Category: Blog Posts Page 44 of 75

By: Merrin Overbeck

One of the most pressing political issues of the last several years has been gun control. It has been the focus of news coverage and national conversation due to the increased prevalence of mass shootings in the United States of America within the last several years. As of August 5, 2019, at least sixty-two people were killed in the United States in mass shootings, just in 2019 alone.[1] According to federal statute, a mass shooting is defined as three or more killings in a single incident at a public place.[2] However, what if a smartphone could reduce the deadly impact that these incidents have?

During and following these mass shootings, there is an influx of people trying to communicate over the telephone, social media, and other communication networks. According to the Washington Post, “anxiety after shootings can feed shocking -but unverified- social media reports, creating a frenzied information ecosystem that could itself be a threat to public safety.”[3] With all of these calls, texts, and social media posts resulting from both actual active shooter situations and even just suspected situations, there is an increased need for the creation of a means of wading through this sea of information, both to help average citizens and first responders in these situations.[4]

In order to address this issue, companies have become involved by creating a way to sift through all of this information, find the reliable information, and present it in a format that is helpful for both average citizens and public safety officers. One of such companies is Patrocinium Systems, Incorporated. While this company was created in 2013, it has only recently been applied to mass shooting situations.[5]

The creator of this company, John South, comes from a background of more than twenty-five years of managerial experience in security and large-scale business operations, as well as having served in both the United States military and in law enforcement. In an interview with Newsweek Magazine, South stated that his goal in creating this company was to increase access to “real-time awareness of emergency data, as well as . . . the ability to respond to people faster with more accurate information to save more lives.”[6]

According to the Patrocinium’s website, its “Platform-as-a-Service (PaaS) solution enables organizations to monitor risks and respond to incidents from a single interface. Whether accounting for and communicating with tens of thousands of people inside a building or ensuring the safety of a hundred employees traveling abroad, Patrocinium provides the solution.”[7] This platform, in the form of a smartphone application named ArcAngel, provides information, such as a user’s location in an emergency situation, instantaneously to first responders.[8]

ArcAngel is available in two different versions, the basic version costing $4.99 a month, and the premium version costing $19.99 a month.[9] ArcAngel’s basic version alerts users of extreme weather, shootings, explosions, or other public safety incidents.[10] Premium version users have access to all of the basic version’s functions, with the additional ability to call the Patrocinium’s staff, which consists of individuals with military or “other tactical experience,”[11] if a user requires assistance that does not rise to the level of needing to contact emergency services.[12] ArcAngel uses a smartphone’s geosensors to locate users, then prompts the user to indicate whether they are safe or unsafe in a particular situation.[13] Because this phone application uses Bluetooth technology, the application is capable of indicating a user’s precise location to assist with rescue efforts.[14] If the user indicates that they are not safe, then the application can provide directions to safety, or immediately convey the user’s location to the individual’s family and to local law enforcement officers.[15]

This application could have major implications for law enforcement officers because this application not only assists in rescue efforts, but it also could also potentially be used in law enforcement agencies’ investigations, and even the government’s prosecution, of individuals suspected of committing a mass shooting. While ArcAngel is not currently being used by law enforcement agencies for this purpose, it is not hard to imagine a situation where this application could gather evidence, such as a potential suspect’s presence at the mass shooting scene, that might be helpful for the prosecution of a suspected mass shooter. This potential use draws into question ArcAngel’s and Patrocinium Systems’ relationship with law enforcement, and whether law enforcement agencies could come to rely on information provided by this application for more than just ensuring public safety, and what implications it has for the prosecution and defense of these crimes.

[1] See Alejandro De La Garza, 62 People Have Been Killed in Mass Shootings in 2019 Alone, Time Mag., (Aug. 5, 2019, 12:51 PM), https://time.com/5643553/2019-mass-shootings-list/.

[2] See Investigative Assistance for Violent Crimes Act of 2012, Pub. L. No. 112-265, H.R. 2076, 112th Cong. (2013).

[3] Reis Thebault and Deanna Paul, Panic in Times Square, chaos at another Walmart: Anxiety is through the roof. So are false alarms, Wash. Post (Aug. 7, 2019), https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/08/07/after-consecutive-mass-shootings-anxiety-is-through-roof-so-are-false-alarms/

[4] Id. (explaining that the Center for Mass Violence Response Studies has found that first responders have an increased workload during these times).

[5] See About Patrocinium,  https://www.patrocinium.com/about/

[6] Peter Roff, Technology, not more gun control, is the key to stopping random attacks, Newsweek, (Aug. 26, 2019, 11:49 AM), https://www.newsweek.com/technology-not-more-gun-control-key-stopping-random-attacks-opinion-1456135

[7] Patrocinium Platform, Patrocinium,  https://www.patrocinium.com/

[8] Id.

[9] See Reena Singh, Reston: ArcAngel, new security app, launches, The Connection, (Nov. 26, 2014),

http://www.connectionnewspapers.com/news/2014/nov/26/reston-arcangel-new-security-app-launches/

[10] See Steven Overly, Federal contractor turned entrepreneur creates public safety app for smartphones, Wash. Post (Nov. 30, 2014), https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/federal-contractor-turned-entrepreneur-creates-public-safety-app-for-smartphones/2014/11/25/19e69e3c-70e7-11e4-ad12-3734c461eab6_story.html.

[11] Id.

[12] Id.

[13] Id.

[14] See Reena Singh, Reston: ArcAngel, new security app, launches, The Connection, (Nov. 26, 2014),

http://www.connectionnewspapers.com/news/2014/nov/26/reston-arcangel-new-security-app-launches/

[15] Id.

