Category: Blog Posts Page 47 of 76

By: Annie Mullican

These days, it is hard to read an article or get on any form or social media or television without hearing about politics, and how terrible everything is. Every headline is a scandal or a mean quote by one public figure about another public figure. I gave up looking forward to a time when Democrats and Republicans would begin to work together years ago. But I was pleasantly surprised when I saw a news article about the PACT Act that is projected to be passed by Congress this session. The PACT Act stands for the Preventing Animal Cruelty and Torture, and it is a bill that would make animal cruelty a federal felony. Having taken an Animal Law class, I am keenly aware of the little protections that animals are afforded legally. However, I think many people both in law school and throughout the country will be most shocked by this law because they will realize that animal cruelty is actually not a federal felony. Videos depicting animal cruelty are considered a federal crime, but the underlying acts of cruelty themselves right now are not, which makes no sense. In my opinion, this law is monumental for our government in many ways right now.

The men behind this movement are two Florida congressmen: Ted Deutch (Democrat) and Vern Buchanan (Republican).^[1] These two congressmen say that they believe this law will close a large gap in our federal laws.^[2] Right now, all 50 states have laws that outlaw animal cruelty at the state level.^[3] However, if those criminals were to take animals across state lines, the original state would have no jurisdiction, and thus no power to go after those criminals.^[4] I think these two Congressmen are right – this bill will close a gaping gap in our country’s laws federal laws, and immensely aid law enforcement in catching abusers – especially those involved in animal fighting. Congressman Ted Deutch stated, “This is common sense, bipartisan legislation to bring some compassion to our animal laws.”^[5] So, if this is such a common sense law (which it is) why hasn’t it been passed already? According to these two Congressmen, in the past, the PACT Act has received unanimous support in the Senate, with over 284 bipartisan House cosponsors.^[6] In fact, the only reason the act has not passed in the past, according to these Congressmen was because House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte prevented it from coming to the floor.^[7] The Congressmen are optimistic that the bill may be passed with new Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) serving.^[8] The bill of course contains exceptions for hunting, veterinary care, or any actions to protect life or property from a serious threat from an animal.^[9]

I, too, am optimistic about this law. In a world where it feels like values and compassion have been abandoned, it is very nice to know that kindness and compassion for our furry friends is what continues to bring people together.

^[1] Proposed law could make animal cruelty a federal felony,”WECT NEWS, (Jan. 28, 2019) http://www.wect.com/2019/01/28/proposed-law-would-make-animal-cruelty-federal-felony/

^[2] Id.

^[3] Id.

^[4] Cole Higgins, “A Proposed Law will Make Animal Cruelty a Federal Felony,” CNN, (Jan. 28, 2019) https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/28/us/animal-cruelty-federal-felony-bill-trnd/index.html

^[5] Id.

^[6] Id.

^[7] Id.

^[8] Christopher Brito, “Proposed Law Would Make Animal Cruelty a Felony Across the U.S.” CBS, (Jan. 28, 2019) https://www.cbsnews.com/news/animal-cruelty-bill-re-introduced-congress-pact-vern-buchanan-ted-deutch/

^[9] Id.

By: Tevin Bowens

Have you ever heard of the term JUULing? It refers to using a JUUL e-cigarette to heat up and vaporize liquid to be inhaled through the mouth. While there are various kinds of e-cigarettes on the market, the JUUL is by far the most popular of them all.[1] The JUUL device was designed and created by James Monsees and Adam Bowen of PAX Labs who later formed JUUL Labs.[2]

The JUUL Device

A JUUL is a small hand-held device that has the outward appearance of a thumb drive and was created for the purpose of helping cigarette smokers make the transition away from cigarettes. Brandishing a $49.99 price tag for its starter pack, a JUUL device uses nicotine salts found in leaf tobacco as its core ingredient[3] and uses a closed loop temperature control algorithm designed to deliver the ideal amount of power at any given time to the JUULpod.[4] The JUULpod, located at the top of a JUUL, is a refillable pod filled with glycerol, glycol, and other ingredients.[5] The most notable of those other ingredients is nicotine. The nicotine content in a JUULpod ranges from 23mg to 40mp per pod,[6] which amounts to the amount of nicotine found in 1-2 packs of cigarettes.

JUUL’s Target Demographic

As of today, JUUL Labs asserts that JUUL was created to provide an alternative option for adults who wished to no longer smoke cigarettes and that their product is not intended for anyone else.[7] JUUL requires a minimum age requirement of thirty-five years old and a person must be a previous cigarette smoker if they wish to model in JUUL’s advertisement campaign. But this was not always JUUL’s strategy.

Back in 2015, JUUL used models as young as twenty-one years old and they also advertised heavily on social media platforms—locations known for high teenage use. The popularity of the JUUL device and its use among teens was so widespread that the topic was the primary focus of an episode of the Comedy Central show South Park.[8] This popularity amongst teens continued to rise and spread through the onset of 2018 until the Food and Drug Administration finally stepped into the picture. Initially, back in April of this year, the FDA sent a collection letter to JUUL labs seeking documents “relating to marketing practices and research on marketing, effects of product design, public health impact, and adverse experiences and complaints related to JUUL products.”[9] Five months later, the FDA conducted a surprise investigation of JUUL labs seizing documents relating to the company’s sales and marketing practice. [10] Finally, the FDA ordered that JUUL find a way to address youths having access to their devices or risk having their flavored pods banned in the country.[11] In response, JUUL Labs pulled its flavored pods out of retail stores, created an age restriction system on its website, and deleted most of their social media accounts.[12] All done in the effort to prevent youths from having access to JUUL devices.

