Category: Blog Posts Page 66 of 76

By: West Smithers

Music seems to be at the center of almost everything we do these days. Whether it’s a pre-party “power hour” or firing up a good old-fashioned playlist at the procrastination station we call our desk, music is always at our fingertips. We have seen, in a relatively short amount of time, the music industry as we once knew it become something entirely different. Where once the desire to even hear the latest song or an old favorite album could only be quenched by a trip to the store or submitting to the fate of the radio, most any track out there is now only a couple of clicks away. Innovations such as online streaming have made the idea of actually purchasing an album seem almost archaic and unnecessary to many people. As a result, the world of music copyright law has become increasingly complicated and controversial.

The underlying issue seems to be that the laws concerning “who pays whom” in the world of music were mostly created at a time when music was mainly distributed via radio or physical forms such as records, each medium’s form and business model unique to the other.[1] While the Internet forced an update of copyright laws in the 1990’s in response to emerging digital media, the use of digital media has increased, and more of these music sources have become characteristic of both physical media and radio.[2] As such, streaming services such as Spotify, Pandora, and Youtube have caused some apparently controversial changes in the music market.

In 2014, Taylor Swift brought this conflict to light by asking for all of her songs to be removed from the popular streaming platform, Spotify.[3] In doing so, she accused the company of not compensating artists and music rights owners fairly. After Swift caused this stir, other artists like Jason Aldean, Prince, and even the Beatles began pulling their songs from the service as well. Popular artist, Adele, delayed releasing her album, 21, onto the site for over a year because Spotify refused to exclusively stream it to “premium service” users.[4] She may now even be keeping her newest album, 25, off of the service for the same reasons.[5] These are merely a few examples of the discontent coming from musicians due to the effects these services may have on how or whether they are compensated for their work.

Earlier this year, in February, the U.S. Copyright Office released a report entitled Copyright and the Music Marketplace.[6] The Copyright Office conducted a study and outlined recommendations for the future of music copyright law, taking the position that the current law does not fit with the times.[7] Popular digital media and streaming services have essentially “blurred traditional lines of exploitation” in music, and determining who gets how much money from who in the music industry has become too complex to be compatible with the current law.[8] The report endorses allowing artists more flexibility under the law to seek higher pay rates and giving music rights owners the ability to withdraw streaming rights from these services.[9] Another issue is the federalization of recordings. Under the current law, pre-1972 recordings are not fully federalized, and services such as Pandora and SiriusXM have been able to exploit these older tunes without compensating their owners.[10] The report advocates for a change here and for other things such as extending public performance rights to terrestrial radio.[11]

The Copyright Office’s report is over 240 pages long and asks for what many consider to be serious reform, and it is still unclear what impact it will actually have on the law. In the meantime, companies such as Pandora and Sirius are attempting to resolve issues out of court to try to gain certainty in this complex issue.[12] Litigation has still been pursued, however, particularly by owners of pre-1972 recordings. Spotify continues to gain, lose and gain back again various artists’ work. Until something is addressed by lawmakers, however, the real questions facing copyright law and the music industry will not be fully answered, and we will be left with uncertainty. This is perhaps why government entities such as the Department of Justice and the House Judiciary Committee are meeting to discuss copyright and antitrust issues. The latter is set to meet this month for its copyright review roundtable in addition to a “listening tour” in which the committee travels to locations across the country to actually speak with creators (including musicians) about the issues they face in their field related to technological advancements.[13]

To learn more about the Copyright Office’s study and the potential changes in copyright law, read the report as well as the congressional report from the Congressional Research Service. Both links are found below.

Technology has made music a great experience for the public, but there is no denying that things have changed for musicians. The question is how much change in the law is merited by this change in the music industry and what effect such change would have. As a music lover and recreational song writer, one question in my mind is how such reform would affect the current exposure to music that many have come to enjoy in this digital age. But while established artists get confrontational with Spotify and Pandora, I’ll just keep listening to this playlist I have going right now (for free) on the largest music streaming platform in the world…Youtube…because at least there’s nothing confusing about a good song.

[1] Dana A. Scherer, Cong. Research Serv., R43984, Money for Something: Music Licensing in the 21st Century 1 (2015), https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43984.pdf.