By: Zaq Lacy

[1]        In 2015, a pair of security researchers (read that as ‘hackers’), Chris Valasek and Charlie Miller, conducted an experiment in which they remotely ‘hijacked’ an internet-connected SUV driven by a volunteer.[1] Valasek and Miller gained complete control of the vehicle’s transmission, radio, air conditioning, braking functions, and windshield wipers sprayers, as well as being able to track the vehicle’s exact location.[2] In previous experiments, they also were able to mess with braking functions, horn, seat belt, and steering.[3] However, in these earlier trials, they were directly wired into the vehicle’s onboard diagnostic interface.[4] That was already particularly eerie, but what made the 2015 trial particularly disconcerting was their ability to do it remotely.[5] They were not the first to do so; in 2011, other researchers were able to use cellular connection to locate vehicles via GPS, turn on the lights, and start the car by simply sending files via a telephone call.[6] Valasek and Miller were, however, the first to achieve nearly unlimited control over a vast majority of the systems that modern cars rely upon to function and keep the driver and passengers safe – all from the comfort of their couch.[7] It was this experiment that resulted in 1.4 million vehicles being recalled[8] and was the impetus for legislation regarding digital security standards.[9]

[2]       Scholars estimate that current luxury vehicles have up to seventy Engine Control Units (ECUs), as well as computer control systems that regulate a surprising number of functions we simply take for granted.[10] These are all integrated into the Controller Area Network (CAN), which presents hackers with a potential entry point, granting the hacker access to every system in the vehicle, from the air conditioning and the radio to the air bags and mechanical functions of the engine itself.[11] Fortunately, less than a handful malicious hacking attack are known to have occurred to date, one of which was a disgruntled dealership employee who activated the vehicle immobilization feature in around 100 vehicles, effectively disabling them all.[12] Despite that, deep concerns are being raised about cybersecurity with newer internet-connected cars, particularly where it concerns automated ‘smart’ cars.[13]

[3]       There are certainly varying levels of vehicle autonomy in the market, from features like Lane Keep and Auto Brake that still require a driver, to fully automated self-driving cars.[14] Currently, the main focus of the development of such ‘smart’ cars is ride sharing services, such as Waymo, Uber, and Cruise, rather than the private ownership market.[15] Seeking to appeal to these markets, manufacturers have integrated newer vehicles with heightened multi-layered security that is intended to make remote access more difficult.[16] Even so, this past April, a hacker known as L&M was still able to hack around 27,000 accounts of commercial fleets in India and the Philippines and shut down the engines of vehicles moving less than 12 miles per hour.[17]

[4]       This raises the particularly pointed issue of liability when it concerns driverless vehicles that are hacked when an injury occurs. Traditionally, accident liability falls upon the driver,[18] and it is generally understood that criminal and civil liability arises when a hacker takes control of a vehicle that ultimately injures someone.[19] But, what about when there is no driver and the hacker cannot be located? The question, then, is whether liability should fall to the car manufacturer on the basis of product liability for failing to adequately protect against the possibility of remote tampering, to the software developer similarly for failing to provide sufficient cybersecurity, or to the insurance of the owner/company whose vehicle was hacked.[20] Unfortunately, as fully autonomous cars have not yet gained a significant foothold in the U.S. (rollouts are not expected until 2020),[21] there has not yet been cause to explore the issue, and, to date, we are left with little guidance. With the current framework, however, it seems likely that if/when the first cases arise, a new area of law will need to develop rapidly in order to keep up.

[1] See Andy Greenberg, Hackers Remotely Kill a Jeep on the Highway — With Me in It, Wired.com (Jul. 21, 2015, 6:00 AM), https://www.wired.com/2015/07/hackers-remotely-kill-jeep-highway/ [https://perma.cc/2VLH-73W3].

[2] See id.

[3] See id.

[4] See id.

[5] See id.

[6] See Scott L. Wenzel, Not Even Remotely Liable: Smart Car Hacking Liability, Ill. J.L. Tech. & Pol’y, no. 1, 2017, at 49, 55.

[7] See id. at 54.

[8] See Who Is Liable When Your Car Gets Hacked?, Botto Gilbert Lancaster Att’y at Law: Car Accidents Blog (Oct. 20, 2015)[hereinafter Botto], https://www.bgsllaw.com/mchenry-county-lawyers/your-car-gets-hacked [https://perma.cc/9AG2-2W26].

[9] S. 680, 115th Cong. (2017).

[10] See Wenzel, supra note 5, at 52.

[11] See id. at 53.

[12] See Kevin Poulsen, Hacker Disables More than 100 Cars Remotely, Wired.com (Mar. 17, 2010, 1:52 PM), https://www.wired.com/2010/03/hacker-bricks-cars/ [https://perma.cc/6L8X-JBMD].

[13] See Fredrick Kunkle, Auto Industry Says Cybersecurity Is a Significant Concern as Cars Become More Automated, The Washington Post (Apr. 30, 2019), https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2019/04/30/auto-industry-says-cybersecurity-is-significant-concern-cars-become-more-automated/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.3f2b1d5ca04a [https://perma.cc/XD6Y-Q5BL].

[14] See Lindsey O’Donnell, Chris Valasek and Charlie Miller: How to Secure Autonomous Vehicles, ThreatPost.com (Aug. 10, 2018), https://threatpost.com/chris-valasek-and-charlie-miller-how-to-secure-autonomous-vehicles/134937/ [https://perma.cc/HF6H-B4U9].

[15] See id.

[16] See  Kunkle, supra note 13.

[17] See id.

[18] See Christopher Coble, If Your Car Gets Hacked, Are You Liable for a Crash?, FindLaw.com (Aug. 24, 2015), https://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2015/08/if-your-car-gets-hacked-are-you-liable-for-a-crash.html [https://perma.cc/DJ9C-STWU].

[19] See Bradley Thayer, Car Hacking Legislation and Product Liability, Wash. Or. Law. (Sept. 24, 2015), https://www.washingtonoregonlawyers.com/news/car-hacking-legislation [https://perma.cc/Z6XE-5W5M]

[20] Gilbert Shar, Safety, Liability & Hacking of Self-Driving Connected Cars Are Big Worries for Americans, AutoConnectedCar.com (Oct. 3, 2017), http://www.autoconnectedcar.com/2017/10/safety-liability-hacking-of-self-driving-connected-cars-are-big-worries-for-americans/ [https://perma.cc/E7QG-KJ4M].

[21] Wayne Cohen & Nicole Schneider, Self-Driving Cars and Liability, HG.Org, https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/self-driving-cars-and-liability-39591 [https://perma.cc/3TH3-QRSP] (last visited May 8, 2019).