The Future

            JUUL Labs is currently worth around $15 billion.[13] These changes are a step in the right direction, but it appears to be too little too late. There is evidence showing that this outcome may have been the intention of JUUL labs. Dating back to 2015, management for JUUL Labs was apparently aware that the devices were appealing to teenagers.[14] But nothing was done for nearly three years and even that came only after being threatened by the FDA.

The damage is already done. For nearly three years teens have been using and becoming addicted to JUUL pods. JULL’s prevention measures in place will do little in terms of stopping teenagers from procuring flavored JUUL pods. At best, the age restriction will slow teens down from getting their hands on flavored JUUL pods. Even if the FDA fined the company JUUL would still come out ahead. It is well-known that nicotine is a profitable business and JUUL just enlisted almost an entire generation of people who will buy their products for many years to come. While the FDA determines its next course of action, we are left to determine the sincerity of JUUL efforts to thwart the use of teenagers using their products.

[1] Will Yakowicz, Why Juul, the Most Popular E-Cig on the Market, Is in Trouble, Inc. (May 11, 2018), https://www.inc.com/will-yakowicz/juul-has-a-problem-its-too-cool.html.

[2] Rakesh Sharma, Which Company Is Behind Popular E-Cigarette, JUUL?, Investopedia (December 7, 2018), https://www.investopedia.com/news/which-company-behind-popular-ecigarette-juul/.

[3] Alyssa Stahr, New Product: PAX LABS Introduces E-CIGARETTE JUUL, VapeNews (June 01, 2015), https://vapenews.com/vape-news/new-product-pax-labs-introduces-e-cigarette-juul/.

[4] JUUL Support, https://support.juul.com/home/learn/faqs/juulpod-basics.

[5] Id.

[6] Id.

[7] Korin Miller, What Is Juuling And Is It Really That Bad For Your Health?, Women’s Health (September 12, 2018), https://www.womenshealthmag.com/health/a18377132/juuling/.

[8] David Hookstead, the new ‘south park’ episode will cover vaping. Check out the hilarious preview here, The Daily Caller (October 17, 2018), https://dailycaller.com/2018/10/17/south-park-vaping-tegridy-farms-preview-video/.

[9] Food & Drug Administration, JUUL Document Collection Letter, https://www.fda.gov/downloads/tobaccoproducts/labeling/rulesregulationsguidance/ucm605490.pdf.

[10] Jen Christensen, FDA seizes thousands of documents from e-cigarette maker Juul, CNN Health (October 2, 2018), https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/02/health/fda-juul-e-cigarette-surprise-inspection-bn/index.html.

[11] Anna Edney, FDA Threatens to Pull E-Cigarettes to Fight the Rise of Kids Vaping, Bloomberg (September 12, 2018), https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-12/fda-threatens-to-pull-e-cigarettes-to-fight-rise-of-youth-vaping.

[12] ABC Chicago, Juul to eliminate social media accounts, stop retail sales of flavors, abc7 Chicago (November 13, 2018), https://abc7chicago.com/health/juul-to-eliminate-social-media-accounts-stop-retail-sales-of-flavors/4681584/.

[13] Olivia Zaleski, E-Cigarette Maker Juul Labs Is Raising $1.2 Billion, Bloomberg (June 29, 2018), https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-29/e-cigarette-maker-juul-labs-is-raising-1-2-billion.

[14] Matt Richtel and Sheila Kaplan, Did Juul Lure Teenagers and Get ‘Customers for Life’?, NYTimes (August 27, 2018), https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/27/science/juul-vaping-teen-marketing.html.

By: Tevin Bowens

When it comes to the gig economy—specifically transportation network companies (TNCs) such as Uber and Lyft—uncertainty in legislation is one of their toughest problems to overcome. Today, forty-nine states in the U.S. have some form of state-wide legislation regarding TNCs.[1] There are a handful of states that focused only on creating insurance requirements. The biggest group of states sought to clarify the laws in their state in an attempt to help TNCs by allowing them to effectively plan for the future. However, two states—California and New York—are taking the “quality over quantity” approach thinking such an approach will benefit all parties involved, but in reality their approach does more harm than good.

The California Approach: The ABC Test

The California Supreme Court issued the new ABC test[2] in an attempt to make it easier for employers to label their workers properly as employees or independent contractors.[3] This ruling comes in response to countless wrongful employment classification suits against TNCs in the state. The rationale being that if more people are properly classified as employees it will allow for more benefits such as minimum wage and overtime that ultimately improve living conditions for drivers in the state.

