to monitor wolf populations, has been the use of game cameras to observe and recognition software to identify individual wolves.[15] In Idaho, this method was used to get a count of the wolf population.[16] While the use of this new technology does involve working out a few hiccups, they are still positive steps forward in the evolving field of wolf conservation.[17] These advancements chould help overcome the numerical limitations of radio collar tracking, by allowing more wolves to be observed.

[1] See California Department of Fish and Wildlife, https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Mammals/Gray-Wolf (last visited Feb. 28, 2020).

[2] See Gabe Schneider, Is the Endangered Species Act’s protection of gray wolves too broad for Minnesota?, Minnpost (Oct. 8, 2019), https://www.minnpost.com/national/2019/10/is-the-endangered-species-acts-protection-of-gray-wolves-too-broad-for-minnesota/.

[3] See Lindsey Botts, Trump’s plan to take wolves off the endangered species list is deeply flawed, Vox (July 16, 2019, 1:57 PM), https://www.vox.com/2019/7/13/20690727/endangered-species-list-2019-gray-wolves.

[4] See Laurel Wamsley, Trump Administration Seeks To Take Gray Wolf Off Endangered Species List, npr (Mar. 6, 2019, 7:28 PM), https://www.npr.org/2019/03/06/700890055/trump-administration-seeks-to-take-gray-wolf-off-endangered-species-list

[5] Id.

[6] See id.

[7] See id; see also Botts supra note 3.

[8] See Tripp Baltz, Colorado Voters Will Have Say on Restoring Endangered Wolves, Bloomberg Law (Jan. 13, 2020, 1:55 PM), https://www.bloomberglaw.com/document/X69M1COG000000?bna_news_filter=environment-and-energy&jcsearch=BNA%25200000016f9f82df16ad7fdfefd3b10001#jcite.

[9] See id.

[10] See id.

[11] See Angela Dassow, Scientist at work: Identifying individual gray wolves by their howls, The Conversation (July 13, 2018, 6:24 AM), https://theconversation.com/scientist-at-work-identifying-individual-gray-wolves-by-their-howls-96086.

[12] See id.

[13] See id.

[14] See id.

[15] See CBS2 News Staff, Game cameras took 11 million photos of wolves in Idaho for new population estimate, CBS2 Idaho News (Jan. 24, 2020), https://idahonews.com/news/local/game-cameras-took-11-million-photos-of-wolves-in-idaho-for-new-population-estimate.

[16] See id.

[17] See id.

image source: https://pcdn.columbian.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/1221_met_WOLVES-RANCH-1-LA-1226×0-c-default.jpg

By: Trevor Vonu

Beginning in late 2019, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) launched an antitrust probe against e-commerce giant, Amazon.[1] Several months ago, the FTC began interviewing small businesses selling products though Amazon in an effort to determine whether the corporation is using its market power to hurt competition.[2] Reports indicate the FTC is asking these business owners to disclose how much of their revenue is generated from transactions through Amazon in comparison to other online retailers, specifically Walmart and EBay.[3]

This probe hints the FTC aims to determine whether small businesses and consumers have a legitimate alternative to Amazon.[4] The FTC has confirmed its antitrust probe into Amazon, and has further requested the corporation to disclose information regarding acquisitions of other firms not previously submitted to either the FTC or the Department of Justice (DOJ).[5] Other tech giants, Apple, Facebook, Google, and Microsoft are also subject to these requests for acquisition disclosures.[6] Further, the FTC has expanded its investigation to include Amazon’s cloud computing sector.[7]

What does all this mean? To put it briefly, the FTC has launched an antitrust investigation in order to determine whether Amazon has unfairly and illegally hurt competition in violation of the Sherman and Clayton Acts.[8] The text comprising the Sherman Act is brief and separated into two parts.  Section One of the Sherman Act prohibits “every contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade,” while Section Two outlaws monopolization, attempted monopolization, or conspiracy or combination to monopolize.”[9] The Clayton Act prohibits other practices not addressed in the Sherman Act, namely mergers and acquisitions which, “substantially . . . lessen competition, or tend to create a monopoly.” [10]

On its face, the FTC investigation does not seem focused on surfacing collusive activity. Rather, it appears the FTC is aiming to find evidence of a Section Two violation of the Sherman Act, as well as a Clayton Act violation.[11] Through its investigation, it appears the FTC suspects Amazon of unfairly hindering competition through monopolistic behavior and/or acquisitions tending to create a monopoly.[12]

