Category: Blog Posts Page 48 of 76

By: Catherine Schroeder

My dad often jokes that he cannot wait for the day a drone delivers Taco Bell to a window of my parents’ 18th floor apartment. The last time he made this joke, I wondered why his Taco Bell fantasy has not already come true. The drone technology exists, but what is keeping drones from filling the sky? The answer is the Federal Aviation Administration or FAA.[1]

In the past, the FAA has taken a restrictive approach to regulating drones. In June 2016, the FAA released regulations, called Part 107, that set numerous requirements for the commercial operations of drones under 55 pounds.[2] These include registration of the drone, a remote pilot certification for the drone operator, flying the drone during daylight, flying below 400 feet above ground, and more.[3] Most importantly for commercial drone operators, the FAA mandates the drones to always be within the operator’s line of sight and to not fly directly over anyone not participating in the operation who is not under a covered structure or not inside a stationary vehicle.[4] These last two requirements make it nearly impossible to fly drones to make deliveries.[5]

The FAA’s restrictive approach is a reasonable one with the numerous and considerable risks drones pose to the environment, cybersecurity, privacy, and safety.[6] With no regulations, drones could blacken the sky.[7] Drones are especially susceptible to cybersecurity issues due to their highly exposed technical systems.[8] Drones have “open sensors” and are constantly wirelessly connected.[9]

It is still unclear how privacy laws will handle drone activity.[10] When the FAA released Part 107, it explicitly stated that “privacy is beyond the purview of its mission of safety and efficiency.”[11] A Kentucky resident shot his neighbor’s drone hovering over his backyard.[12] He argued that the drone was videotaping his yard and trespassing on his right to privacy.[13] As of now, only codes of conduct give any guidance to drone operators to not infringe on the privacy of others, but these codes have no consequences for infringement.[14]

As for public safety, drones pose serious threats. In August 2018, an assassination attack using drones occurred on Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro while giving a speech.[15] The Dubai airport had to shut down three times due to unauthorized drone activity over the last two years, losing approximately $1,007,310 USD currency every minute the airport was closed.[16]

With these risks in mind, the FAA appears to be moving cautiously towards implementing green light regulations, while companies are pushing to launch drone delivery services and other projects.[17] However, this past May, the FAA announced 10 drone programs in the country that it will give more freedom in the skies without much FAA control.[18] This shift comes from pressure from the White House and companies.[19] This initiative, called Integration Pilot Program, requires the partnering of state, local, or tribal governments with private entities. The FAA is testing to determine how much power it should give to local government for future drone regulations.[20] An example of a partnership includes the City of Memphis, the University of Memphis, the Tennessee Department of Transportation’s Aeronautics Division, FedEx, Intel, and others.[21]  This particular partnership involves monitoring the airport runway and perimeters, watching crops, delivering airplane parts, and surveying infrastructure inspections.[22]

What is missing from the Integration Pilot Program are companies like Uber and Amazon delivering meals or packages. This leaves it very much up in the air when and how regulations allowing these delivery services will occur. Both Amazon and the FAA seem optimistic that it is in the near future, even as soon as 2019.[23] For now, the FAA is focused on “worthy” projects, such as medical deliveries, for its Integration Pilot Program.[24] With the numerous risks that drones pose, this slow and cautious approach is reasonable.

 

[1] See Jack Stewart, FAA RELAXES DRONE RESTRICTIONS WITH 10 NEW PROGRAMS, Wired, (May 9, 2018, 7:56 PM), https://www.wired.com/story/faa-relaxes-drone-restrictions-with-10-new-programs/.

[2]See id.

[3]See Fact Sheet – Small Unmanned Aircraft Regulations (Part 107), Federal Aviation Administration, (July23, 2018), https://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=22615 (last visited Nov. 21, 2018).

[4]See id.

[5]See Stewart, supra note 1.

[6]See generally Jennifer Urban, What is the Eye in the Sky Actually Looking at and Who is Controlling It? An International Comparative Analysis on How to Fill the Cybersecurity and Privacy Gaps to Strengthen Existing U.S. Drone Laws, 70 Fed. Comm. L.J. 1, 4 (2018) (discusses the numerous cybersecurity and privacy risks drones pose).

[7]See Stewart, supra note 1.

[8]See id. at 11.

[9]See id.

[10]See id. at 18.

[11]See id. at 19.

[12]See id. at 4, 5.

[13]See id.

[14]See id. at 20.

[15]See Jon Lee Anderson, AN ASSASSINATION ATTEMPT BY DRONE IS JUST THE LATEST MOMENT OF CHAOS IN VENEZUELA, The New Yorker, (Aug. 6, 2018), https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/an-assassination-attempt-by-drone-is-just-the-latest-moment-of-chaos-in-venezuela.

[16]See Federal Aviation Administration, supra note 6 at 3.

[17]See Stewart, supra note 1.

[18]See Stewart, supra note 1.

[19]See Andy Pasztor, Coming Soon to a Front Porch Near You: Package Delivery Via Drone,Wall Street Journal, (March 11, 2018, 4:07 PM), https://www.wsj.com/articles/coming-soon-to-a-front-porch-near-you-package-delivery-via-drone-1520798822.

[20]See Stewart, supra note 1.

[21]See Stewart, supra note 1.

[22]See Stewart, supra note 1.

[23]See Pasztor, supra note 18.

[24]See Stewart, supra note 1.