By: Paxton Rizzo

The Red Wolf is a individual species of wolf that used to live up and down the east coast and as far west as Texas.[1] Some have even referred to it as the all American wolf given that it is the only wolf whose habitat has only ever been within the confines of the United States.[2]  It is a unique animal with its smaller size, long legs and distinct red coloring distinguishing it from other well known canids in North America, such as Gray Wolfs and Coyotes.[3] Its long legs are especially useful for living in the shrub and marsh covered environments that are so prevalent in the south.[4]

The Red Wolf was hunted heavily over the years and in 1966 it was recognized as endangered.[5] In 1980, from the remaining population, located in Texas and Louisiana, 400 wolves were captured, and of those wolves only 14 deemed to be pureblooded wolves and were kept for breeding purposes.[6] After establishing a breeding program, a location was selected where the program would attempt to reintroduce the Red Wolf to the wild. That site was on a coastal peninsula in Eastern North Carolina at Alligator River National Park.[7] The wolves were reintroduced in 1986.[8] It was one of the first times that they attempted to reintroduce a predator that was previously declared extinct in the wild.[9] The program was initially very successful, however, today the Red Wolves in North Carolina face extinction again, but with recent scientific discoveries and helpful court rulings there may still be some hope for the future of the Red Wolf.

When the reintroduction program first started the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) had multiple specific actions that they were meant to carry out in order to promote the Red Wolf reintroduction into the wild. Those guidelines were as follows: distinguishing between problem and non-problem wolves, introduce more wolves into the wild, pup fostering, and actively attempting to manage the threat from coyotes on the viability of the Red Wolf population.[10] The agency carried out those duties faithfully for over a decade and by following those procedures the Red Wolf reached its peak wild population in 2007.[11] Unfortunately, shortly after their peak in 2007, the wild Red Wolf population began to decline. This coincided with the Agency’s discretional termination of the actions mandated in the reintroduction protocol.[12]. For these reasons and the threat to restrict the wolves to federally owned land that would not be able to support a viable population,[13] several organizations that had an interest in the Red Wolf’s recovery brought a case against the USFWS.[14] Upon review a United States District Court’s Judge Boyle found in favor of the organizations championing the Red Wolf.[15] Judge Boyles’s decision said that the USFWS had failed to comply with its own guidelines and thus their actions were arbitrary and capricious.[16] The judge’s decision has made permanent the 2016 injunction that stopped the taking of wolves without proof that they were a danger to humans, livestock, or pets.[17] This measure will protect the wolves in the wild and will encourage the USFWS to pick up their Red Wolf conservation efforts. It also has the added benefit of setting a precedent that the endangered species act protects animals even if a loud minority opposes them.[18]

Another positive development in Red Wolf conservation comes from a discovery out of Galveston Texas, where a large pack of coyote Red Wolf hybrids. The coywolves were discovered by a photographer/field biologist, who noticed the wolves in 2013.[19] He thought that there was something strange about the canines and their behavior and appearance.[20] Instead of the dusty brown that coyotes in the area usually were, these canines were red and taller than the coyotes in the area.[21] Thinking that the canines might be Red Wolves the photographer reported them to conservation researchers, who requested a sample of DNA.[22] The DNA findings showed that one of the wolves samples was seventy percent Red Wolf and the other forty percent Red Wolf.[23] Researchers believe that there may even be a coywolf descendent with 100% Red Wolf DNA.[24] Within the coywolves DNA researchers found “ghost alleles” that are lost in the captive population and the reintroduced wild populations.[25]

The discovery of Red Wolf DNA persisting in the Coyote populations from where the wolves were last seen in the wild originally is exciting and encouraging. It lets us know that the wolves found a way to keep their DNA from extinction. Natures natural preservation methods also kept genes alive that were lost in the captive breeding program. Gene diversity is important to a healthy population so this could prove helpful in the further conservation of the species in the future.

[1]Drew Kann, The government rolled back protections for red wolves, but a judge may have saved them from extinction, CNN (Nov. 6, 2018),https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/06/us/red-wolf-judge-rules-government-violated-federal-law-trnd/index.html

[2]Oliver Milman, Red wolf: The struggle to save one of the rarest animals on the earth, The Guardian(Mar 7, 2019) https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/mar/07/red-wolf-endangered-species.

[3]Milman, supra note 2.

[4]Nestbox Collective, Youtube(May 20, 2016), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLuYWZlGStA.

[5]Red Wolf Coalition v. United States Fish & Wildlife Serv., 346 F. Supp. 3d 802, 805.

[6]Id.

[7]Id.

[8]Id.

[9]Kann, Supra note 1.

[10]Red Wolf Coalition, at 813.

[11]Id. at 807.

[12]Id. at 814.

[13]Abbie Bennett, Federal government violated Endangered Species Act by ending red wolf protections, judge rules, The News & Observer(Nov. 05, 2018), https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article221163830.html

[14]Red Wolf Coalition, at 808.

[15]Id. at 815.

[16]Id. at 811, 814-815.

[17]Kann, supra note 1.

[18]Milman, supra note 2.

[19]Nick Powell, Galvaston photographer’s discovery led to a breakthrough red wolf study,Houston Chronicle, (Jan. 18, 2019) https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Galveston-photographer-s-discovery-led-to-13545686.php.

[20]Id.

[21]Id.

[22]Id.

[23]Id.

[24]David Frey, Hybrids – and maybe a full red wolf – found in former range, The Wildlife Society, (Dec. 18, 2018) https://wildlife.org/hybrids-and-maybe-a-full-red-wolf-found-in-former-range/.

[25]Liz Fuller-Wright, Red wolf DNA found in mysterious Texas canines, Princeton University, (Dec 18, 2018) https://www.princeton.edu/news/2018/12/18/red-wolf-dna-found-mysterious-texas-canines.

Image Source: https://www.untamedscience.com/biodiversity/red-wolf/

By Cam Kollar

In 2018, there were 6,515 reported breaches exposing approximately 5 billion records.[1] It seems like every other day the news is informing us that there has been another data breach. Because the same words are used over and over again, it makes it hard for any records breach to stand out in the average person’s mind. Is it bad? Yes. Do we think of ourselves actually harmed by each of those breaches? Probably not. Should that be our stance? Definitely not.

I suspect that most people when not facing a direct harm from a specified data breach has become desensitized to the impact on individual persons. Apparently, I’m not the only one with this thought in mind. This past February, Daniel J. Lohrmann wrote a blog post analyzing reports about reported data breaches in 2018.[2] He believes, in his expert opinion, that we have become numb to data breaches, and that the reports and headlines are getting less and less meaningful attention from the public.[3] So, who is Daniel J. Lohrmann, and why should it matter what he thinks? Daniel J. Lohrmann is an internationally recognized cybersecurity leader, technologist, keynote speaker, and author.[4] More telling of why he is an internationally recognized expert is the breadth of his experience. He has over 30 years of experience in the computer industry, working at federal, state, and local government agencies, defense contractors, public and private sectors, Fortune 500 companies, small businesses, and nonprofit institutions.[5] This expert has the experience to analyze the data breach reports from a wide variety of perspectives, and because of all this, I do not take his perspective lightly.