The unfortunate truth is that the law makes the future an uncertain one for TNCs by making it hard to accurately pinpoint who should be labelled as a cheaper work-for-hire independent contractor or a benefits-entitled employee. The ABC test opens TNCs up to lawsuits that will oftentimes end with expensive settlements.[4] Some TNCs, such as Uber, respond by offering the lowest possible wages,[5] give less incentives,[6] and raise customer prices without paying the drivers any of it.[7]

The New York Approach: Driver Cap & Minimum Wage Floor

Earlier this year New York’s city council passed a number of “for-hire vehicle” legislation.[8] However, the two that have the most impact on TNCs are Int. No. 890-B[9] and Int. No. 144-B.[10] Together these two laws are meant to increase the minimum fare per ride, minimum wage, and an unprecedented cap to the amount of TNC drivers to be authorized each year. These laws come in response to public outcry regarding poor driver treatment and the congestion of New York’s streets by drivers of TNCs. New York hopes that with higher pay and less traffic everyone will be happy.

Similar to California’s approach, New York creates an uncertain future. The only difference from California is that the uncertainty, in New York, will be felt primarily by the drivers and customers of TNCs. The discussion for increase in pay is no different than the previous one for California’s approach. What is new is New York’s novel attempt at limiting the amount of TNC drivers on the roads. The simple truth is that there was traffic before Uber and Lyft and there will be traffic afterwards as well.[11] Uber has already made the warning that less drivers will only lead to longer waits and higher prices, which will not pass onto their drivers.[12]

California or New York Approach: Who Wins?

Short answer is that nobody actually wins, but larger TNCs such as Lyft and Uber will walk away the least harmed. Both approaches have the legislatures attempting to make the hard decisions for the TNCs. In California, lawmakers are trying to force benefits on drivers for TNCs. In New York, lawmakers will tell TNCs how much to pay their drivers and how many drivers they can hire. Both sides created these laws adding a level of uncertainty to TNCs, the drivers, and even the customers, but ultimately, they fail to realize the ineffectiveness of this approach.

TNCs will always have the final say when it comes to legislation such as New York and California’s. TNCs can penny pinch at the driver and customer’s expense or they can make the decision to leave the jurisdiction altogether. Either way, it’s the drivers and customers who are taking the biggest blow.

[1]Rachel Monahan, Bill to Legalize Uber Across Oregon Dies in Legislative Committee, Willamette Week, (April 17, 2017), https://www.wweek.com/news/state/2017/04/17/bill-to-legalize-uber-across-oregon-dies-in-legislative-committee/.

[2]The three factors that make up the ABC test are as follows: A) that the worker is free from the control and direction of the hirer in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of such work and in fact; (B) that the worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business; and (C) that the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work performed for the hiring entity.

[3]Dynamex Operations W. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal. 5th 903.

[4]Heather Somerville, Judge approves $27 million driver settlement in Lyft lawsuit, Reuters, (March 16, 2017), https://www.reuters.com/article/us-lyft-drivers-idUSKBN16N30D.

[5] Rani Mola, Uber drivers and other gig economy workers are earning half what they did five years ago, Recode (September 24, 2018), https://www.recode.net/2018/9/24/17884608/uber-driver-gig-economy-money-pay-lyft-postmates.

[6]Christian Perea, Everyone Is Upset About New Surge and Prime Time. Should They Be?, The Rideshare Guy (June 6, 2018), https://therideshareguy.com/everyone-is-upset-about-new-surge-and-prime-time-should-they-be/.

[7]JC, Uber Raising Prices – But Drivers Won’t Benefit, Ridester (November 10, 2018), https://www.ridester.com/uber-raising-prices/.

[8]Mayor de Blasio Signs For-Hire Vehicles Legislation, New York City Gov, (August 14, 2018), https://www1.nyc.gov/office-of-the-mayor/news/409-18/mayor-de-blasio-signs-for-hire-vehicles-legislation.

[9]The New York City Council, INT 0890-2018 Introduction, https://legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3487613&GUID=E47BF280-2CAC-45AE-800F-ED5BE846EFF4.

[10]The New York City Council, INT 0144-2018 Introduction, https://legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3331789&GUID=6647E630-2992-461F-B3E3-F5103DED0653.

[11]Allssa Walker, NYC’s Uber cap won’t solve the city’s traffic problem, Curbed New York, (August 9, 2018), https://ny.curbed.com/2018/8/9/17671300/nyc-uber-lyft-regulation-traffic-congestion-pricing.

[12]Emma G. Fitzimmons, Uber Hit With Cap as New York City Takes Lead in Crackdown, The New York Times, (August 8, 2018), https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/08/nyregion/uber-vote-city-council-cap.html.

By: Darden Copeland

When you tap “post” on Instagram, you are “capturing and sharing the worlds moments,”[1] as their slogan cleverly states, but with whom are you sharing these moments? It may seem like you’re merely sharing your photographs that you snapped while on vacation, for example, with those on your friends list, also known as your “followers,” but it doesn’t stop there.  With over one billion users worldwide, Instagram is one of the most popular forms of social media; is this massive pool of users the extent of who can see what you’ve posted?  Unfortunately, no.  Several seemingly innocuous provisions of Instagram’s Terms of Use allow your photographs to be shared with virtually anyone in the world.[2]

The governing document for using Instagram is its Terms of Use.  As somewhat of a “gatekeeper,” the Terms of Use must be accepted in order to use the app, so Instagram’s one billion daily users have already assented to its terms.  Unsurprisingly, 97% of Instagram’s target market was found to click “agree” to terms of use agreements before reading a single word[3]—so what you’re about to read may (and probably will) be news to you.