Image Source: https://www.wired.com/story/would-delivery-drones-be-all-that-efficient/

By: Cam Kollar

It is that time of year again- the holiday season is upon us and many of us spend countless hours searching for the perfect gift worthy of our loved ones. If you are in a committed relationship, jewelry tends to be a favorite. I am very fortunate because one of my husband’s hobbies is finding unique pieces for me, knowing that I like less common gemstones and colors, such as green amethyst or sapphires of yellow, green, and pink. However, through all of his searching, there are always two rules he will never break: never buy an enhanced or treated stone, and always inquire whether a stone has been treated. This may sound like something that is unimportant or insignificant, but there are numerous ways that jewelry stores, companies, and distributors can change the appearance of a gemstone without changing its chemical makeup, meaning that it is still a “genuine” gemstone.[1] For instance, consider cubic zirconia: everyone knows it as an imitation diamond, but no one can call it a diamond unless it is qualified by the word “synthetic” or man-made.[2]

According to the FTC, there are three primary types of gemstone products: natural gemstones, laboratory-created stones, and imitation stones.[3] The FTC requires that both lab-created and imitation stones need to be clearly labeled as such, especially since both of these types of products are worth less than their natural gemstone counterparts.[4] If the world were simple, this would be the end of the matter, but it’s not. As with most things throughout human history, there are those who want to complete what Mother Nature left unfinished. Common gemstone treatments and enhancements include bleach,[5] diffusion,[6] dye,[7] fracture filling,[8] heat,[9] high heat high temperature,[10] irradiation,[11] oil,[12] and laser-drilling.[13] The interesting point here is that the FTC does not require that any of the treatments and enhancements be disclosed to the consumer.[14] Instead the regulation states that it is deceptive to fail to disclose that a gemstone was treated if a) the treatment is not permanent, b) the treatment creates special care requirements (and thus should disclose the care requirements), or c) the treatment has a significant effect on the stone’s value.[15]

Despite the fact that the FTC recommends disclosure, and the fact that many consumers want disclosure, and jewelry trade publications highly recommend disclosure, many jewelry stores do not, or if they do-do so in such a limited manner as to be questionable.[16] Surprisingly, the most incredible part of all of this is not its pervasiveness in the public eye, but the lack of any legal cases surrounding these FTC regulations.[17] While I have found numerous articles, professional publications, and warnings about these altered gemstones, somehow there are virtually no legal precedents, and in the cases that were brought, they failed to move forward.

Many case studies have not resulted in litigation because the companies have settled out of court. In Ferreira, a would-be class action suit fell short because, although the Jewelry Store failed to disclose treatment and special care requirements to the purchaser, the court found that the purchaser failed to show injury from those actions.[18]

I know my rules are to buy only natural stones but that doesn’t mean that treated stones do not have their place. The real point of this is not necessarily to dissuade you from buying treated or enhanced stones, but to be informed of what you are actually buying. Just as Botox erases the flaws Mother Nature gave us, treatments and enhancements do the same for your gemstones.

[1]See Jewelers of Am.,Gemstone Treatments, https://www.jewelers.org/education/gemstone-guide/gemstone-treatments (last visited Nov. 29, 2018).

[2]SeeFed. Trade Comm’n,Gemstones, Diamonds, & Pearls, https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0295-gemstones-diamonds-pearls (last visited Nov. 29, 2018).

[3]See id.

[4]See id.

[5]Bleach chemically treats gemstones to alter or remove color. Used for pearls and jade. See id.

[6]Diffusion treatment adds color to the surface of colorless gems while the center of the stone remains colorless. See id.

[7]Dye is a process most often used on lower quality pearls, but is also used in treating other stones. Over time the dye can fade, and stones treated with dye shouldn’t be exposed to certain chemicals or prolonged sunlight. SeeJewelers of Am.,Gemstone Treatments, https://www.jewelers.org/education/gemstone-guide/gemstone-treatments (last visited Nov. 29, 2018).

[8]Fracture filling involves injecting colorless plastic or glass in the gems to hide cracks or fractures and improve the appearance and durability of the gemstones. See Off. of Consumer & Bus. Educ., Fed. Trade Comm’n, In the Loupe: Advertising Diamonds, Gemstones and Pearls (Dec. 2001), https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/plain-language/bus34-loupe-advertising-diamonds-gemstones-and-pearls.pdf.

[9]Heat is where gems are exposed to high temperatures to permanently alter their color. In most cases treatment improves the gem’s apparent color and/or clarity. SeeJewelers of Am., supranote 7.

[10]High heat high temperature is used on diamonds, permanently changing brown diamonds to colorless or yellow, orange, or blue. Colored diamonds treated this way are not considered to be natural colored diamonds. See id.

[11]Irradiation uses small doses of radiation to permanently alter a gemstone’s color. See id.

[12]Oil is a treatment used for gemstones with surface inclusions such as emeralds. The oil improves clarity by smoothing the surface but this temporary treatment affects a gemstone’s ability to be cleaned using ultrasonic cleaning techniques. See id.

[13]Laser-drilling removes dark inclusions from diamonds improving clarity of the stone. See Off. of Consumer & Bus. Educ., Fed Trade Comm’n, supranote 8.

[14]See16 C.F.R. § 23.22 (2018).

[15]See id.

[16]See  16 C.F.R. § 23.22 (2018); Thomas W. Overton, Gem Treatment Disclosure and U.S. Law, 40 Gems & Gemology106, 112, 119-22 (2004) (stating that individuals, companies and trade groups were nearly unanimous in favor of adding the disclosure for laser drilling to the FTC guides; and stating several jewelry store case studies); Ferreira v. Sterling Jewelers, 130 F. Supp. 3d 471 (Dist. Ct. 2015); David V. Johnson, Macy’s Sells Rubies ‘Filled’ with Glass,S.F. Pub. Press, July 13, 2010, https://sfpublicpress.org/news/2010-07/macys-sells-rubies-filled-with-glass; Accredited Gemologists Association, Comment Letter on Proposed Rule Jewelry Guides, 16 C.F.R. Part 23, Project No. G711001 (Sept. 28, 2012), https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/public_comments/16-cfr-part-23-guides-jewelry-precious-metals-and-pewter-industries-project-no.g711001-560895-00012%C2%A0/560895-00012-84883.pdf.

[17]Compare David V. Johnson, Macy’s Sells Rubies ‘Filled’ with Glass, S.F. Pub. Press, July 13, 2010, https://sfpublicpress.org/news/2010-07/macys-sells-rubies-filled-with-glass (discussing independent investigations conducted by “Good Morning America” in November of 2009, San Francisco’s CBS5 in February 2010, and San Francisco’s Public Press in April 2010) andThomas W. Overton, Gem Treatment Disclosure and U.S. Law, 40 Gems & Gemology106, 112, 119-22 (2004) (stating several case studies that settled out of court for dubious practices) with Search for Cases, Lexis,https://advance.lexis.com/api/permalink/8e59db91-0fa2-40cd-867f-d093f676848d/?context=1000516 (last visited Nov. 29, 2018) (showing only 3 cases listed as referencing 16 C.F.R. § 23.22) and Search for Cases,Westlaw, https://1.next.westlaw.com/RelatedInformation/N8EAA29A0A16711E8B79CD35CA367011A/kcCitingReferences.html?docSource=be6696149a584693b0608483a4946d31&facetGuid=h562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferences&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29 (showing only two cases referencing 16 C.F.R. § 23.22).