These breaches have the ability to affect most of us, in significant ways- such as identity theft and/or identity fraud. In 2016, 31.7% of breach victims later experienced identity fraud.[6] According to TrueIdentity[7], identity theft is the criminal act of stealing personal, private, or financial information with the intent to use that information to assume another person’s identity.[8] On the other hand, identity fraud is the use of the stolen information listed in identity theft, above.[9] In 2018, it is estimated that 65% of data breach incidents involved identity theft.[10]

Because data breaches are a significant problem, all 50 states along with Washington D.C., Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands, all have legislation that requires disclosure of security breaches.[11] The statutes define what constitutes a breach, what meets the definition of personal information, as well as who, how, and by when persons need to be notified of the breach. There are a number of different pieces of information that would qualify as personal information beyond what people consider the most sensitive (ie the most sensitive-social security number, bank account numbers, passport numbers). For instance, in Delaware, personal information is defined as a resident’s first name or first initial and last name when combined with another data elements that relates to that individual such as…a username or email address, in combination with a password or security question and answer that would permit access to an online account.[12] Substitute notice is allowed, when there is insufficient contact information to provide notice, consists of all of the following: electronic notice if email addresses are known, conspicuous posting of the notice on a website page if the breached entity maintains one or more website pages, and notice to major statewide media, including newspapers, radio, and television and the publication on the major social media platforms of the entity providing notice.[13]

On Thursday, April 19, 2019 Americans waited impatiently for the heavily redacted Mueller report to be released. The Mueller report was the primary focus of everyone’s attention in the highly anticipated release of the report that was two years in the making.[14] Where everyone’s attention was not, was on a notification by Facebook that millions of Instagram users’ passwords were compromised in a data security lapse.[15] More specifically, on a one lined update in the middle of blog post reporting a data breach back in March.[16] On March 21, 2019, Facebook had made the announcement that during a routine security review in January, it was discovered that user passwords were being stored in a readable format within internal data storage systems.[17] On Mueller day, Facebook provided notice that in this same breach (that had already affected “hundreds of millions” Facebook lite users and “tens of millions of other Facebook users”) that “millions” of Instagram users were now also affected by the security lapse.[18]

Was this sufficient notice? The update was neither conspicuous, nor was it widely reported to statewide media. After reading about this update I can’t help but go back and think about information contained in Daniel J. Lohrmann’s blog. 65% of data breaches involved identity theft[19] and social media incidents account for over 76% of records breached.[20] How much risk are we undertaking by using social media?

[1]Dan Lohrmann, Data Breaches: What do the Numbers Mean?, Lohrmann on Cybersecurity & Infrastructure(Feb. 17, 2019), https://www.govtech.com/blogs/lohrmann-on-cybersecurity/data-breaches-what-do-the-numbers-mean.html.

[2]Id.

[3]Id.

[4]Dan Lohrmann, Chief Security Officer & Chief Strategist at Security Mentor Inc., Government Technology, https://www.govtech.com/authors/MT-Author-GT-Dan-Lohrmann.html (last visited Apr. 22, 2019).

[5]Id.

[6]See Matt Tatham, Research: Identity Theft Statistics, Experian(Mar. 7, 2019), https://www.experian.com/blogs/ask-experian/identity-theft-statistics/.

[7]A subsidiary of TransUnion.

[8]See Identity Theft vs. Identity Fraud: What’s the Difference?, TrueIdentity, https://www.trueidentity.com/identity-theft-resource/identity-theft-vs-identity-fraud (last visited Apr. 22, 2019).

[9]See id.

[10]See Lohrmann, supra note 1.

[11]SeeSecurity Breach Notification Laws, NCSL (Sept. 29, 2018), http://www.ncsl.org/research/telecommunications-and-information-technology/security-breach-notification-laws.aspx.

[12]See Del. Code Ann. tit. 6, § 12B-101 (7) (2018).

[13]See Del. Code Ann. tit. 6, § 12B-101 (5)(d) (2018).

[14]E.g. Mike Levine, The Russia probe: a Timeline from Moscow to Mueller, ABC, (Apr. 17, 2019, 5:02 PM ET), https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/russia-probe-timeline-moscow-mueller/story?id=57427441.

[15]See Ethan Baron, Facebook, on Mueller Day, Drops Bad Instagram News in a Month-Old Blog Post, The Denver Post(Apr. 19, 2019, 8:11 am), https://www.denverpost.com/2019/04/19/instagram-passwords-compromised-facebook/.

[16]E.g. Pedro Canahuati, Keeping Passwords Secure, Facebook Newsroom(Mar. 21, 2019), https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2019/03/keeping-passwords-secure/; Dunja Djudjic, Facebook Confirms That a Recent Password Leak Affected Millions of Instagram Users, DIY Photography(Apr. 21, 2019), https://www.diyphotography.net/facebook-confirms-that-a-recent-password-leak-affected-millions-of-instagram-users/.

[17]See Pedro Canahuati, Keeping Passwords Secure, Facebook Newsroom(Mar. 21, 2019), https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2019/03/keeping-passwords-secure/.

[18]See e.g.Dunja Djudjic, Facebook Confirms That a Recent Password Leak Affected Millions of Instagram Users, DIY Photography(Apr. 21, 2019), https://www.diyphotography.net/facebook-confirms-that-a-recent-password-leak-affected-millions-of-instagram-users/.

[19]See Lohrmann, supra note 10.

[20]See id.

Image Source: https://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/feature/2320371/2013-was-a-very-hacked-year

By: Jonathan Walter

Political speech and social media go hand in hand. Your uncle might post his opinions on Facebook or a friend from college might tweet about the latest Supreme Court ruling. The President is constantly tweeting, and many government agencies now have Facebook pages.

Despite the prevalence of political discussions taking place on social media, the number of cases the Supreme Court has heard related to social media are few and far between, and the subject matter of these cases has been even more limited. However, this is beginning to change. Although very little has been litigated in regard to political speech on social media, a number of important cases have started to make their way through the lower courts.