Though its terms provide that Instagram does not claim ownership of your posted photos, it claims the next best thing.  By posting on Instagram, you, “grant to Instagram a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, transferrable, sub-licensable, worldwide license to host, use, distribute, modify, run, copy, publicly perform or display, translate, and create derivative works of your content.”[4]  That’s one hefty license.  In essence, with the tap of your thumb, you give Instagram the right to use, disseminate, and even modify any of your posted photos for free and for any reason.[5] Does this mean that you could be strolling along Times Square and see a large, blown-up picture of yourself that you once posted as a neat portrait for your followers to see—but this time with a massive mustache for the people of New York City to see?  Yep, it does. Scary, right?

Another section of Instagram’s terms poses a less concerning, yet potentially more damaging concern.  What happens if you were to post something such as a pretty mountain scene that you found somewhere on the internet?  Seems like an innocent—at most disingenuous—way of gaining the likes of your followers, but this move could cost you way more than just a frowning follower or two.  Instagram’s Terms of Use provide that when you post something, you certify that it is in fact yours, so that when you grant them their exceedingly broad license, they can use what you post without worry of infringing on someone else’s intellectual property rights.[6]  The terms further provide that, “you agree to pay for all royalties, fees, and any other monies owed by reason of content you post.”[7]  This means if you were to do something as seemingly innocent as save a pretty photo that’s not your own and post it for your followers to see, you could face a myriad of debts and financial repercussions from, once again, tapping your thumb on that post button.

While all of this does sound bleak, there is a silver lining for Instagram users. The scary prospect of photos meant for several hundred finding their way before the eyes of literally everyone in the world is probably an unlikely scenario.  Instagram is not likely to exploit its license that you granted it by blissfully clicking “accept” because it would deal a damaging blow to its reputation, and among other things it would cultivate a sense of weariness amid the social media platform’s users.[8]

This of course doesn’t mean Instagram can’t share your posts, though, so in order to post with utmost caution, Instagram users should make their profiles “private.”  Instagram notes in its Terms of Use that all of its licensure language is subject to the user’s own Privacy Policy, meaning that publicly shared photos will only come from profiles that are set to public.[9]  But, the categorization of public and private profiles is merely a construct within the Instagram platform itself, so at any moment that dichotomy could dissolve, dumping all one billion users into the public pool of possible worldwide sharing.  Next time you want to “share the world’s moments,”[10] remember that you might just be sharing them with the whole world.

[1]See Instagram Logo and Tagline, Logo and Taglines, (https://www.logotaglines.com/instagram-logo-tagline/).

[2]See Nerushka Bowen, Who Owns Your Instagram Content, Social Media Law Bulletin, (Jan. 28, 2015), https://www.socialmedialawbulletin.com/2015/01/who-owns-your-instagram-content/.

[3]See Caroline Cakebread, You’re Not Alone, No One Reads Terms of Service Agreements, Business Insider, Nov. 15, 2017, https://www.businessinsider.com/deloitte-study-91-percent-agree-terms-of-service-without-reading-2017-11(presenting survey results of individuals aged 18-34).

[4]Terms of Use, Instagram, https://help.instagram.com/581066165581870(last visited Dec. 6, 2018); see also Instagram and Copyright – What Are the Terms of Use?, Copyrightlaws.com (Dec. 11, 2017), https://www.copyrightlaws.com/instagram-content-copyright/.

[5]See Bowen, Who Owns Your Instagram Content, Social Media Law Bulletin, (Jan. 28, 2015).

[6]See Terms of Use, Instagram, (last visited Dec. 6, 2018); see also Instagram and Copyright – What Are the Terms of Use?, Copyrightlaws.com (Dec. 11, 2017).

[7]Id.

[8]See, e.g. Mike Isaac and Sheera Frenkel, Facebook Security Breach Exposes Accounts of 50 Million Users, The New York Times, (Sept. 28, 2018), https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/28/technology/facebook-hack-data-breach.html(explaining that Facebook’s data breach hurt the website’s reputation).

[9]See Terms of Use, Instagram, (last visited Dec. 6, 2018); see also Instagram and Copyright – What Are the Terms of Use?, Copyrightlaws.com (Dec. 11, 2017).

[10]See Instagram Logo and Tagline, Logo and Taglines.

Image Source: https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT0blVcq0YN6pFe20bCTt44aTdulzefMtxroDO9xwMsJrwiPJP-

By: Nicholas Gamotis

Stopping for coffee at McDonalds I was surprised to find touch screens installed. I thought that the touch screens would simplify getting my order, making it much quicker and smoother. I had expectations from using similar systems at Sheetz and Wawa where the touch screen ordering system is simple and intuitive to use. At McDonalds ordering a coffee with cream turned out to be less than intuitive. The screen was massive, and there were too many categories to choose from, and once I had my item ordered the option to pay was not readily available. After finally completing my order and paying for it, I waited. I watched as my order was pushed aside and not filled until the manager began hounding the kitchen to fill the coffee order.