[18]See Ferreira v. Sterling Jewelers, 130 F. Supp. 3d 471 (Dist. Ct. 2015).

Image Source: https://www.thenaturalsapphirecompany.com/t-education_before_after_photos/

By: Mariah L. Bayless Davis

When asked about having the 2018 No. 1 recruiting class, Kirby Smart, head coach of the Georgia Bulldogs, said, “my goal is to outwork everybody in recruiting, sign the best players in the state, and turn these guys into the best team we can.”[1] What if the way to outwork everybody is to work smarter, not harder?

Virtual reality is a new emerging technology, however, the basic design and theory used to create VR headsets has been around since 1838.[2] By using the basic principles of virtual reality, William Gruber created the View-Master in 1939, which popularized virtual tourism. Today’s virtual reality headsets are designed for users to be able to immerse themselves in a 360-degree environment, completely separate and different than their own.[3] The recent transformation of virtual reality happened in 2011 in the basement of a Southern California home.[4] 18-year-old Palmer Luckey created the first prototype of the well-known Oculus Rift, that produced far more realistic results than the designs from 1838 and 1939.[5] Aside from developing the graphics, the technology behind the 360, realistic environment in which users are submerged into is revolutionary. Most virtual reality environments are constructed through the use of 360-degree cameras that essentially scan a real-time environment and translate it to a format for the VR headsets to read.[6] Users can also experience virtual reality without the headset by wearing 3D glasses in an Immersive VR environment.[7] An immersive environment is made up of twenty-four Sony digital cinema 4k projectors that display more than 100 million pixels on the walls, floor, and ceiling of the 10-foot-by-10-foot room.[8] Since the technology started being used in 1939 for virtual tourism, the advanced immersive experience is now being used by college admission offices to offer out of state students an opportunity to come on campus without leaving their couch.[9] Just as the technology is being used in admission offices, VR headsets are also being used across the country within Division I football programs.

In 2016, University of Michigan became the first D1 program to announce their plans to use VR technology as a recruiting tool, allowing recruits to experience a day in the life of a Michigan football player without ever stepping foot in Ann Arbor.[10] Other programs such as Arkansas and Minnesota use the technology to show practice, game day, campus experience, and more in an effort to tell a story about their programs that would otherwise be difficult to convey.[11] By using the technology while recruiting, smaller schools like Arkansas and Minnesota are able set themselves apart from their respective competitive conferences where bigger recruiting budgets usually means bringing in higher ranked student athletes.[12] While virtual reality benefits smaller schools with smaller recruiting budgets, the technology can also help those students who are recruited by bigger programs like Michigan, but simply cannot travel to the school for one reason or another.

It is very normal for high school students to go on college trips well before their senior year. However, for student athletes, NCAA regulations state that students cannot take their five official visits to schools until their senior year of high school.[13] NCAA defines official visits as “recruiting trips where the school is allowed to pick up the tab.”[14] Sometimes waiting until your senior year to start visiting schools is too late, but since unofficial visits are covered solely by the student athlete and their family, NCAA regulations put disadvantaged students in a rough spot.[15] The development of VR could help this situation, but with the NCAA manual being updated every year, one can only wonder when and if they will try to regulate the use of virtual reality.

Working smarter, not harder, also requires one to outsmart the system. As the national governing body of college sports, the NCAA is skillful in identifying and closing loopholes. It is only a matter of time before they close this virtual portal leading to a level playing field.

 

[1]Adam Rittenberg, Kirby Smart Finally Awakens Recruiting Giant, ESPN, http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/22276885/with-georgia-success-kirby-smart-awakens-recruiting-giant.

[2]See Scott Schroeder, Virtual Reality: Game-changing Technology for College Athletics, Athletic Business, https://www.athleticbusiness.com/apps-software/what-virtual-reality-can-do-for-college-recruiting.html.

[3]Abi Mandelbaum, How Colleges Can Even the Recruiting Field with Virtual Reality, Sports Bus. J., Apr. 2016.

[4]See Dan Murphy, Michigan Testing Virtual Reality for Recruits, ESPN, http://www.espn.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/112924/michigan-testing-virtual-reality-for-recruits.

[5]See id.

[6]See Schroeder, supra note 2.

[7]See Jacquelyn Bengfort, College Recruiting Goes Virtual with Immersive Technology, EdTech, https://edtechmagazine.com/higher/article/2017/10/college-recruiting-goes-virtual-immersive-technology.

[8]Id.

[9]See id.

[10]See id.

[11]Darren Heitner, Golden Gophers Go with Virtual Reality to Tempt Football Recruits, Forbes, https://www.forbes.com/sites/darrenheitner/2016/11/23/golden-gophers-go-with-virtual-reality-to-tempt-football-recruits/#6b7bbb4222e4.

[12]See id.

[13]See Murphy, supra note 4.

[14]Id.

[15]See id.

Image Source: http://www.thedartmouth.com/article/2018/02/football-team-uses-state-of-the-art-virtual-reality-tool

By: Annie Mullican

Social media has become a huge part of everyone’s daily lives. It serves many purposes, both good and bad, but questions have arisen about what individuals can and should be exposed to on the internet; questions about what it means to participate in social media. Are you responsible for everything that appears on your timeline? If you join social media for the sole purpose of keeping in contact with old friends, are you consenting to every image that pops up on your screen? I got Facebook when I studied abroad for a year in Scotland. I got it to keep in touch with friends through wifi, since I had no cell service. I’ve kept my profile active since graduating college because I enjoy hearing from friends and family that I’m no longer close to, but I am not an avid poster. Sometimes I get on Facebook and frankly, I am not at all prepared for what I see – whether it is a sponsored ad, a news story, a friend’s post or even a post shared/liked by some of my friends. Do social media users have to deal with seeing graphic images just to participate in the site? This question has been in the forefront of my mind recently because it is deer hunting season.