One major ruling came out of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, which ruled that President Trump could not “block” a person from his Twitter account in part because certain portions of the President’s account could be considered a designated public forum.[1] In reaching this conclusion, the court found that the President’s tweets could not be considered a traditional public forum because of a lack of “historical practice of the interactive space of a tweet being used for public speech and debate since time immemorial, for there is simply no extended historical practice as to the medium of Twitter.”[2]

On March 26th, the case was argued on appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, and it seems like once again, the argument that President Trump’s actions violated the First Amendment will win the day.[3] During the trial, one judge took note of the 4th Circuit holding that politicians cannot ban critics from social media pages used for official purposes, while another judge stated that she believed the President’s once private Twitter account had become a “‘robust’ forum for national debate.”[4]

In the case out of the 4th Circuit, Davison v. Randall, the Court neglected to make a determination about whether or not the Facebook page in question constituted a traditional public forum or designated public forum.[5] However, Davison does answer another important question. The court in this case addresses the paradox of having a public forum exist within a privately-owned website by drawing an analogy between the Chair of the Loudon County Board of Supervisors’ Facebook page and a privately-operated public access television channel.[6]

These rulings are significant not only because of the implications they could have for how elected officials can interact with the general public on social media, but also the impact they may have on other First Amendment cases going forward. The idea that President Trump’s once personal, private Twitter account has become a “robust” forum for national debate is an interesting one because many other social media pages take on similar characteristics. What about the Facebook pages of government agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency or National Parks Services? These pages have never been private, so they would probably be considered designated public fora as well. How about an ad placed by a political campaign? These posts are not government run but are under some degree of government control. It has taken a while for the law to catch up to the technology, but now that it is, some major changes are to be expected.

[1]See Knight First Amendment Inst. at Columbia Univ. v. Trump, 302 F. Supp.3d 541 (S.D.N.Y. 2018).

[2]Id. at 574.

[3]See Pete Brush, Trump Bid to Block Twitter Critics Looks DOA in 2nd Cir, Law360(Mar. 26, 2019), https://www.law360.com/cybersecurity-privacy/articles/1142939/trump-bid-to-block-twitter-critics-looks-doa-in-2nd-circ-.

[4]Id.

[5]SeeDavison v. Randall, 912 F.3d 666, 687 (4th Cir. 2019).

[6]See id. at 684.

Image Source: https://media2.fdncms.com/stranger/imager/u/original/26096926/1524686855-kanye_trump.png

By: Tevin Bowens

Boeing is the world’s largest aerospace company that leads in the manufacture of commercial airplanes.[1] With its corporate offices in Chicago,[2] Boeing is America’s biggest manufacturing exporter.[3] Originally called Pacific Aero Products Company, the Boeing Company was founded by William Edward Boeing on July 15th, 1916.[4] Back then, the company’s focus was developing an aircraft for both military and mail delivery purposes.

Today, Boeing’s fleet contains defense, commercial, and space security aircraft.[5] When it comes to commercial airplanes, Boeing has been one of the premier manufacturers of commercial jetliners.[6] Boeing currently manufactures nine different families of jetliners making up more than ten-thousand Boeing-built commercial jetliners.[7] Of these nine families of jetliners, one in particular has recently landed Boeing in a bit of hot water.

Boeing’s 737 Max series was created in response to Airbus’ new A320neo series.[8] The 737 is Boeing’s only narrow body airline in production.[9] While there are many variations to the 737 (-700, -800, -900er, and the Max), they are all essentially the same plane from a pilot’s standpoint—a pilot taught how to fly one can fly them all.[10] With a hefty average price tag of $92.2-124.7 million and 3,900 orders since 2016, the 737 Max is Boeing’s fastest-selling aircraft.[11] The very first 737 Max 8 aircraft was delivered May 6, 2017 to Malindo Air.[12]

In the last year, less than five months apart, Boeing’s 737 Max was involved in two fatal plane crashes killing all crew and passengers onboard. The first of the two accidents involved Lion Air Flight 610, which took off from Indonesia on October 29, 2018 and crashed in the Java Sea only twelve minutes later. The second accident involved Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302, which took off from Ethiopia and crashed near the town of Bishoftu around six minutes after takeoff. After reviewing crash data it has been determined that the cause of both incidents might have been the same issue.

So what exactly caused both of these planes to crash so shortly after taking off? The answer is the 737 Max’s Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System or M.C.A.S. for short.[13] This system is an anti-stall measure. An aircraft stalls when its angle of attack (front of the plane) is too high causing the plane to lose lift.[14] When a plane loses too much lift it will fall out of the sky. Even though this system was the cause of both crashes, it was not malfunctioning. The issue in both crashes was that one of the angle of attack sensors located on the front of the plane gave an incorrect reading.[15] The sensor was detecting that the plane’s nose was too high even though it was not.[16] This reading triggered the rear M.C.A.S. forcing the plane’s nose down.[17] The pilots in both instances unknowingly fought against this system and tried to manually pull the nose of the plane up, but the M.C.A.S. is programmed to override manual inputs at ten second intervals. This led to the commercial airliners going up and down until they eventually crashed.

Looking to the future, these crashes will result in lawsuits. Each of these lawsuits will likely come from three different groups of individuals: employees of Boeing, commercial airline companies, and the families of those who lost their lives. The first of the three types of lawsuits Boeing will face will be in the form of loss of 401k benefits—these suits will come from employees of Boeing. Claimants claim that insiders knew of problems with the 737 Max series, but failed to take action which resulted in major losses to retirement savings in the form of $65 drop in stock price following the crash.[18] The second type of lawsuit will come in the form lost revenue lawsuits from commercial airliners. This is because after the second crash many countries including the U.S. decided to ground the aircraft nationwide. With fifty to seventy-five aircraft delivered in 2017 and more than five hundred delivered in 2018, many airline companies will be forced to switch aircrafts, change routes, or cancel fares altogether. These companies likely will pass this cost onto Boeing in the form of lawsuits.[19] The final type of lawsuit likely will come in the form of negligence suits from the families. The families of the victim likely will argue that Boeing was on notice after the initial crash, but did nothing to fix the harm.[20]

As of March 12, 2019, Boeing remained adamant the Max series was safe,[21] but after parts of the reports from the second crash were published Boeing announced it would take any and all needed safety measures regarding the 737 Max.[22]

[1] Boeing, https://www.boeing.com/company/ (last visited April 1, 2019).

[2] Boeing, http://www.boeing.com/company/general-info/ (last visited April 1, 2019).