[2] Id.

[3] Emily Yahr, Taylor Swift versus Spotify: Why her bold move won’t work for other artists, Wash. Post (Nov. 3, 2014).

[4] Micah Singleton, Adele may be the next superstar to keep her album off Spotify: Spotify’s resistance to premium-only content may keep 25 off the service, The Verge (Nov. 10, 2015, 3:51 PM), http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/10/9706342/adele-25-new-album-not-on-spotify-streaming.

[5] Id.

[6] Maria A. Pallante, U.S. Copyright Office, Copyright and the Music Marketplace (2015), http://copyright.gov/docs/musiclicensingstudy/copyright-and-the-music-marketplace.pdf.

[7] Id. at 25.

[8] Id.

[9] Eriq Gardner, Big Shake-Up to Music Licensing Regime Embraced by U.S. Copyright Office, The Hollywood Reporter (Feb. 5, 2015, 10:44 AM), http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/big-shake-up-music-licensing-770512.

[10] Id.

[11] Id.

[12] Ali Sternburg, Pandora, Others Seek Certainty in Music Copyright through Settlements, but Issues Remain, Disruptive Competition Project (Nov. 6, 2015), http://www.project-disco.org/intellectual-property/110615-pandora-others-seek-certainty-in-music-copyright-through-settlements-but-issues-remain/.

[13] U.S. H. Comm. on the Judiciary, U.S. Copyright Law Review, //judiciary.house.gov/index.cfm/us-copyright-law-review.

By: Quinn Novak,

I spent two solid weeks of my life listening to Sarah Koenig’s melodic voice ring through my headphones. If I had a spare ten minutes during the day, I found myself plugging in and tuning out. Like millions of other people, I was hooked on NPR’s Serial podcast and I needed to know what happened to Hae Min Lee. Did Adnan Syed really kill Hae? Did Jay conspire to kill her? Is Hae still alive and roaming the streets of California with her dad? Spoiler alert: You never find out how Hae died. I was completely devastated and almost hurled my iPad across the room when the final episode ended. Like many Serial listeners, I was left wanting more.

The Serial podcast analyzed Adnan Syed’s 2000 murder conviction of his high school friend, Hae Min Lee, and sparked an influx of further investigation into the murder.[1] In February 2014, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals granted Adnan Syed’s request for review of his case.[2] The court said that the defense should be able to present alibi witness testimony and that these statements could be considered in deliberations on whether Syed deserves a new trial.[3] “The Court of Special Appeals called on the Baltimore Circuit to Court to reopen Syed’s post-conviction hearing so [alibi] testimony could be taken.”[4]

Syed had to petition the Baltimore Circuit Court to grant his hearing [5] and Syed’s new attorney, Justin Brown, filed a motion on August 24, 2014.[6] Although the Maryland Attorney General, Thiru Vignarajah, opposed the motion, the Baltimore Circuit Court granted Syed’s request for a hearing on November 7, 2014.[7]

Syed’s hearing before the Baltimore Circuit Court will allow his lawyer to reopen post-conviction proceedings and introduce new alibi evidence.[8] The hearing will focus on the inadequate legal representation by Syed’s 2000 lawyer, Cristina Gutierez, including the fact that Guitierrez never called alibi witness, Asia McClain.[9] The Serial podcast revealed that Asia McClain had sent several letters to Syed while he was in jail telling him that she remembered seeing him at the public library on the afternoon that the prosecutors claim he killed Hae Min Lee.[10] However, Syed’s lawyer never called McClain to testify about this alibi and the prosecutors actively discouraged McClain to attend post-conviction hearings.[11] If the Baltimore Circuit Court reviews the alibi statements favorably, McClain could finally have her day in court and could offer further insight into the day that Hae Min Lee was murdered.

Another important fact that the Circuit Court hearing will focus on is the unreliability of the AT&T cell phone records that the prosecution used to place Syed’s movements on the day of the murder.[12] Justin Brown submitted a fax cover sheet from AT&T where the company raised the question of reliability of technology in 1999 to pinpoint the location of a cellphone.[13] “Brown obtained an affidavit from the state’s expert witness regarding phone technology, who said he would have wanted to know about [AT&T’s] disclaimer on the fax cover sheet and it would have changed his testimony.”[14] The defense believes that proving the cell phone towers were unreliable to trace Syed’s movements will discredit the prosecution’s theory.