I’m from Indiana, and deer hunting season is celebrated prolifically. This means that when I go to check a notification, I inevitably see a slain deer, or several. Most often there is blood, a wound, open eyes and mouth, tongue lolled to the side, a shotgun, and a person straddling that deer. At first I passed these pictures by, but it became so prolific that I began unfollowing people. They pop up on instagram too. Finally, I mentioned it to my roommate. She agreed that it ruined her day. We brought it up later with more friends. They all agreed that they disliked seeing these pictures, they unfollowed the posters, and it made them very uncomfortable at the least. As a law student, several thoughts came to mind: is this allowed? Can it be stopped – with constitutional implications in mind? If we receive a trigger warning when an internet news article contains graphic images, can’t we do that with the social media posts? What would the basis be for a law mitigating this behavior – and, is it feasible?

Namibia, a country in South Africa, is making moves to outlaw the posting of slain animals on social media.[1] As recently as August 2018, articles were being posted claiming that Namibia planned on outlawing the practice, and punishing individuals who posted pictures of slain animals online.[2] The country plans on doing so by amending Sec. 4 of its Nature Conservation Ordinance of 1975.[3] The Namibian Minister of Environment and Tourism, Pohamba Shifeta cited two reasons for the amendment: first, he felt that while Namibia is a popular hunting ground, those pictures did not accurately depict the hunting in Namibia, and second, he stated that posting pictures of hunted animals was unethical.[4] It is important to note that hunting is permitted and remains permitted in Namibia.[5] This amendment does not affect an individual’s ability to take pictures of slain animals for private use.[6] It would only apply to posted pictures of slain animals.[7] Moreover, despite the legality of hunting in Namibia, this amendment would apply to everyone, including hunters with permits.[8] This appears to be a good compromise. It allows the hunters to hunt, but prevents those uninterested in hunting from being exposed to graphic images. Should –can– the United States be doing something similar?

The U.S. bans the creation, sale, or possession of videos, pictures depicting animal cruelty, but only if it is used to gain profit.[9] In U.S. v. Stevens, the Supreme Court ruled that “depiction of animal cruelty” was not an exception to the First Amendment.[10] None of these laws are exactly on point to this issue, so should Facebook itself be making the stand against these pictures?

In 2014, Facebook announced that they deleted a young woman’s trophy hunting photo because it directly violated their terms of service.[11] These terms ban “graphic images shared for sadistic effect or to celebrate or glorify violence.”[12] Often, public uproar comes with the posting of a slain rhino, giraffe, or lion, but there is more to this issue than preserving beautiful and big game animals – which is a noble cause. This issue is about the graphicness of images that depict any slain animal regularly on social media. I, like most people, don’t consider hunting to be sadistic, but indeed, taking a picture for personal use and posting a slain animal on the internet are different things. Regardless, there are tools to address this issue – whether it be through a more on-point and narrow law, like Namibia’s new amendment, or more strict enforcing of Facebook terms of service.

[1] Namibia Plans to Make Posting Images of Dead Wildlife to Social Media Illegal,  MYPROPERTY(Aug. 7, 2018), https://www.myproperty.com.na/news/16720/namibia-plans-to-make-posting-images-of-dead–wildlife-to-social-media-illegal/.

[2]Id.

[3]Id.

[4]Id.

[5]Id.

[6]Id.

[7]Id.

[8]Id.

[9]Depiction of Animal Cruelty Law and Legal Definition, https://definitions.uslegal.com/d/depiction-of-animal-cruelty/

[10]Id.

[11]Polly Mosendz, “Facebook Officially Doesn’t Approve of Dead Animals or Baby Butts,” THE ATLANTIC (July 9, 2014), https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/07/facebook-doesnt-approve-of-dead-animals-or-baby-butts/374180/

[12]Id.

Image Source: https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiNmZfxqdneAhXDneAKHfL-D0MQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fstrikingattheroots.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F03%2F30%2Fgetting-active-for-animals-with-facebook%2F&psig=AOvVaw0jOqNSTAdDq_uml_uPIWN-&ust=1542471934742765

By: Scottie Fralin

Back in March of 2016, Pabst Brewing Company filed a lawsuit against MillerCoors for breach of contract.[1] Pabst is seeking at least $400 million in damages.[2] The case finally went to trial on November 12, 2018 after years of unsuccessful negotiations between the two companies.[3] The case centers on a 1999 “brewing agreement” between Pabst and MillerCoors that almost 30 years later has gone sour.[4] Per the agreement, MillerCoors has produced, packaged, and shipped nearly all of Pabst’s products since the two companies teamed up.[5] However, MillerCoors, facing declining volume in the U.S., has said it may not have the capacity to continue that relationship.[6] When MillerCoors announced in 2015 that it was closing one of its seven U.S. plants in Eden, North Carolina, where most of Pabst products were brewed, Pabst alleged that that decision was anti-competitive.[7] In its announcement, MillerCoors said that production had declined by 10 million barrels of beer over the past seven years and that distribution at the Eden plant overlapped with the company’s Shenandoah brewery in Virginia.[8] The brewing agreement is set to expire in 2020, and MillerCoors, citing sales decline and loss of production facilities, does not plan to renew the agreement.[9] This decision is devastating for Pabst, because no other brewery in the U.S. has the capacity to brew for them under a contract.[10] Pabst’s other option is to build their own commercially-sized brewery, which is neither easy nor cheap, likely a project that would cost hundreds of millions of dollars.[11] Pabst’s circumstances help to explain why the company opted for litigation, but the two companies’ allegations against each other hint at more than just lack of resources.

Pabst’s relationship with MillerCoors is what allows Pabst to compete, and the company essentially won’t be able to survive in the domestic beer market without a contract with a larger beer company. MillerCoors has pointed to the rise in competition from everything from wine, spirits, to cannabis for its brewing capacity issues with Pabst.[12] It also claims that it has sole discretion to determine whether it has the capacity to brew Pabst beer, and further, that offering Pabst a solution to those capacity challenges is merely optional.[13] Put simply, MillerCoors is not required to extend the brewing agreement. But Pabst alleges, and a Milwaukee circuit court judge agreed in denying MillerCoors motion for summary judgment, that MillerCoors may be looking solely to its own best business interest, in violation of the brewing agreement.[14] Pabst accuses MillerCoors of considering the potential boost to its own business that would come by ending its contract with Pabst, which would result in less domestic beer competition.[15] Responding to MillerCoors motion for summary judgment, the Milwaukee judge pointed to evidence that MillerCoors may have used information relating to the business effects on Pabst of terminating the brewing agreement, which would be improper as that information does not relate to a sufficient capacity determination.[16] With the trial scheduled through November 30, Pabst fans should have some indication about the iconic American beer’s future by the end of this month.