[3] Boeing, https://www.boeing.com/company/ (last visited April 1, 2019).

[4] Aerotime Team, History of Boeing: Pioneering Aviation for 100 Years, Aerotime News Hub (July 11, 2016), https://www.aerotime.aero/aerotime.team/12736-boeing-100-years-history.

[5] Boeing, http://www.boeing.com/company/general-info/ (last visited April 1, 2019).

[6] Id.

[7] Id.

[8] Matthew Yglesias, The Emerging 737 Max Scandal, Explained, Vox March 29, 2019, https://www.vox.com/business-and-finance/2019/3/29/18281270/737-max-faa-scandal-explained.

[9] Viasat, http://blog.arconics.com/blog2/boeing-737-max-top-10-facts (last visited April 1, 2019).

[10] Matthew Yglesias, The Emerging 737 Max Scandal, Explained, Vox March 29, 2019, https://www.vox.com/business-and-finance/2019/3/29/18281270/737-max-faa-scandal-explained.

[11] Viasat, http://blog.arconics.com/blog2/boeing-737-max-top-10-facts (last visited April 1, 2019).

[12] Stephen Trimble, Boeing Delivers First 737 Max, Flight Global (May 16, 2017), https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-delivers-first-737-max-437289/.

[13] Jon Ostrower, What is the Boeing 737 Max Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System?, The Air Current (November 13, 2018), https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-safety/what-is-the-boeing-737-max-maneuvering-characteristics-augmentation-system-mcas-jt610/.

[14] Sarina Houstin, Aircraft Stall and How to Prevent It, The Balance Careers (February 5, 2019), https://www.thebalancecareers.com/what-is-an-aircraft-stall-282603.

[15] Grondahl, Mccann, Glanz, Migliozzi, and Syam, In 12 Minutes Everything Went Wrong: How the Pilots of Lion Air Flight 610 Lost Control, The New York Times (December 26, 2018), https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/12/26/world/asia/lion-air-crash-12-minutes.html.

[16] Id.

[17] Id.

[18] Jacklyn Wille, Boeing Hit With 401(k) Suit Over 737 Max Crashes, Stock Drop, Bloomberg Law (April 1, 2019), https://www.bloomberglaw.com/document/X2UCH9C8000000?bna_news_filter=class-action&jcsearch=BNA%252000000169d8bfd330ab7fdabf7d100000#jcite.

[19] Chris Isidore, Norwegian Air demands Boeing compensate it for grounded 737 Max planes, CNN Business (March 13, 2019), https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/13/investing/boeing-airline-compensation/index.html.

[20] Amanda Robert, Boeing’s legal troubles over airplane grounding could just be taking off, ABA Journal (March 14, 2019), http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/boeing-may-face-more-legal-woes-after-737-max-grounding.

[21] Alyssa Cerchiai, As a Senator Calls on FAA to Ground 737 MAX, Boeing Stands by the Product, The Points Guy (March 12, 2019), https://thepointsguy.com/news/boeing-stands-by-737-max/.

[22] Agence France Presse, Boeing says will take ‘any and all’ needed safety steps after Ethiopia crash, Yahoo (April 4, 2019), https://www.yahoo.com/news/boeing-says-needed-safety-steps-ethiopia-crash-171848913.html.

By: Darden Copeland

Are you thinking about purchasing a new Apple MacBook Pro with the newest Touch Bar technology? Are you in law school?  If you answered yes to both of these questions, you might want to think again about which of Apple’s machines you want to purchase, depending on your jurisdiction.

Many state bar associations have decided to ban or restrict the use of Apple’s latest and greatest MacBook Pro equipped with the “revolutionary” Touch Bar for fear of bar examinees using the Touch Bar to cheat.[1] Some states are banning the use of laptops with the Touch Bar altogether, while some other states are merely requiring that the feature be turned off during testing.[2]

In October of 2017, Apple unveiled its newest generation of the MacBook Pro notebook computer with multiple options available, including several options with the new Touch Bar.[3]  Located just above the number keys where the traditional function buttons (F1,F2,F3…) would normally be located, the Touch Bar is a 2170 by 60 pixel OLED display touch screen with Retina resolution, optimized for users’ viewing at a 45 degree angle.[4]  The Touch Bar replaces the standard function keys with an with various shortcuts and functions depending on which app is being used on the MacBook Pro.[5]  For example, when using a word processor such as Microsoft Word is being used, the bold, italic, and underline functions to name a few, show up on the Touch Bar, but when browsing the web on Safari, the Touch Bar allows the user to simply touch or swipe to navigate between open tabs.  When typing in most apps, the Touch Bar uses the same wordsmithing technology that the iPhone Messages app uses to guess the words the user is trying to say based upon keyboard input for faster typing.

So why are states banning this ironically named technology for bar examinees?  Examsoft, one of the testing software programs used to administer the bar exam in some states provided that, “by default, the Touch Bar will show predictive text depending on what the student is typing, compromising exam integrity.”[6]  This concern is rooted within the fact that predictive text relevant to the words being typed on the test could be added ahead of examinees’ test date simply by way of the Touch Bar’s software picking up on frequently typed words during studying, or by savvy examinees finding other ways to tamper with the software to input helpful terms.[7]  Some states have offered less explanation when banning MacBook computers with Touch Bars. For example, Colorado banned them citing that the feature is not compatible with the security features of the exam software.[8]

It’s not all bad news for those of you who opted for the high-end Touch Bar option on your new MacBook Pro.  According to Computer Services Coordinator Kim Edwards from the University of Richmond School of Law: in Virginia, the Exam4 software that is used to administer the bar exam initially banned all laptops with the Touch Bar technology for the February 2018 test because the Touch Bar was released after the exam software was written, so Exam4 didn’t have a chance to vet the new hardware and adjust its software effectively.  Now that Exam4 has been able to write software that comports with the Touch Bar, allowing it to be disabled, test takers are able to use their MacBooks with Touch Bars on the Virginia bar exam, after it is temporarily disabled by the Exam4 software.[9]  North Carolina will also allow Mac users with the Touch Bar to use their computers during the bar exam, provided that the feature is disabled.[10]  It is likely that those states that have banned the Touch Bar computers will follow suit and use software that is compatible with it in the coming years.