The Serial podcast has played a pivotal role in popularizing Syed’s case and moving towards an appeal. The 1999 murder of Hae Min Lee captivated the nation when the podcast first aired in October 2014.[15] The twelve-episode series was “downloaded millions of times, setting records for a podcast and creating a groundswell of calls for a new trial.”[16] Further, much of the new evidence being presented to the Baltimore Circuit Court was revealed through the podcast’s investigation, such as the circumstantial cell phone tower evidence and potential alibi witness, Asia McClain.[17]

At the end of the day, like so many other listeners and avid followers of Serial, I want closure. Preferably, I would like this closure in the form of a new trial where Jay takes the stand, breaks down in tears on cross-examination, and admits that he framed Adnan and that he killed Hae. Until then, I can dream and attentively keep my ears open for news about this seemingly insignificant case that happened over fifteen years ago.

[1] Serial, NPR (Fall 2014) (downloaded using iTunes).

[2] Bill Chappell, Adnan Syed, Subject of ‘Serial’ Podcast, Gets Hearing on New Evidence, NPR (Nov. 7, 2015, 9:53 AM), http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/11/07/455123673/adnan-syed-subject-of-serial-podcast-gets-hearing-on-new-evidence.

[3] Justin Fenton, ‘Serial’ figure headed to court after request for hearing granted, Baltimore Sun (Nov. 6, 2015, 9:24 PM), http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/crime/blog/bs-md-ci-adnan-syed-hearing-granted-2015116-story.html.

[4] Id.

[5] Id.

[6] Juliet Linderman, Adnan Syed Attorney Says Key Evidence Wrong, U.S. News (Aug. 26, 2015, 12:37 PM), http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/08/26/adnan-syed-attorney-says-key-evidence-wrong.

[7] Chappell, supra note 1; Fenton, supra note 2.

[8] Jackie Solo, Adnan Syed Appeal Update 2015: Motion to Reopen Murder Case Granted One Year After ‘Serial’ Podcast, Int’l Bus. Times (Nov. 6, 2015, 5:16 PM), http://www.ibtimes.com/adnan-syed-appeal-update-2015-motion-reopen-murder-case-granted-one-year-after-serial-2173896.

[9] Chappell, supra note 2.

[10] Fenton, supra note 3.

[11] Linderman, supra note 6.

[12] Solo, supra note 8.

[13] Fenton, supra note 3.

[14] Id.

[15] Daniel Kreps, ‘Serial:’ Adnan Syed Allowed to Present New Evidence, Rolling Stones (Nov. 7, 2015), http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/serial-adnan-syed-allowed-to-present-new-evidence-20151107.

[16] Fenton, supra note 3.

[17] Kreps, supra note 15.

Photo Source:  http://mashable.com/2014/11/06/serial-podcast/#lleMGk9xv8qp

By: Ryan Suit,

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

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

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

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

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

[2] Id.

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

[4] Id.

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

[6] Id.

[7] Id.

[8] Study, supra note 3.

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

[10] Id.

[11] James, supra note 1.

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

By: Sarah Jessee,

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

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

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

           [5]

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

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

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

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

[3] Id.

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

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

[6] Id.

[7] Id.

[8] Id.

[9] Griswold, supra note 1.

[10] Strutner, supra note 5.

[11] Martin, supra note 4.

[12] Strutner, supra note 5.

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

By: Matt O’Toole

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[2]Id.

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

[4]Id.

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

[6]See David supra, note 1.

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

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

[9]See David supra, note 1.

[10]Id.

By: Curtis Hazelton,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[2]Id.

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

[4]Id.

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

By: Jenni Lyman,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[3]Id.

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

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

[6]Id.

[7]Id.

[8]Id.

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

[10]Culhane, supra note 4.

[11]Rovell, supra note 8.

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

[13]Id.

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

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

By: Manny Olojede,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[4]Id.

[5]Id.

[6]Ullman, supra note 1.

[7]Id.

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

[9]Id.

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

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

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

By: Curtis Hazelton,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[5] Id.

[6] Id.

[7] Id.

[8] Id.

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