 

[1]See Owen Covington, MillerCoors Responds to Pabst Lawsuit Over Brewery Closure, Seeks Mediation, Triad Business Journal (May 19, 2016, 3:06 PM) https://www.bizjournals.com/triad/news/2016/05/19/millercoors-responds-to-pabst-lawsuit-over-brewery.html.

[2]See id.

[3]See id.

[4]See id.

[5]See Associated Press, A Major Beer Battle Is Brewing and It Could Mean the End of PBR, Time (Nov. 12, 2018),http://time.com/5451798/pabst-pbr-millercoors-beer-lawsuit/.

[6]See Lauren Hirsch, MillerCoors and Pabst Brewing’s Bitter Legal Battle Is Headed to Trial in November, CNBC(June 17, 2018, 10:00 AM), https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/17/millercoors-and-pabst-blue-ribbons-bitter-legal-battle-is-headed-to-trial-in-november.html.

[7]See Jonnelle Davis, Pabst Sues MillerCoors About Eden Closure, News & Record (May 17, 2016), https://www.greensboro.com/business/local_business/pabst-s-sues-millercoors-about-eden-closure/article_1ca2663f-0913-557b-bc86-bbb66ae0144e.html.

[8]See id.

[9]See Associated Press, supra note 2.

[10]See Christine Flores, Trial Underway Between Beermakers Pabst and MillerCoors, WDJT – Milwaukee(Nov. 13, 2018, 5:20 PM),https://www.cbs58.com/news/trial-underway-between-beer-makers-pabst-and-millercoors.

[11]See Mike Pomranz, Hold Onto Your PBR: A Pabst Blue Ribbon Shortage Is Looming, Food & Wine (June 18, 2018),https://www.foodandwine.com/news/pabst-blue-ribbon-shortage.

[12]See Hirsch, supra note 6.

[13]See id.

[14]See id.

[15]See id.

[16]See id.

Image Source: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/17/millercoors-and-pabst-blue-ribbons-bitter-legal-battle-is-headed-to-trial-in-november.html

By: Darden Copeland

Have the birds flocked to your city?  And I’m not talking about the ones with feathers—I’m referring to the newest trend in micro-mobility.  Fleets of electric scooters have appeared on the sidewalks of many United States cities, and they have spurred a mixed-bag of negative reactions and legal implications.

Bird Rides, Inc., an electric scooter sharing platform, has plopped hundreds of its Bird scooters without warning in many of our nation’s cities.[1]  The micro-mobility sharing platform operates by way of a smart phone app that allows users to locate available scooters within a nearby radius and ride them a short distance for a small fee.[2]  Bird scooters are dockless, so riders can leave the scooters anywhere they please at the end of their ride.[3]

The 21^stcentury has seen a multitude of advancements in mobility and transportation, and some local governments have welcomed the changes with open arms, while others have been a bit more resistant.  For example, ridesharing apps Uber and Lyft have revolutionized the transportation industry by arriving in cities unannounced and saturating the market.[4]  Taking a very similar approach, Bird hopes to do the same, but the scooter sharing company has received way more pushback than Uber and Lyft.[5]  It’s not surprising that Bird is using the same tactic of appearing in cities unannounced not only because of the success of Uber and Lyft, but also because the founder and Chief Executive Officer of Bird earned his wings as the former Chief Operating Officer of Lyft, and the former Vice President of Growth at Uber.[6]

Bird’s unusual flock of disapprovers can be linked to both the suddenness of the scooters’ arrival, and also the sheer abrasiveness of the scooter concept itself.  Unlike Uber and Lyft, the next morning after Bird makes its unannounced delivery of hundreds of scooters, people notice them.  If the scooters are not blocking sidewalks, they’re being ridden at relatively high speeds weaving through crowds of pedestrians, and sometimes breaking a host of local laws and ordinances.

Upon arrival of the scooters, some cities such as Richmond, Virginia, have decided to hastily come up with permitting systems and regulations, while others have taken the opposite approach of outlawing the scooters all-together.  In Richmond, Mayor Levar Stoney pitched a one-year test program which would allow Bird to operate in the city after the company paid fees for each scooter.  Less thrilled about the arrival of the Birds, Norfolk, Virginia city officials have been rounding up the scooters and impounding them for breaking city ordinances such as property abandonment on public land.[7]  According to the City of Norfolk, Bird will have to pay more than $93,365 dollars before the city will release the scooters.[8]  In San Francisco, California, city officials sent cease and desist orders to Bird claiming that the scooters were creating “a public nuisance on the city’s streets and sidewalks and endangering public health and safety.”[9]  The city subsequently enacted an ordinance to require permits for Bird or any other micro-mobility platform seeking to inhabit its streets and sidewalks.[10]  The City of Milwaukee even filed a civil action in court against Bird for public nuisance and consenting to the operation of unregistered motor vehicles.[11]

Cities’ disapproval of the scooters is not only rooted in the safety of pedestrians and riders, but also in liability.[12]  With hundreds of scooters zipping down city streets, a rider could be injured by hitting a pothole or similar road obstruction that would normally not present an issue to passing cars and motorcycles.  This hangs an uncertain cloud of liability over cities that host Bird scooters.[13]  An even stickier issue arises when the scooter riders are the parties at fault for the injuries of others.  Leaving no source of recovery or redress for injured parties, Bird scooter users are not required to carry any form of insurance.[14]  With all of these issues in mind, it makes sense why many municipalities are dissatisfied with Bird for plopping the scooters in their region without any communication or planning.  Will our nation’s cities continue to ruffle their feathers at new technology, or will they acquiesce to new trends in mobility?

 

[1]See City of Milwaukee v. Bird Rides Inc., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 187996 No. 18-CV-1066-JPS, at *1 (E. Dist. Wis. Nov. 2, 2018).