My experience at McDonalds was reminiscent of dealing with the DMV trying to register a newly purchased car while I was in the military. After quickly looking up the phone number for customer service I was sent to the website. From the website I was directed to a customer portal that was inoperative. I spent almost an hour searching the form database for the appropriate form to fill out, and finally found a registration form but no way to submit it. I broke down and called customer service and was put on hold for half an hour just to be told that I could not handle registering a newly purchased car online, despite the insistence of the message I endured for thirty minutes telling me that I could do anything I needed on the website.

Bad customer experiences are not limited to the DMV and new technology in our daily lives. A man in New Orleans has received multiple tickets from a speeding camera, ticketing his truck that is parked in front of his house.[1] Adding to the frustration of the citizen was the fact that citations have to be approved by two people who review the photograph before authorizing the citation.[2] After repeated complaints by the citizen the city sent a contractor to reposition the camera to not capture parked cars, which fixed the problem for a while, but ultimately the camera was repositioned and restarted the problem for the citizen.[3]

What did these experiences have in common? These situations can be distilled down to replacing human interaction with automation. All of the situations were poorly implemented. And all of them caused the user to spend more time dealing with them than the process they replaced. All of the problems could have been fixed with simple tweaks.

What can we take away from this? First, we can evaluate our processes when dealing with clients and the public. Are the processes in place simple? If you are getting feedback are you listening to it? Second, we can push the government at all levels to apply these same basic principles. Benefits can range from increased confidence in the government agency (in the case of traffic cameras),[4] decreased program costs, and increased customer satisfaction.

Whether implementing a new process, or revisiting an existing process, either in a firm or government agency, taking the time to make sure that the process (online or in person) is performing as it should is an opportunity to improve customer relations. As Dan Gingiss says “[i]t’s the little things that matter in customer experience, and a lot of little things can go a long way to differentiating your company’s experience from that of a competitor.”[5] By implementing simple processes that work, rather than technology for the sake of technology, the legal market and government alike can leverage technology to increase both customer confidence and satisfaction.

[1]See Jonathan Ramsey, New Orleans Resident Keeps Getting Speeding Tickets for his Parked car, Autoblog(Apr. 11, 2018), https://www.autoblog.com/2018/04/11/speed-camera-wrong-car-new-orleans-police/.

[2]Id.

[3]Id.

[4]See generally supra note 1.

[5]Dan Gingiss, How to ‘Do Simple Better’ in Your Customer Experience, Forbes(Mar. 21, 2018), https://www.forbes.com/sites/dangingiss/2018/03/21/how-to-do-simple-better-in-your-customer-experience/#706c4f307204.

Image Source: https://jalopnik.com/a-speed-camera-in-new-orleans-keeps-ticketing-this-guys-1825177553

By: Jonathan Walter

WeWork is the largest co-working company in the world.[1] The company takes on long-term leases for office space, redevelops the space, and then subleases the space for various period of time.[2] Tenants include individuals, small start-ups, established midsize businesses, and even large corporations like Microsoft. Founded in New York City in 2010, the company is now worth over $20 billion dollars.[3] On top of being the biggest office tenant in New York City, WeWork manages over 10 million square feet of space in over 144 offices across the globe.[4]

 To get an idea of just how much space WeWork manages and what that means for its valuation, it’s best to compare it to peer companies. The largest publicly traded office real estate company, Boston Properties, has a market cap of roughly $18 billion and owns about five times the square footage that WeWork does.[5] Lyft, another well-known startup, has a valuation of just over $15.1 billion dollars.[6]

In addition to real estate, WeWork has plans to branch into other business sectors as well. The company has already announced that it will be moving on to housing (WeLive), retail (WeMRKT), and education (WeGrow).[7] As the company expands, its identity changes. So, what is WeWork? Is it a technology company? Is it a real estate company? Is it both or is it something else entirely?

With this rapid growth has come a number of legal (and non-legal) issues, some of which are more common to the technology companies that WeWork considers peers than a real estate company like Boston Properties.

At the beginning of 2018, WeWork made the decision to remove beer taps from their workspaces in California.[8] This is because the company operates in a regulatory grey area and does not have a liquor license in the state.[9] While California law allows for employers to provide alcohol to employees, it is silent on whether or not co-working spaces can serve alcohol to their members and at least one attorney believes it could be problematic that the company provides access to the beer in exchange for leasing the space or paying a membership fee.[10] Although WeWork is technically a landlord, in many ways the company treats its tenants like employees. In addition to beer taps, it furnishes the office with amenities like beanbag chairs, pool tables, and Ping-Pong tables.[11] This is very different than a traditional landlord-tenant relationship and has more in common with the silicon valley start-ups who provide these amenities to their employees than a typical landlord who just leases out office space.

