Category: Blog Posts Page 69 of 75

By: Brooke Kargman, Associate Staff

There have been vast advancements in forensic science largely due to developments in DNA technology.  Many prisoners who have maintained their innocence have accessed DNA evidence ultimately substantiating their claims, which was previously unobtainable.[1]  Inevitably, appeals courts are now confronted with “actual innocence” claims, including writs of certiorari and writs of habeas corpus, from prisoners who have maintained their innocence.[2]  Through the use of DNA technology, more than 300 wrongfully convicted people in the United States have been exonerated.[3]  Included in that sum are 18 people who have served time on death row.[4]

The discussion about the death penalty is an ongoing debate with many different angles.  Discussing the death penalty as a suitable punishment for our future capital offenders is a proactive debate; circulating advocacy for or against punishing potential future capital offenders.  Support for the death penalty has wavered, but is currently the lowest it has been since 1972, at 60%.[5]  Discussions of the death penalty have now emerged into a retroactive aggressive debate.  It has been argued that a person who is “actually innocent” does not necessarily have the constitutional right to be released from death row.[6]

The question becomes: does a convicted felon who has had a full and fair criminal trial have a constitutional right to be liberated of their death sentence when their “actual innocence” claim is supported by new evidence?

Many of our history’s esteemed policymakers have asserted that the Constitution is a “living document” so far as allowing lawmakers to create laws that adapt to society’s progressive ideals and advancements while reserving the rights written in the Constitution’s text.[7]  Former Supreme Court Justice O’Connor has said, “execution of a legally and factually innocent person would be a constitutionally intolerable event.”[8]

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) implemented tighter restrictions on habeas cases and expanded the deference given to federal courts.[9]  The Supreme Court has held that innocence is not enough and that a convicted felon does not have the constitutional right to postconviction DNA testing, even at their own expense, to prove their actual innocence.[10]  In the widely talked about Troy Davis death penalty case, Justice Scalia dissents to Davis’ Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and writes, “[t]his court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is “actually” innocent.”[11]

By not finding it constitutionally obligatory to exonerate “actually innocent” people from their death sentence, our policymakers are keeping our Constitution stagnant.  The Eighth Amendment of our Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment,[12] and executing an innocent person in the 2000s is seemingly anything but commonsensical or in accordance with the concept of our Constitution as a “living document.”

[1] Browse the Profiles, INNOCENCEPROJECT.ORG, http://www.innocenceproject.org/know/Browse-Profiles.php (last visited Nov. 23, 2014).

[2] E.g., Petition for Writ of Certiorari, In re Davis, 557 U.S. ___ (2009) (No. 08-1443).

[3] Mission Statement, INNOCENCEPROJECT.ORG, http://www.innocenceproject.org/about/Mission-Statement.php (last visited Nov. 23, 2014).

[4] Id.

[5] See Jeffrey M. Jones, Americans’ Support for Death Penalty Stable, GALLUP (Oct. 23, 2014), http://www.gallup.com/poll/178790/americans-support-death-penalty-stable.aspx.

[6] See Dahlia Lithwick, Why It’s Constitutional to Execute an Innocent Man, NEWSWEEK, (Sept. 2, 2009, 8:00 PM), http://www.newsweek.com/why-its-constitutional-execute-innocent-man-79487.

[7] See generally Adam Winkler, A Revolution Too Soon: Woman Suffragists and the “Living Constitution”, 76 N.Y.U.L. Rev. 1456, 1457 (2001) (“[C]onstitutional provisions are… interpreted to meet present social needs… Legal historians credit Progressive Era thinkers such as Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., Christopher Tiedeman, Louis D. Brandeis, and Woodrow Wilson for making the ‘earliest efforts’ to adopt a changing, evolving Constitution.”); Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 100-01 (1958) (“[T]he words of the Amendment are not precise… their scope is not static… must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.”).

[8] David Grann, Trial By Fire, THE NEW YORKER (Sept. 7, 2009) http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/09/07/trial-by-fire.

[9] Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214.

[10] Petition for Writ of Certiorari, In re Davis, 557 U.S. ___, 36-37 (2009) (No. 08-1443); DA’s Office v. Osborne, 557 U.S. 52 (2009).