[2]See Melia Robinson, A Startup in the West Coast Scooter Sharing Craze is Already Worth $1 Billion – Here’s What It’s Like to Ride a Bird Scooter, Business Insider, May 30, 2018, https://www.businessinsider.com/bird-electric-scooter-review-2018-4

[3]See id.

[4]See Tamara Kurtzman, Dockless Scooter Cos. Rewarded for Bad Behavior, Law 360, Sept. 14, 2018, https://advance.lexis.com/document/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=1e246981-95c3-414d-9fa6-9be1a5fc493d&pddocfullpath=%2Fshared%2Fdocument%2Fanalytical-materials%2Furn%3AcontentItem%3A5T88-6BV1-JW09-M1XJ-00000-00&pddocid=urn%3AcontentItem%3A5T88-6BV1-JW09-M1XJ-00000-00&pdcontentcomponentid=122100&pdteaserkey=sr0&pditab=allpods&ecomp=5pkLk&earg=sr0&prid=a685e3ba-a50e-48d0-8d8a-4acb78cee448.

[5]See, e.g. Laura Newberry, Fed-up Locals Are Setting Electric Scooters on Fire and Burying Them at Sea, L.A. Times, Aug. 10, 2018, http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-bird-scooter-vandalism-20180809-story.html.

[6]See Kurtzman, Dockless Scooter Cos. Rewarded for Bad Behavior, Law 360, Sept. 14, 2018.

[7]SeeNick Boykin, Norfolk Has 560 Bird Scooters Impounded, Company Owes Over 93k for Them,WTKR, November 13, 2018, https://wtkr.com/2018/11/13/norfolk-has-560-bird-scooters-impounded-company-owes-over-93k-for-them/.

[8]See id.

[9]Michele Satterlund, Sidewalks: The Next Mobility Frontier, Law 360, August 07, 2018, https://advance.lexis.com/document/?pdmfid=1000516&crid=a1a4148b-9271-4eaa-9e0b-96c1531c6d0a&pddocfullpath=%2Fshared%2Fdocument%2Fanalytical-materials%2Furn%3AcontentItem%3A5T05-8221-F8D9-M0R5-00000-00&pddocid=urn%3AcontentItem%3A5T05-8221-F8D9-M0R5-00000-00&pdcontentcomponentid=122100&pdteaserkey=sr2&pditab=allpods&ecomp=5pkLk&earg=sr2&prid=beb22f69-1df6-400a-a497-ce028d274004.

[10]Seeid.

[11]See Bird, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 187996 No. 18-CV-1066-JPS at *4.

[12]See Kurtzman, Dockless Scooter Cos. Rewarded for Bad Behavior, Law 360, Sept. 14, 2018.

[13]See id.

[14]See id.

Image Source: https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwim0evumOHeAhUinuAKHSAjB-MQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fbusiness%2F2018%2F09%2F08%2Fquiz-are-these-writers-complaining-about-modern-day-scooters-or-th-century-velocipedes%2F&psig=AOvVaw2x-HNyGYB8jc98LPr3FCOn&ust=1542742245038439

By: Jonathan Walter

Following the 2016 presidential election, there was widespread criticism of social media networks for allowing trolls and bots to shape discourse[1], as well as creating political “echo chambers.”[2] Initially, Facebook denied that this was taking place and refused to acknowledge its role as a news source.[3] This critique only intensified as more information about the extent of the problems came to light. Twitter revealed that millions of tweets came from “highly automated accounts,”[4] while Facebook disclosed that roughly 3,000 ads had been purchased by “inauthentic accounts” that were “likely operated out of Russia.[5] Everything came to a head in September of 2018, when executives from Facebook and Twitter went to Congress for hearings regarding election interference and were grilled by Senators about how they planned to fight bots and “deep fakes.”[6]

However, the 2018 midterm elections have been a different story, and it’s clear that Facebook and Twitter, among others, have learned a lesson. While these problems have not gone away[7], there was generally less criticism after the midterm elections than the presidential election in 2016. This year, Facebook removed 30 Facebook accounts and 85 Instagram account in an attempt to prevent foreign influence on the day of election,[8] and another 800 pages and accounts in the weeks leading up to election day.[9] Similarly, Twitter removed over 10,000 bot accounts that were posting messages discouraging people from voting in the months leading up to election day.[10] Further, Facebook set up a “war room” at its Menlo Park headquarters “to look for and stop election interference in ‘real time.’”[11]

On top of the additional oversight, social media networks have stepped up their get-out-the-vote efforts. For example, Twitter added election labels to candidates’ profiles, live streamed debates, launched the #BeAVoter campaign, and added an Election Day countdown to users’ home timelines that provided information about the user’s polling place and ballot.[12] Similarly, Facebook released a new “Candidate Info” tool to help people learn more about their local candidates through short videos. Even social media services like Snapchat and Instagram have attempted to cultivate goodwill with the general public by helping users register to vote.[13]

Despite these efforts, and their general positive reception, it is important to reiterate that these problems have not gone away.[14] Although social media sites are doing their due diligence, there is actually some evidence that the problem may be getting worse. Facebook is still plagued with large scale misinformation campaigns[15] and researchers at Oxford University found that Twitter had five percent more false content this year than during the 2016 presidential election.[16] Even Twitter’s new page, focused on midterm elections, picked up tweets from conspiracy theorists, people pushing disinformation, and bot accounts.[17] The problem that these social media platforms are going to be trying to solve in the future isn’t fake news and Russian bots, it is more of a misinformation problem. This is very much an old problem that is taking a new form and will require more than just the right algorithm.[18]

All of that being said, there is no denying the fact that progress was made between the 2016 presidential election and the 2018 midterm election. Both Facebook and Twitter acknowledged the mistakes that they made and took positive steps to correct them. We can only hope that they continue to improve as the 2020 presidential election becomes more of a reality.

 

[1]See Tom McCarthy, How Russia Used Social Media to Divide Americans,The Guardian, Oct. 14, 2017,https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/14/russia-us-politics-social-media-facebook.

[2]See Mostafa M. El-Bermawy, Your Filter Bubble is Destroying Democracy,Wired, Nov. 18, 2016, https://www.wired.com/2016/11/filter-bubble-destroying-democracy/.

[3]See Id.

[4]Jon Fingas, Twitter Bots were Rampant During the US Election, Engadget, Nov. 20, 2016, https://www.engadget.com/2016/11/20/twitter-bots-rampant-during-election/.