To make matters worse for the Seattle-based corporation, India’s Competition Commission has launched its own investigation into Amazon’s business practices.[13] In January, the Competition Commission indicated it would focus on allegations regarding Amazon’s favoritism towards “preferred sellers,” which has resulted in both competitive harm and economic harm to other sellers.[14] Further, the Competition Commission will also investigate alleged discounting practices performed by Amazon.[15] Retailers in India accuse Amazon of slashing its prices, resulting in losses measuring in the billions, in an effort to drive smaller sellers out of the marketplace.[16]

Amazon responded to India’s probe earlier this month when the corporation launched legal action against the Competition Commission in an effort to bring this investigation to a swift end.[17] Amazon contends the probe will cause “irreparable” damage to the corporation’s reputation and goodwill.[18] Unsurprisingly in its filing, Amazon categorically denied all allegations, calling the investigation “bereft of any foundation” and contends the investigative order “contain[s] no reference to the finding of an appreciable adverse effect on competition.”[19]

Pending Amazon’s suit seeking injunctive relief against India’s Competition Commission, these investigations will likely be lengthy, as the agencies will continue to delve into the corporation’s past dealings with one primary goal in sight—to find evidence that Amazon’s business practices have hurt competition in the marketplace.[20]

It will be interesting to see if the e-commerce behemoth will walk out of these investigations unscathed. Or will the regulatory agencies manage to buckle down on Amazon’s corporate activity? If it is any indicator, AMZN share prices fell less than 1% after reports of the FTC investigation surfaced.[21] Further, AMZN share prices have recently hit all-time highs, despite India launching its own antitrust investigation.[22]

 

[1] Spencer Soper & Ben Brody, Amazon Probed by U.S. Antitrust Officials Over Marketplace, Bloomberg (Sept. 11, 2019), https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-09-11/amazon-antitrust-probe-ftc-investigators-interview-merchants.

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

[5] John McKinnon & Deepa Seetharaman, FTC Expands Antitrust Investigation Into Big Tech, Wall Street Journal (Feb. 11, 2020),  https://www.wsj.com/articles/ftc-plans-to-examine-past-acquisitions-by-big-tech-companies-11581440270.

[6] Laura Feiner, FTC will examine prior acquisitions by Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Microsoft, CNBC (Feb. 11, 2020), https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/11/ftc-will-examine-prior-acquisitions-by-big-tech-companies.html.

[7] Dina Bass, David McLaughlin & Naomi Nix, Amazon Faces Widening U.S. Antitrust Scrutiny in Cloud Business, Blomberg (Dec. 4, 2019),  https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-12-04/amazon-faces-widening-u-s-antitrust-scrutiny-in-cloud-business.

[8] Russel Brandom, The Monopoly-Busting Case Against Google, Amazon, Uber, and Facebook, The Verge (Sept. 5, 2018), https://www.theverge.com/2018/9/5/17805162/monopoly-antitrust-regulation-google-amazon-uber-facebook.

[9] 15 U.S.C. § 1 (2020).

[10] 15 U.S. C. § 18 (2020).

[11] See Brandom, supra note 8.

[12] See Feiner, supra note 5.

[13] Newly Pernell, India Orders Antitrust Probe of Amazon and Walmart’s Flipkart, Wall Street Journal (Jan. 13, 2020), https://www.wsj.com/articles/india-orders-antitrust-probe-of-amazon-and-walmarts-flipkart-11578932051.

[14] Id.

[15] Aditya Kalra, Amazon challenges India antitrust probe in court: filing, Reuters (Feb 10, 2020), https://www.reuters.com/article/us-amazon-com-india/amazon-challenges-india-antitrust-probe-in-court-filing-idUSKBN2041EQ.

[16] Id.

[17] Id.

[18] Id.

[19] Id.

[20] Katie Arcieri, Amazon could face antitrust suit in 2020, but asset breakup unlikely, S&P Global (Jan 15, 2020), https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-news-headlines/56399662.

[21] See Soper, supra note 1.

[22] Jeremy Bowman, At an All-Time High, Is Amazon Still a Buy?, The Motely Fool (Feb. 16, 2020), https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/02/16/at-an-all-time-high-is-amazon-still-a-buy.aspx.

 

image source: https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/t4GENI7C4EjysOQwAiiudF1BaUc=/0x0:2040×1360/1200×800/filters:focal(857×517:1183×843)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/63935790/acastro_181114_1777_amazon_hq2_0007.0.jpg

By: Davina Seoparsan

Meet Scout.

 

New legislation will allow Amazon delivery robots, referred to as Scout, to be able to make deliveries in Virginia. The legislation passed the House of Delegates with an 88-12 vote after unanimously clearing in the Senate in the weeks prior.[1] Scout will be allowed to use sidewalks and speed-specific road shoulders contingent on the robot’s limited disruption of traffic.[2] This delivery service has been officially cleared from the list of motorized wheeled contraptions that the government is able to ban from sidewalks and crosswalks.[3] That being said, localities and the Board of Transportation are able adopt additional requirements to enhance safety in lieu of the ability to ban the robots entirely.[4]

 

Legislators Like Scout!