Despite WeWork’s efforts to differentiate itself from an office real estate company like Boston Properties, the company has still fallen into some of the same pitfalls that a more traditional real estate company would face. Most notably, it was revealed that the company owes $18 billion dollars in rent,[12] and some insiders believe that the company is still susceptible to economic downturns.[13] Despite WeWork’s unique business model, rising interest rates and a loss of customers could put the company in a difficult spot.[14] There is an argument to be made that should an economic downturn happen and WeWork becomes unable to pay its rents, the company’s size could force landlords to keep the the company afloat.[15] Additionally, WeWork’s  other ventures could provide the company with other more stable sources of revenue.

It is difficult to pin down exactly what kind of company WeWork is, but so far, the company has seemed to use that to its advantage. With its expansion in to other areas, the question may only grow more difficult to answer as the company faces new challenges.

[1]See Roland Li, WeWork Revolutionized Co-working. Now it’s Targeting Corporate Headquarters, San Francisco Chronicle, Nov. 27, 2018,https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/WeWork-revolutionized-co-working-Now-it-s-13423133.php.

[2]Id.

[3]See Eliot Brown, WeWork: A $20 Billion Startup Fueled by Silicon Valley Pixie Dust, The Wall Street Journal, Oct. 19, 2017, https://www.wsj.com/articles/wework-a-20-billion-startup-fueled-by-silicon-valley-pixie-dust-1508424483

[4]Id.

[5]Id.

[6]Id.

[7]See supra note 1.

[8]Trisha Thadani, Why WeWork Locked Up Its Beer Taps in California, San Francisco Chronicle, Feb. 16, 2018, https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Why-WeWork-locked-up-its-beer-taps-in-California-12620165.php.

[9]See id.

[10]See id.

[11]Id.

[12]Shona Ghosh, WeWork Wants to Raise $500 Million in Bond Sales. Documents Show It Owes $18 Billion in Rent and is Losing Money, Inc., Apr. 25, 2018, https://www.inc.com/business-insider/wework-raise-money-bond-sale-document-shows-owes-18-billion-rent-burning-cash-sotfbank-investment.html.

[13]See Andrew Ross Sorkin, WeWork’s Rise: How a Sublet Start-Up is Taking Over, New York Times, Nov. 13, 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/13/business/dealbook/wework-office-space-real-estate.html.

[14]See id.

[15]See id.

Image Source: http://www.new-corner.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/wework-3-1050×590.jpg

By: Brandon Larrabee

Scientist He Jiankui might have gotten more than he bargained for after claiming he had created the first gene-edited humans: the Chinese government is now saying his actions broke the law.[1] Xu Nanping, vice minister for science and technology, said He’s breakthrough — if it is confirmed, of course — “blatantly violated China’s relevant laws and regulations.”[2]

The truth is that many nations are still struggling to figure out their policies on gene editing — and those that have policies are dealing with debates over whether those regulations should be more or less stringent.[3] For example, stringent laws in Canada — where editing “germ line” cells could land someone a 10-year prison term — have come under fire from researchers.[4] A similar “crime” could bring a 15-year sentence in Australia.[5]

The United States, for its part, doesn’t ban germ line editing per se.[6] Other countries have a policy somewhere in between. The United Kingdom, for instance, allows use of gene editing techniques as long as the embryos are not maintained for more than 14 days and are not implanted.[7]

The developments could also force countries and other entities to confront arguments that have so far been largely theoretical, or at least on the very verges of science. For example, the prospect of gene-edited babies is likely to bring new focus to a recent ruling by the European Court of Justice on genetic modifications.[8] The court seemed to place techniques like CRISPR — the method used for human gene editing — under the European Union’s regulations for genetically-modified organisms.[9] (Whether humans with edited genomes would have to be labeled somehow is unclear.)

Elsewhere, laws are not as clear as they could be.[10] France, for example, bans anything that would “undermine the integrity of the human species,” but critics say the definition of “crimes against the human species” is vague.[11]

How effective any of these laws will be in the future is questionable, for two reasons. The first is that technology is changing so rapidly that laws simply might not be able to catch up.[12] The other problem is the possibility of “reproductive tourism,” where wealthy families will travel anywhere that they can get a gene-editing procedure done.[13] That has led to questions about whether the problem needs to be tackled internationally.[14]

The problem, of course, is that international law generally moves even more slowly than domestic law. And, while He Jiankui might be taking a break from engineering more gene-edited babies for now[15], the record so far indicates that science will continue plowing new ground whether or the law keeps pace.

[1]Sophia Yan, Gene-editing Babies a Violation of Chinese Law, Says Official, The Telegraph (Nov. 29, 2018, 4:57 PM), https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/11/29/gene-editing-babies-violation-chinese-law-says-official/.

[2]Id.

[3]For more on the debate in the United States, see Michael R. Dohn, Preventing an Era of “New Eugenics”: An Argument for Federal Funding and Regulation of Gene Editing Research in Human Embryos, 25 Rich. J.L. & Tech., no. 2 (forthcoming).

[4]Ben Schaub, Human Gene Editing Could Change the World — What Are the Laws Governing It in Canada, CBC, https://www.cbc.ca/natureofthings/features/gene-editing-in-canada.