[5]Margaret Hartmann, Facebook Haunted by Its Handling of 2016 Election Meddling, N.Y. Mag: Intelligencer, Mar. 20, 2018, http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/03/facebook-haunted-by-its-handling-of-2016-election-meddling.html?gtm=bottom&gtm=bottom.

[6]See Adi Robertson & Casey Newton, The 7 Biggest Moments from Wednesday’s Social Media Hearings, The Verge, Sep. 5, 2018, https://www.theverge.com/2018/9/5/17823280/facebook-twitter-hearings-congress-jack-dorsey-sheryl-sandberg.

[7]See Ali Breland, Social Media Companies Grapple with New Form of Political Misinformation, The Hill, Nov. 11, 2018, https://thehill.com/policy/technology/416062-social-media-companies-grapple-with-new-forms-of-political-misinformation.

[8]Don Reisinger, Facebook Removed 115 Accounts in the Run-Up to the Midterm Elections, Fortune, Nov. 6, 2018,http://fortune.com/2018/11/06/facebook-midterm-elections-accounts/.

[9]See Elizabeth Dwoskin & Tony Romm, Facebook Purged Over 800 U.S. Account and Pages for Pushing Political Spam, Washington Post, Oct. 11, 2018, https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/10/11/facebook-purged-over-accounts-pages-pushing-political-messages-profit/?utm_term=.5cfa00b0ab05.

[10]Todd Spangler, Midterm Elections: Are Facebook, Twitter Doing Enough to Stop Misinformation and Fraud?, Variety, Nov. 4, 2018, https://variety.com/2018/digital/news/midterm-elections-facebook-twitter-misinformation-ad-fraud-1203018538/.

[11]Id.

[12]See Bridget Coyne, Five Days Until #ElectionDay 2018, Twitter Blog, Nov. 1, 2018, https://blog.twitter.com/official/en_us/topics/company/2018/five-days-until-electionday-2018.html.

[13]See Cecilia Kang, Snapchat Helped Register Over 400,000 Voters, N.Y. Times, Oct. 23, 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/23/technology/snapchat-voter-registration-midterms.html.

[14]See Kevin Roose, Facebook Thwarter Chaos on Election Day. It’s Hardly Clear That Will Last., N.Y. Times, Nov. 7, 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/07/business/facebook-midterms-misinformation.html.

[15]Id.

[16]Kate Conger & Adam Satariano, Twitter Says It Is Ready for the Midterms but Rogue Accounts Aren’t Letting Up, N.Y. Times, Nov. 5, 2018,https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/05/technology/twitter-fake-news-midterm-elections.html.

[17]Mallory Locklear, Twitter’s New Midterm Election Page Already Includes Fake News, Engadget, Oct. 30, 2018,https://www.engadget.com/2018/10/30/twitter-midterm-election-page-includes-fake-news/.

[18]See Max Read, Facebook Stopped Russia. Is That Enough?N.Y. Mag: Intelligencer,Nov. 8, 2018, http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/11/fake-news-on-facebook-in-the-2018-midterms.html.

Image Source: https://goo.gl/images/yA8UXv

By: Sarah Alberstein

UC Berkeley and MIT’s Broad Institute have been battling over the patent to coveted CRISPR/Cas-9 technology since 2012.[1] CRISPR/Cas-9 technology can be used to “silence mutated organismal DNA, replace it with correct sequences, or both in conjunction…[and] to sustain and lengthen the lifespan of…bacterial cultures by protecting them from viral attack…minimiz[ing] hassle and time spent re-growing cultures following a viral attack while maximizing efficiency for the researcher.”[2] What’s more, unlike previous gene-editing technologies, CRISPR-Cas-9 “makes it possible to observe specific effects of a particular gene and thus allows for more precise data collection and observation” while minimizing down-stream mutation.[3] The implications of CRISPR/Cas-9 are immense. For example, CRISPR/Cas-9 has the potential to cure previously incurable diseases, like Alzheimer’s and HIV, remove malaria from mosquitos, develop new drugs, alter livestock and agricultural crops, and develop new cancer treatments.[4] It is no surprise that there would be controversy over who owns and controls the patent for this powerful technology.

As of April 2018, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office “had issues 60 CRISPR-related patents to nearly 20 different organizations.”[5] However, there is one patent in particular which has been hotly contested – the patent that covers the use of CRISPR-Case9 to edit DNA in mammals.[6] In May 2012, Berkeley filed a patent application for the use of CRISPR/Cas-9 to “edit genes in various types of cells.”[7] In December 2012, the Broad Institute and MIT filed a patent for the use of CRISPR/Cas-9 to “modify DNA in eukaryotic cells.”[8] In April 2014, the USPTO granted the Broad Institute their December 2012 patent, which UC Berkeley subsequently contested as being too similar to UC Berkeley’s May 2012 patent.[9] In February 2017, the USPTO ruled in favor of the Broad Institute stating that the Broad Institute’s December 2012 patent was not an obvious extension of UC Berkeley’s May 2012 patent.[10] In June 2018, the USPTO granted a patent to UC Berkley for the use of CRISPR/Cas-9 to edit single-stranded RNA, and a patent for the use of CRISPR/Cas-9 to edit genome regions of 10 to 15 nucleotides long.[11]

Finally, in September 2018, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the USPTO’s ruling in favor of the Broad Institute’s December 2012 patent for the use of CRISPR/Cas-9 in editing eukaryotic cells.[12] As a result, the Broad Institute has the rights to “commercialize products developed by using the CRISPR/Cas-9 system to make targeted changes to the genomes of eukaryotes – a group of organisms that includes plants and animals…cover[ing] a wide swath of potential CRISPR/Cas-9 products.”[13] While the results of this case seem to indicate that the patent war over CRISPR/Cas-9 technologies is coming to a close, there is still some movement within the industry. UC Berkeley could appeal the US Court of Appeals decision to the US Supreme Court which, given the zeal each institution has exhibited during this patent dispute, is not outside the realm of possibility.[14] Moreover, the CRISPR/Cas-9 technology landscape is ever-evolving. Already, researchers “have discovered new enzymes to replace Cas-9, and modified the CRISPR/Cas-9 system to manipulate the genome in many ways…”[15] It seems then that there are many technological advancements and patent disputes to come.