[11] Petition for Writ of Certiorari, In re Davis, 557 U.S. ___, 2 (2009) (No. 08-1443) (Scalia, J., dissenting) available at http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/08pdf/08-1443scalia.pdf.

[12] U.S. Const. amend. VIII.

By: Jill Smaniotto, Associate Manuscripts Editor

“Bring your own device” policies are undeniably on the rise in the realm of business IT.  According a recent survey, roughly two-fifths of U.S. consumers working for large enterprises use their personally-owned devices—i.e. smartphones, tablets, or desktops—for at least some aspect of their work.[1]  Generally, concern surrounding the practice of BYOD has been in regard to the risk to misappropriation of corporate data (i.e., that of the employer’s customers).  However, a recent case has shed light on another area for concern: the risk to employee data when the employer/employee relationship sours.

“Bring your own device” or “BYOD” is a phrase that has become widely adopted to refer to the practice of employees bringing their own personal computing devices to the workplace for use on the corporate network.[2]  In recent years, a shift in IT culture has taken place: the consumerization of IT.[3]  Essentially, there has been a shift from a IT-department-driven culture to one in which consumers are getting the newest, latest technologies ahead of their corporate counterparts.[4]  In turn, these consumers are finding their own personal devices are better suited for their work than those provided by employers.[5]

This use of personal devices to handle corporate data on secure corporate networks is occurring regardless of whether employees have employer consent to do so.[6]  In fact, a survey conducted by ZDNet indicated that only one-quarter of all enterprise employees surveyed are required by employers to bring their own device, suggesting that the remaining three-quarters were doing so without their employer’s consent.[7]  This raises several concerns for data security, as corporate entities are generally not in control of the data accessed via personal devices where employees are using personal devices without the consent of the employer.

Similarly, small and midsized business are embracing the use of BYOD policies at a rapid pace, while failing to address security risks at the same pace.[8]  The cost-saving benefits of operating under BYOD policies is also to blame for the lack of security solutions in place in small, low-capital companies.[9]

Despite the risks, software companies are beginning to encourage the adoption of BYOD policies by offering services to put in place security solutions.[10]  By employing one of these “solutions,” companies can set safeguards for their customers’ data, while allowing the company and the employees to reap the benefits of BYOD.  For example, IBM emphasizes that BYOD increases employee productivity and satisfaction as employees are more comfortable with their own devices.[11]  Additionally, BYOD programs may result in minimal savings for the company, as it shifts the cost to the employee/user.[12]

While the focus is primarily on the risk to company/consumer data, there has been little addressing the risk BYOD poses for the employee/user’s data.  Last week, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas decided a case addressing that very risk.[13]  In Rajaee v. Design Tech Homes, Ltd., plaintiff Saman Rajaee asserted a claim for loss under Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”), 18 U.S.C. § 1030.[14]  Rajaee was formerly employed by the defendant, Design Tech Homes, in a position that required he have constant access to email in order to address customer questions and concerns.[15]  Design Tech did not provide Rajaee with a cell phone or smart device.[16]  Instead, Rajaee used his own personal iPhone to conduct his work for Design Tech via a remote access connection to Design Tech’s Microsoft Exchange Server.[17]  Roughly one year after he began working for Design Tech, Rajaee notified Design Tech that he would be resigning in two weeks, and Design Tech immediately terminated Rajaee’s employment.  Shortly thereafter, Design Tech’s network administrator remotely wiped Rajaee’s iPhone, deleting all work-related and personal data.[18]

Rajaee filed suit against Design Tech under the CFAA, alleging that company’s indiscriminate wiping of his iPhone caused him to lose “more than 600 business contacts collected during the course of his career, family contacts (many of which were overseas and some related to family business), family photos, business records, irreplaceable business and personal photos and videos and numerous passwords.”[19]

Under the CFAA, “loss” is defined as “any reasonable cost to any victim, including the cost of responding to an offense, conducting a damage assessment, and restoring the data, program, system, or information to its condition prior to the offense, and any revenue lost, cost incurred, or other consequential damages incurred because of interruption of service.”[20]