[5]Christopher Gyngell & Julian Savulescu, U.K. Gene Editing Breakthrough Could Land an Aussie in Jail for 15 Years: Here’s Why Our Laws Need to Catch Up, The Conversation (Sept. 25, 2017, 11:22 PM), https://theconversation.com/uk-gene-editing-breakthrough-could-land-an-aussie-in-jail-for-15-years-heres-why-our-laws-need-to-catch-up-84590.

[6]Angela Chen, If Someone Wants to Create Gene-Edited Babies, Who Would Stop Them?, The Verge (Nov. 26, 2018, 3:00 PM), https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/26/18112970/crispr-china-babies-embryos-genetic-engineering-bioethics-policy.

[7]James Gallagher, U.K. Scientists Edit DNA of Human Embryos, BBC (Sept. 20, 2017), https://www.bbc.com/news/health-41269200.

[8]See Case C-528/16,Confédération Paysanne v. Premier Ministre, CELEX West 6016CJ0528 (July 25, 2018).

[9]See Paul Rincon, Gene Editing Is GM, Says European Court, BBC (July 25, 2018), https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-44953100.

[10]See R. Isasi et al., Editing Policy to Fit the Genome?, 351 Science 337, 338.

[11]Id.at 339.

[12]See id.at 337.

[13]See Chen, supra note 6.

[14]Id.

[15]Yan, supra note 1.

Image Source: ttps://images.newscientist.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/26122048/3000-1.jpg

By: Nicholas Gamotis

Robots are becoming increasingly advanced and lifelike, their influence is becoming increasingly pervasive in our lives, moving from science fiction to reality, and researchers continually make advances towards realistic artificial intelligence. We are seemingly accepting of the introduction of apparently benign robots in situations where they provide added convenience or efficiency to our lives. Recently, Walmart began implementing self-driving floor scrubbers which freed personnel to perform more important tasks within the store.[1] While this implementation was met with some criticism about the potential negative impact on the workforce at large, it was not met with outrage or calls for policies preventing such implementation.[2] Similarly, Robo Sushi is the first restaurant in North America to replace human wait staff with robotic servers who seat patrons and deliver food, while sushi chefs prepare patron’s meals.[3] This implementation of robots to replace human labor for such routine tasks has not been met with public outcry or legal challenges to such implementations.

However, when the services provided by the robots are not of a routine type such as those provided by Walmart’s self-driving floor scrubbers,[4] or Robo Sushi’s robotic wait staff,[5] but are instead sexual the reaction is quite different. Recently efforts by Canadian company KinkySdolls to open a try before you buy Robot Brothels in Houston, Texas, resulted in public outcry calling for a prohibition on such businesses.[6] In response to the public outcry the Houston City Council updated an ordinance to prohibit patrons from having sex with a device resembling a human at a business.[7]

The idea of robot brothels has met mixed reactions and policies around the world.[8] It appears that technology and entrepreneurs are moving faster than society and policy can keep up with. While robot brothels exist in Europe,[9] this is an issue that the United States will have to deal with. Whether Robot Brothels will take root in the United States or not will likely be determined by challenges to local ordinances, such as the one that the Houston City Council passed in response to the public outcry over the proposed business by KinkySdolls.[10]

As the technology used in these sex robots advances and legislatures try to decide how to handle this new twist on the sex trade competing interests will clash. Municipalities potentially stand to capitalize on increased tax revenue if they treat these robot brothels as a legitimate business and chose to only regulate for health and safety. Conversely, the groups that are outraged by the brothels will pressure the legislatures to ban the establishment of these robot brothels. All the while the robot brothel industry and its patrons will likely advance arguments about personal liberty, highlighting how sex with a robot should not be considered prostitution and should be legitimate legal businesses.

[1]See You’ll Never Believe Who’s Scrubbing the Floors at Walmart, Walmart 0606(Oct. 4, 2018), https://blog.walmart.com/innovation/20181004/youll-never-believe-whos-scrubbing-the-floors-at-walmart.

[2] See Mallory Locklear, Walmart is Testing a Self-Driving, Floor-Scrubbing Robot (Nov. 22, 2017), Engadget, https://www.engadget.com/2017/11/22/walmart-testing-self-driving-floor-scrubbing-robot/.

[3] See Robo Sushi North York, Facebook(Sep. 13, 2018), https://www.facebook.com/pg/robosushi.northyork/about/?ref=page_internal.

[4] See Locklear, supra note 2.

[5] See Robo Sushi North York, supra note 3.

[6] See Ciaran McGrath, First Sex Robot Brothel to Open in US: Outrage in Houston as ‘No Law Can Stop It’ (Sep. 28, 2018), Express, https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1024027/sex-robot-brothel-houston-texas-mayor-protests-petition.

[7] Joel Shannon, Proposed ‘Sex Robot Brothel’ Blocked by Houston Government: ‘We Are Not Sin City’(Oct. 4, 2018), USA Today, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/10/03/sex-robot-brothel-blocked-houston-texas/1518298002/.