[1]See Don Reisinger, Apple’s Touch Bar-Enabled Macbook Pro Is Barred from Bar Exams, Fortune(Jan. 31, 2017), http://fortune.com/2017/01/31/apple-macbook-pro-bar-exam/; see also Andrew Dalton, Macbook pro Touch Bar Banned from Multiple State Bar Exams, Engadget(Jan. 30, 2017) https://www.engadget.com/2017/01/30/macbook-pro-touch-bar-banned-from-multiple-state-bar-exams/.

[2]See Kelly 846, Feb Bar Exam: No Macbook Pro with Touch Bar Function, Bar Exam Wizard  (Jan. 28, 2017)  https://barexamwizard.wordpress.com/2017/01/28/feb-bar-exam-no-macbook-pro-with-touch-bar-function/.

[3]See Don Reisinger, Apple’s Touch Bar-Enabled Macbook Pro Is Barred from Bar Exams, Fortune(Jan. 31, 2017), http://fortune.com/2017/01/31/apple-macbook-pro-bar-exam/.

[4]See Daniel Eran Dilger, Everything You Need to Know About Apple’s Touch Bar and Touch ID for Macbook Pro, Appleinsider (Nov. 15, 2016) https://appleinsider.com/articles/16/11/15/everything-you-need-to-know-about-apples-touch-bar-and-touch-id-for-macbook-pro;see also Carl Straumsheim, Touch Bar Barred From N.C. Bar Exam, Inside Higher Ed (Jan. 31, 2017) https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2017/01/31/touch-bar-barred-nc-bar-exam.

[5]See Don Reisinger, Apple’s Touch Bar-Enabled Macbook Pro Is Barred from Bar Exams, Fortune(Jan. 31, 2017), http://fortune.com/2017/01/31/apple-macbook-pro-bar-exam/.

[6]See Brian Heater, Touch Bar Macbook Pros Are Being Banned from Bar Exams Over Predictive Text, Tech Crunch (March, 2017) https://techcrunch.com/2017/01/31/no-bar-touch-bar/.

[7]See Natt Garun, Macbook Touch Bar Barred from Bar Test Takers This February, The Verge (Jan. 30, 2017) https://www.theverge.com/2017/1/30/14445638/macbook-touch-bar-disabled-law-exam.

[8]See Id.

[9]Interview with Kim Edwards, Computer Services Coordinator, University of Richmond School of Law, (Mar. 25, 2019).

[10]See Joe Patrice, Multiple Bar Exams Taking Away Computers, Above The Law (Jan. 31, 2017) https://abovethelaw.com/2017/01/multiple-bar-exams-taking-away-computers/.

Image Source: https://furrygoat.com/be-a-geek-again-80f00f89bd57

By: Mariah Bayless-Davis

In 2015, O’Bannon v. NCAA challenged whether or not NCAA’s rule that prohibits student-athletes from being compensated for the use of their names, images, and likenesses was an unlawful restraint of trade.[1] The idea of paying student-athletes has always been entertained, that is until O’Bannon became a landmark case and set the precedent in the fight to pay student-athletes. After seeing his likeness being used without consent in a popular college basketball game, Ed O’Bannon sued NCAA and the Collegiate Licensing Company, which is the company that licenses the trademarks owned by NCAA.[2] He was joined by other college athletes in his argument that upon graduation, a former student athlete should come entitled to financial compensation for future commercial use of his/her image by the NCAA.[3] This would directly affect both O’Bannon and his co-plaintiff, Sam Keller, as their likenesses were used by Electronic Arts (EA) in popular video games.[4] The Circuit Court did rule that NCAA regulations were an unlawful restraint of trade as they prohibited “every contract, combination…or conspiracy, in restraint of trade of commerce.”[5] However, the only alternative the court recommended for this unlawful restraint of trade was to allow NCAA members to give scholarships up to the full cost of attendance.[6] Although talks of paying student athletes were going on well before O’Bannon and have continued after, March Madness and events surrounding the tournament have magnified the issue.

For the first year in tournament history, Turner Sports and CBS have partnered to produce and broadcast all of the March Madness basketball games.[7] In past years, the tournament only partnered with Turner Sports for broadcasting rights, which brought in upwards of $817 million in 2017 alone.[8] Sadly, but unexpected, the college athletes playing in those games saw none of that money. The conversation concerning O’Bannon and college athletes getting paid for their likeness came up again when CBS unveiled the “Zion Cam.”[9] The camera is exactly what it sounds like: a camera dedicated exclusively to the face of college basketball, Zion Williamson. CBS hired an additional “cameraman, camera, and digital tape machine to record everything [Zion does]” in an attempt to cash in on the viewership Zion brings.[10] The “Zion Cam” would not only track Zion’s every move during the game, but also during warm ups to track his every move using the digital tape technology.[11] The type of footage and data CBS is collecting on Zion Williamson, a college athlete, calls into another issue. If this footage and data is being monetized, who is getting paid if not the athlete? Zion Cam not only gives viewers a play by play of Zion’s every move during March Madness but a closer look at the exploitative nature of the NCAA.

At this point in his short college career, Zion Williamson is a household name. Events earlier in the season served as inspiration for the Student-Athlete Equity Act, introduced by U.S. Representative Mark Walker.[12] The act calls for the amendment of Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to “prohibit qualified amateur sports organizations from prohibiting or substantially restricting the use of an athlete’s name, image, of likeness, and for other purposes.”[13] With Zion Williamson not only being the face of college basketball, but also the face of the NCAA, this act has a lot of support behind it.

[1]See O’Bannon v. NCAA, 802 F.3d 1049, 1052 (2015).

[2]Id. at 1055.

[3]Id. at 1059.

[4]See O’Bannon, supra note 1.

[5]O’Bannon, 802 F.3d at 1083.

[6]See id.

[7]See Tyler Lauletta, CBS Hired a Special Cameraman to Work the “Zion Cam” and Record Every Move the Duke Star Makes in His NCAA Tournament Run, Business Insider (Mar. 22, 2019), https://www.businessinsider.com/zion-williamson-cbs-cam-march-madness-2019-3.

[8]See Alex Kirshner, Here’s How the NCAA Generated a Billion Dollars in 2017, SB Nation (Mar. 8, 2018), https://www.sbnation.com/2018/3/8/17092300/ncaa-revenues-financial-statement-2017.

[9]See Lauletta, supra note 7.

[10]Id.

[11]See Sean Keeley, What, Exactly, is CBS Hoping to Capture with the Zion Cam Footage Anyway?(Mar. 22, 2019), https://awfulannouncing.com/ncaa/what-exactly-is-cbs-hoping-to-capture-with-the-zion-cam-footage-anyway.html.