Here, the Court held that while Rajaee did assert losses as a result of the defendant’s actions, he did not assert cognizable loss under the CFAA. The Court notes that Rajaee’s assertions of monetary values corresponding to his “losses” are not supported by any evidence, and he failed to produce any evidence relating to his response to the data’s deletion or damages suffered as the result of an “interruption of service.”[21]  Accordingly, the Court granted Design Tech’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed Rajaee’s claim under the CFAA.[22]

The Court’s ruling in Rajaee is troubling in that at this stage, it appears as though there is little recourse for employees who suffer due to their employers’ choices to implement BYOD policies.  Where individuals run the risk of losing personal photographs, messages, and contact information, that risk is further exacerbated by the very nature of such personal data, making it nearly impossible to quantify loss.  It seems as though participation in BYOD programs by employers is on a track to become relatively low-risk, while all of the risk rests with the employee/user, who may be completely beholden to the whims of the employer.

[1] Zack Whittaker, Bring-Your-Own-Device Gains Traction in the U.S. – Even if Enterprises Aren’t Ready Yet, ZDNet (Oct. 21, 2014), http://www.zdnet.com/bring-your-own-device-gains-traction-in-the-u-s-even-if-enterprises-arent-ready-yet-7000034925/.

[2] Vangie Beal, What is Bring Your Own Device (BYOD)?, Webopedia (last visited Nov. 16, 2014), http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/B/BYOD.html.

[3] Tony Bradley, Pros and Cons of Bringing Your Own Device to Work, PCWorld (Dec. 20, 2011, 10:42 PM), http://www.pcworld.com/article/246760/pros_and_cons_of_byod_bring_your_own_device_.html.

 [4] Id.

[5] See Whittaker, supra note 1.

[6] Id.

[7] Id. 

[8] Pedro Hernandez, Small Biz Mobile Security Lags Behind BYOD Adoption, SmallBusinessComputing.com (Nov. 13, 2014), http://www.smallbusinesscomputing.com/News/Security/small-biz-mobile-security-lags-behind-byod-adoption.html.

[9] Id.

[10] See BYOD: Bring Your Own Device: Why and How You Should Adopt BYOD, IBM (last visited Nov. 16, 2014), http://www.ibm.com/mobilefirst/us/en/bring-your-own-device/byod.html; BYOD – Bring Your Own Device, MobileIron (last visited Nov. 16, 2014), https://www.mobileiron.com/en/solutions/byod; BYOD Smart Solution, Cisco (last visited Nov. 16, 2014), http://www.cisco.com/web/solutions/trends/byod_smart_solution/index.html.

[11] IBM, supra note 10.

[12] Id. 

[13] BYOD-Covered Employee Cannot Prove CFAA Loss After Company Remotely Wiped Phone, 19 Electronic Com. & L. Rep. Online (BNA) (Nov. 13, 2014).

[14] Rajaee v. Design Tech Homes, Ltd., No. H-13-2517, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 159180, at *3 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 11, 2014).

[15] Id. at *1.

[16] Id. at * 1-2.

[17] Id. at *2.

[18] Id. at *3.

[19] Rajaee, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 159180, at *3.

[20] Id. at *8-9 (citing 18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(11)).

[21] Id. at *9-10.

[22] Id. at *11-12.

By: Josh Lepchitz, Associate Staff

Music streaming programs have drastically changed how it is consumers listen to music. In the United States music sales are 5% and a major contributing factor to the drop in revenue is services like Spotify, Pandora, and YouTube. [1]  This drop in sales has proven not only to be discouraging to major record labels that depend on the sale of cd’s and digital downloads, but it has also received some back lash from popular recording artist.  Artists such as Taylor Swift, David Byrne of the Talking Heads, Dan Auerbach of the Black Keys, Beck, and Thom Yorke of Radiohead have spoken out against the public receiving their music from services like Spotify.[2]  The primary arguments held by these musicians is that they should have a say in how their art is to be distributed to the public, and that these services provide horrible royalties.  The royalties received from Spotify range between $0.006 to $0.0084 cents per stream.[3]  For the major recording artists this is the opposite of what they are used to receiving in royalties.