 

Virginia has always been an active state when it comes to technology related delivery services[5]. Virginia was the first state to allow delivery devices when it passed a law which allowed robots of no more than 50 pounds to cruise sidewalks at about 10 mph[6]. The House version of the recent bill will allow robots weighing 500 pounds to move at the same speed, even though Scout weighs in at around 100 pounds.[7] Don’t worry: the robots still have to be courteous and use crosswalks just like everyone else[8]. Previously, motor vehicles, including robots, were forbidden on sidewalks[9].

 

Do We Like Scout?

 

Though there is optimism regarding Scout, there is still a decent amount of technological uncertainty that could potentially lead to an array of legal issues[10]. When asked about the average speed at which Scout moves and how often they reach 10 mph, Amazon was less than certain[11]. The company only has a handful of these devices that have been tested in operation, so there is very limited data.[12] Amazon has stated that the goal is to operate at the safest speed but has yet to expand on that concept. [13]

 

Many have begun to associate these personal delivery systems with self-driving cars. However, roads have stoplights, lanes, speed limits and some semblance of regulation. Sidewalks do not. I hate walking through a crowded sidewalk- imagine dodging people and robots! Better yet, imagine a robot trying to dodge people. Aside from dodging, these robots will have to navigate roads when they cross streets[14]. The company that assisted in the development of these robots, Starship Technologies[15], has already faced scrutiny after a wheelchair-bound student complained about the robots, specifically after struggling to navigate the same street as one of these robots[16]. This complaint leaves room for many potential suits from those impacted by disabilities- this will potentially warrant an ADA response.

 

Oh, and did I mention that some of these delivery systems are notorious for catching on fire? This might be something to pay attention to[17].

 

Scout Probably Won’t Ruin Everything

 

The truth is, we won’t know what the future of Scout holds. It’s too early to tell. Virginia seems to have accounted for these legal uncertainties, as the bill requires robot operators to have liability coverage of at least $100,000.[18]

 

 

[1] Jonathan Capriel, Amazon’s self-driving delivery. Robots are green-lit. for Virginia. And not just on sidewalks., Washington Business Journal (Feb. 25, 2020), https://www.bizjournals.com/washington/news/2020/02/25/amazons-self-driving-delivery-robots-are-virginia.html.

[2] Sean Scott, Meet Scout: Field testing a new delivery system with Amazon Scout, The Amazon Blog (Jan. 23, 2019), https://blog.aboutamazon.com/transportation/meet-scout.

[3] Capriel, supra note 1.

[4] See id.

[5] Ian Duncan, Virginia town becomes home to nation’s first drone package delivery service, The Washington Post (Oct. 19, 2019), https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/virginia-town-becomes-home-to-nations-first-drone-package-delivery-service/2019/10/19/4b777d24-f1ff-11e9-89eb-ec56cd414732_story.html

[6] Lulu Chang, Virginia is for lovers- and now, legalized delivery robots too, Digital Trends- Emerging Tech (March 3, 2017),  https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/virginia-law-allows-robots/

[7] Capriel, supra note 1.

[8] Matt Leonard, Patent Pending: Why did the Amazon delivery robot cross the road?, Supply Chain Dive (Oct. 25, 2019), https://www.supplychaindive.com/news/amazon-delivery-robot-patent-pending/565791/

[9] Capriel, supra note 1.

[10] Matt Simon, The Prime Challenges for Amazon’s New Delivery Robot, Wired (Jan. 23, 2019), https://www.wired.com/story/amazon-new-delivery-robot-scout/

[11] Capriel, supra note 1.

[12] Scott, supra note 2.

[13] See id.

[14] Matt Simon, The Prime Challenges for Amazon’s New Delivery Robot, Wired (Jan. 23, 2019), https://www.wired.com/story/amazon-new-delivery-robot-scout/

[15] The Self-Driving Delivery Robot, Starship, https://www.starship.xyz/business/

[16] Bill Schackner, Pitt benches food-delivery robots after complaint from a student, Post Gazette (Oct 23. 2019), https://www.post-gazette.com/business/tech-news/2019/10/23/robot-starship-university-of-pittsburgh-disabilities-higher-education-campus-life/stories/201910230137

[17] Amazon Scout robots take to pavements in Washington State, BBC News (Jan. 24, 2019), https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-46987779

[18] Capriel, supra note 1.

image source: https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/-Nb21zg6YYXjiE-JaEmzkJ-XxKU=/0x0:3240×2160/1200×800/filters:focal(1361×821:1879×1339)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/64983786/amazon_scout.0.jpg