[12]Student Athlete Equity Act of 2019, H.R., 116^thCong. (2019).

[13]Id.

Image source: https://www.outsiderclub.com/a-quick-guide-to-march-madness-money-flows/81612

By: Brandon Larrabee

With all due respect to a congressman’s efforts to get a Twitter cow to stop making fun of him[1], the most important social media legal action of the last few weeks had little to do with the actual contents of posts on the sites and more to do with housing law.

On March 29, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development filed an administrative action saying that Facebook violated fair-housing laws through the targeting of ads on the social media giant’s site.[2] That followed Facebook’s settling a group of complaints accusing the company of parceling out ads on a variety of discriminatory grounds.[3] In addition to housing, for example, the company faced allegations that it facilitated showing some job advertisements to men instead of women.[4] That led to the company announcing new policies on ad targeting, including restrictions on targeting for particular types of advertisements:

Advertisers offering housing, employment and credit opportunities will have a much smaller set of targeting categories to use in their campaigns overall. Multicultural affinity targeting will continue to be unavailable for these ads. Additionally, any detailed targeting option describing or appearing to relate to protected classes will also be unavailable.[5]

Those actions are just the latest in what seems like an onslaught of legal maneuvers probing what, exactly, Facebook and sites like it can and cannot do under the nation’s existing laws. It is also highlighting the heightened legal exposure that Facebook, Twitter, and their industry-mates could face as they become ever more integral to American life.

For example, the D.C. attorney general hit Facebook with a lawsuit over the Cambridge Analytica controversy.[6] That is not the only election-related issue facing Facebook; along with Google, the company recently paid fines over violations of Washington rules concerning campaign advertising.[7]

Twitter’s legal teams have been working to swat away lawsuits alleging it was materially supporting terrorism because groups like ISIS use the site, though those attempts have been unsuccessful so far.[8] Snapchat has battled claims that one of its filters might prompt drivers to speed.[9]

That is in addition to more widely reported issues like whether social media sites are dumping certain users for their viewpoints[10] and gobbling up users’ data despite Europe’s new privacy law.[11]

Some of this is to be expected. Back when Facebook and Twitter were simply ways to keep friends updated on life events or wry observations, social media was little more than a diversion. But now we use these sites in a variety of ways, like making recommendations[12] and buying and selling goods.[13] That brings the social media sites face(book) to face(book) with some of the same legal issues that more traditional businesses have been navigating for years.

It has also prompted some to push for a new way of regulating the companies. K. Sabeel Rahman has called for treating some tech companies like utilities, given “how the information economy has enabled private control over new online platforms increasingly vital to economic and social functioning.”[14] Whatever the label, with an ever-growing list of legal challenges, some form of regulation might become more palatable to social media companies if they keep racking up the billable hours.

[1]SeeDaniel Victor, Devin Nunes Sues Twitter for Allowing Accounts to Insult Him, N.Y. Times(Mar. 19, 2019), https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/19/us/politics/devin-nunes-twitter-lawsuit.html.

[2]SeeSara Salinas, Trump Administration Charges Facebook with ‘Discriminatory’ Housing Advertising Practices, CNBC (Mar. 29, 2019), https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/28/trump-administration-sues-facebook-over-discriminatory-advertising-practices.html.

[3]SeeLarry McShane, Red-Facebooked! Social Networking Company Settles Five Lawsuits, Pays $5M over Alleged Discrimination,N.Y. Daily News(Mar. 19, 2019 5:35 PM), https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ny-facebook-lawsuit-settlements-20190319-47hocolaazbqnots6n66hi5ppi-story.html.

[4]SeeAlexandria Fernández Campbell, Facebook Allowed Companies to Post Job Ads Only Men Could See. Now That’s Changing, Vox(Mar. 21, 2019 4:20 PM), https://www.vox.com/2019/3/21/18275746/facebook-settles-ad-discrimination-lawsuits.

[5]Sheryl Sanderg, Doing More to Protect Against Discrimination in Housing, Employment and Credit Advertising, Facebook: Newsroom(Mar. 19, 2019), https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2019/03/protecting-against-discrimination-in-ads/.

[6]SeeTony Romm, Brian Fung, Aaron C. Davis & Craig Timberg, ‘It’s About Time’: Facebook Faces First Lawsuit from U.S. Regulators After Cambridge Analytica Scandal, Wash. Post(Dec. 19, 2018), https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/12/19/dc-attorney-general-sues-facebook-over-alleged-privacy-violations-cambridge-analytica-scandal/?utm_term=.8f41a5a028f3.

[7]SeeEli Sanders, Facebook and Google Pay $455K to Settle Political Ad Lawsuits in Washington State, The Stranger: Slog(Dec. 18, 2018 12:04 PM), https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2018/12/18/37206156/facebook-and-google-pay-nearly-450000-to-settle-political-ad-lawsuits-in-washington-state.

[8]See, e.g., Fields v. Twitter, Inc., 881 F.3d 739 (9th Cir. 2018); Crosby v. Twitter, Inc., 303 F. Supp. 3d 564 (E.D. Mich. 2018).

[9]SeeEugene Volokh, Lawsuit Against Snapchat Encouraging Speeding Can Proceed, Reason: Volokh Conspiracy(June 6, 2018 8:17 PM), https://reason.com/volokh/2018/06/06/lawsuit-against-snapchat-encouraging-spe.

[10]SeeRobert Burnson, Twitter Beats Censorship Lawsuit by Banned White Nationalist, Bloomberg(Aug. 23, 2018 10:07 PM), https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-24/twitter-beats-censorship-lawsuit-by-banned-white-advocate.

[11]SeeRussell Brandom, Facebook and Google Hit with $8.8 Billion in Lawsuits on Day One of GDPR, The Verge(May 25, 2018 10:21 AM), https://www.theverge.com/2018/5/25/17393766/facebook-google-gdpr-lawsuit-max-schrems-europe.

[12]See Establish Your Reputation with Recommendations, Facebook: Business, https://www.facebook.com/business/recommendations.

[13]SeeFacebook Marketplace, https://www.facebook.com/marketplace/.

[14]K. Sabeel Rahman, The New Utilities: Private Power, Social Infrastructure, and the Revival of the Public Utility Concept, 39 Cardozo L. Rev.1621, 1668–69 (2018).