 

[1]Jessica Kim Cohen, UC Berkeley and Broad Institute’s Legal Dispute Over CRISPR Ownership: A Timeline of Events,Becker’s Health IT & CIO Report (June 21, 2018), https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/data-analytics-precision-medicine/uc-berkeley-and-broad-institute-s-legal-dispute-over-crispr-ownership-a-timeline-of-events.html.

[2]Sarah Alberstein, CRISPR/Cas-9: The Ethics of Implementation, Grounds: Virginia Journal of Bioethics (Aug. 3, 2016), https://issuu.com/vabioethics/docs/vol._1__iss._1_final.

[3]Id.

[4]Mark Crawford, 8 Ways CRISPR-Cas9 can Change the World, ASME (May 2017),https://www.asme.org/engineering-topics/articles/bioengineering/8-ways-crisprcas9-can-change-world.

[5]Jessica Kim Cohen, UC Berkeley and Broad Institute’s Legal Dispute Over CRISPR Ownership: A Timeline of Events,Becker’s Health IT & CIO Report (June 21, 2018), https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/data-analytics-precision-medicine/uc-berkeley-and-broad-institute-s-legal-dispute-over-crispr-ownership-a-timeline-of-events.html.

[6]Id.

[7]Id.

[8]Id.

[9]Id.

[10]Id.

[11]Id.

[12]Heidi Ledford, Pivotal CRISPR Patent Battle won by Broad Institute, Nature(Sept. 10, 2018), https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06656-y.

[13]Id.

[14]Id.

[15]Id.

Image Source: https://www.publicdomainpictures.net/en/view-image.php?image=42718&picture=dna

By: Zaq Lacy

The debates surrounding the use of technology in the classroom have raged for many, many years, arguably beginning with the introduction of the blackboard in 1801 and evolving as society has advanced.[1] Regardless of what position you take as to whether technology is beneficial, there can be no doubt that it has become prolific in K-12 classrooms across America, integrating into a wide variety of facets of the classroom and school that directly interact with students.[2] With the level of sophistication that today’s technology has, the rapid expansion of that technology being used by students, and the sheer amount of information being transmitted, these students’ privacy is at risk in three ways: illegal data collection, susceptibility to criminal activity, and identity theft caused by hacking.[3] Many of these students are under the age of 13 and are supposed to be protected by the Child Online Privacy and Protection Act (“COPPA”), a federal statute passed enacted in 1998 which was designed to restrict the collection of personal information from children online.[4]

Unfortunately, a combination of ambiguities and confusion in COPPA’s language[5] and a lack of enforcement by the Federal Trade Commission[6] has resulted in a failure to protect children, particularly those using technology in school.[7] Despite the glaring flaws in COPPA and other current federal laws dealing with student privacy, Congress has made it clear that it will not take steps to remedy this situation, leaving it up to individual states’ legislatures to address the rising concerns.[8] California paved the way with their Student Online Personal Information Protection Act (“SOPIPA”) in 2014,[9] which is regarded as the “most successful and strict piece of privacy legislation” and is the template for a number of other states’ attempts at bolstering protections for students.[10] It was written to fill in the gaps left in federal privacy laws and was the first to target “operator[s] of [I]nternet web site[s], online service[s], online application[s], or mobile application[s],” and applies to any educational technology (“edtech”) companies that reach California K-12 students, regardless of whether such companies are based outside of California.[11]

SOPIPA provides a number of restrictions on what information edtech companies connect collect and what they cannot do with the information they have collected, including selling data for commercial purposes.[12] It also includes affirmative obligations for such companies, requiring that they maintain and enforce appropriate security procedures to prevent “unauthorized access, destruction, use, modification, or disclosure” of student data, and to delete any such data upon request.[13] These are major steps in student privacy, but SOPIPA is still considered an imperfect solution.[14] Among other things, SOPIPA does not appear to hold to the Federal definition of de-identification of data, which companies may use for commercial use.[15] Additionally, questions over enforcement could prove troublesome, particularly where teacher awareness of SOPIPA standards regarding free edtech products is concerned.[16] Despite this, SOPIPA answers a number of the issues that were left untreated by federal law.

Recognizing the potential of SOPIPA, numerous other states have introduced similar legislation, and fifteen other states adopted variations of this law in 2015, adjusting it to fit their needs.[17] Even though there are still some kinks to work out, it is clear that SOPIPA is paving the way to stronger protections for our students’ data privacy when using technology at school.

 

[1] See Michael Horn, New Research Answers Whether Technology Is Good or Bad for Learning, Forbes.com (Nov. 14, 2017 8:28 am), https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelhorn/2017/11/14/new-research-answers-whether-technology-is-good-or-bad-for-learning/#69fbd08f19d7.

[2] See Zaq Lacy, Is Classroom Technology Making Student Privacy Obsolete?, U. of Rich. J. of L. and Tech.: Blog (Nov. 9, 2018), https://jolt.richmond.edu/2018/11/09/is-classroom-technology-making-student-privacy-obsolete/.

[3] See Alexis Peddy, Note, Dangerous Classroom “App”-titude: Protecting Student Privacy from Third-Party Educational Service Providers, 17 B.Y.U. Educ. & L. J. 125, 128 (2017).

[4] 15 U.S.C. § 6501(1) (2012).

[5] See Peddy, supra note 3, at 130.

[6] Id. at 135.

[7] Id. at 136.

[8] Id. at 142.

[9] Student Online Personal Information Protection Act of 2014, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 22584-22585 (Deering 2014).

[10] See Peddy, supra note 3, at 147.

[11] Dylan Peterson, Note, Edtech and Student Privacy: California Law As a Model, 31 Berkley Tech. L.J. 961, 973 (2016).

[12] See id. at 973-74.

[13] See id. at 975-76.

[14] See id. at 983.

[15] See id. at 992.

[16] See id.

[17] See Tanya Roscorla, More States Pass Laws to Protect Student Data, Govtech.com (Aug. 27 2015), http://www.govtech.com/education/k-12/What-States-Did-with-Student-Data-Privacy-Legislation-in-2015.html?utm_source=related.

Image Source: http://blog.identityautomation.com/6-things-schools-can-do-to-ensure-student-data-privacy