[8] See e.g., Chelsea Ritchel, Controversial ‘Consensual’ Sex Robot Brothel Claims to be World’s First (Nov. 8, 2018), Independent, https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/love-sex/sex-robot-brothel-consensual-ai-california-flirt-virgin-first-consent-a8624201.html (discussing concerns about hygiene and operation of “consent-focused” robot brothel);

[9] See Jon Lockett, Robot Phwoars World’s First Brothel Staffed Entirely by Robot Sex Workers Now Looking for Investors to go Global(Jul. 30, 2017), The Sun, https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4131258/worlds-first-brothel-staffed-entirely-by-robot-sex-workers-now-looking-for-investors-to-go-global/ (company opened first robot brothel in Spain).

[10] See Shannon, supra note 7.

Image Source: https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/827479/Sex-robots-ethics-legal-morals-professor-Robin-Mackenzie.

By: Annie Mullican

On my long, nearly eleven-hour drive home for Thanksgiving (and what felt like the even-longer drive back after break) I did the usual: I queued up some interesting True Crime Podcasts – usually I listen to 1hr – 1.5 hour stories that begin and end in that episode. But on the way home, I ran out of my usual Podcast – Casefile True Crime (out of Australia). So with eight hours to spare, I took a shot in the dark and picked one called Up & Vanished by Tenderfoot TV out of Atlanta. This podcast was a full season – with twelve episodes and the story was one that I had never heard of. Within the first thirty minutes I was hooked. By the time I got to episode five I realized that the action in the podcast was happening almost simultaneously to it being reported. This was unlike the usual podcasts I listened to – and as I kept up with the season I realized – Up & Vanished was drawing out potential suspects – some who reached out to the producer on their own or willingly responded to interviews – against their counsel’s advisement! It was drawing out witnesses who never spoke to police. It was generating the interest in this two-year long case.

Leading up to episode eleven, the podcast was getting call-ins from potential suspects, cleared suspects, people from the town who had not come forward to the police. In episode ten, the podcast producers and staff along with law enforcement, another reporter from a nearby town, family and friends of the victim went on a search. By the time I got home, I was googling the case, I was on Reddit, looking up people’s names on Facebook, Instagram, etc. Wow, I thought, this Podcast isn’t just telling a story… it’s about to solve this case. With a little more research I discovered that Up and Vanished’s 2017 season resulted in two arrests in the murder of the missing woman the Podcast was following.[1] This case had been cold for twelve years.[2] It was amazing to me that a Podcast solved a twelve-year-old cold case, and some further research revealed to me that podcasts all over are helping solve cases by generating reward money, interest in the case, recovering memories, and providing law enforcement with tools to chase down tips.[3]

The most notable example was the Up and Vanished podcast that led to two arrests in 2017.[4] A 2018 article talked about a police force that created a True Crime Podcast in the hopes of catching an elusive fugitive.[5] The producer of the podcast, and the Police Department’s Press Information Officer stated that they decided to do the podcast in the hopes that it would tell the story in a different way, and because they feel that the format of a podcast fits the True Crime narrative, it’s “episodic nature” as she calls it.[6]

Further, an Australian article noted that Crime Stoppers tips have doubled between 2012 and 2017 and that they feel those tips are largely due to podcasts featuring cold cases.[7] Queensland Crime Stoppers General Manager Jim Crowley stated that True Crime podcasts help us let out our “inner detective.”[8] He stated that Crime Stoppers welcomes these tips from listeners because any small tip could solve a crime.[9] He also stated that people have become so involved as to research crimes themselves, and of course, he discourages this.[10]

Podcasts are immensely popular, and I love to listen to True Crime – cold cases, lengthy appeals, wrongful convictions, and the like. I, myself, feel like I learn what it considered strange behavior and suspicious activity. It helps me in my personal life feel more prepared and also discern when to report such activities, if I were ever in a position to do so. I can only imagine how intriguing a podcast would be if it followed a mystery in my own town, and how helpful that podcast would be in alerting activity, and refreshing memories that may be that small tip that solves a case. Most importantly, in my opinion, these podcasts remind the public that coming forward with valuable information is important. Maybe these vulnerable, yet valuable people feel more comfortable talking to a podcast producer than police. Regardless, these podcasts are contributing to solving cases, and even if they aren’t always solving them, they are generating awareness about missing persons, and potential murder victims, and that is what counts.

[1]Melissa Locker, How Up and Vanished Podcast Helped Solve Cold Murder Case, ROLLINGSTONE (Mar. 17, 2017), https://season2.upandvanished.com/story/https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/how-up-and-vanished-podcast-helped-solve-cold-murder-case-123748.

[2]Id.

[3] Amy McCosker, “True Crime Podcast are Reporting Information to Police to Help Solve Crimes” (Oct. 7, 2018), https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-08/true-crime-podcasts-help-solve-real-crimes/10346474.

[4] Locker, supra note 1.

[5] Brittany Martin, Local Police Department Hopes a Podcast Will Help Catch a Fugitive, (Sept. 21, 2018).

[6] Id.

[7] McCosker, supra note 3.

[8] Id.

[9] Id.

[10] Id.

Image Source: https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjFiZKU0vzeAhXGUt8KHUr4DWQQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fupandvanished.com%2F&psig=AOvVaw1doEj7V4kcMf5F3kyA0_B5&ust=1543685338440653