To combat the increased exposure and decreased royalties artists have come up with various strategies.  Some simply do not allow their music to be accessed on these programs.[4]  Others have become very litigious. For example, Flo and Eddie Inc. represent members of the 1960’s band the Turtles, and they recently won a multimillion-dollar suit against Sirius XM Radio Inc. for the use of some of their copyrighted material and have now placed their sights on Pandora.[5] However, one artist in particular has taken an alternative approach that could be potentially revolutionary in music consumption.  I am speaking of the legendary New York City based hip-hop group the Wu-Tang Clan.  Either as a collective ensemble or as individual artists the Wu-Tang has made an undeniable and lasting impression on music and now they have the potential to change how major recording artists reach the public with their music.

The Wu-Tang have secretly recorded and produced an album that they are calling their opus titled “Once Upon a Time in Shaolin”. Here is where things become interesting, the Wu own the sole rights to the album and there is only one copy of it in existence.   The album will be auctioned off and the expected sale price is in the millions of dollars.[6]  The multiple of reasons behind the unique release include that the group wants to see a revival of music being seen as art and shift the medium closer to the realm of visual works like painting and photography.[7]  The Wu-Tang will receive the proceeds from the auction sale and the sole copy of the album, along with its rights will go to the purchaser.

What this means is after the sale the Wu-Tang is finished with the album and the purchaser can do with it whatever they chose.  Using this model the musicians will receive their payday, and the purchaser can turn around and do whatever with the piece of art.  The buyer could sell and distribute the album, post it online for free or limited purchase download, take the album on tour as the Wu-Tang has in order to give potential buyers a preview, or the buyer could destroy it.

A man from Virginia, Chris Everhart, initiated what ended up being an unsuccessful crowd funding campaign on Kickstarter.com.[8]  He failed to reach his lofty goal of six million dollars in order to purchase and destroy the album.  He sees the project as “self-righteous” and believes that art should be shared with the entire world and not be excluded from the culturally disadvantaged.[9]  His goal was not met but his point does have some potency.  There is the consideration that art is for the public good and the people should have access to it.  Now this is simply one man’s failed goal, but what happens with the music will depend entirely upon who purchases it.

“Once Upon a Time In Shaolin” could be purchased by a record label and distributed normally as any other album, it could go to an eccentric millionaire and be locked away for his own personal use, or it could go to a museum and be placed on display for the public like the Mona Lisa.  An interesting question is what happens if an entity like Spotify purchases the album and requires monthly payments to access their exclusive content.  It would be a possible way for a company like Spotify to alter its business model.  They could go from being a company who receives the majority of its profits from advertisers to a company who relies mostly on subscribers interested in original and exclusive content like Netflix or HBO.

The outcome of what happens with the Wu-Tang’s special release is yet to be seen. All theories are purely speculative, but it has accomplished another one of the Wu-Tang’s goals, to spark discussion.[10]  So far in 2014, only one artist has produced a platinum album, which was last month’s release of 1989 by Taylor Swift. Outside of Taylor Swift the only other platinum album is the soundtrack from Disney’s Frozen.[11]  Before the release of 1989, 2014 was the first year that no platinum albums had been awarded to a non-compilation record since 1976, the first year that Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) began handing out platinum albums.   Music streaming services are here to stay, as far as anyone can tell, and a shift in the landscape of the music industry is inevitable.  What the Wu-Tang accomplished is an expansion on their legacy.  Not only are they going to be known for their accomplishments as artists, but also they could be known for their impact on the music industry as market innovators.

To get a sneak peak of “Once Upon a Time In Shaolin” and some commentary from its producer check out the following link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABL5Elr16hc.

[1] Ben Sisario, U.S. Music Sales Drop 5%, as Habits Shift Online, N.Y. Times, Sept. 26, 2014, at B3.

[2] Jillian Mapes, Musicians Drinking the Spotify Haterade: The Collected Complaints, (Aug. 12, 2014, 9:45 AM), http://flavorwire.com/471802/musicians-drinking-the-spotify-haterade-the-collected-complaints, Stuard Dredge, Rdio on Taylor Swift’s Spotify block: ‘This is art. It’s the artist’s choice’, (Nov. 10, 2014, 7:09 AM), http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/nov/10/rdio-spotify-taylor-swift-streaming.

[3] Jillian Mapes, Musicians Drinking the Spotify Haterade: The Collected Complaints, (Aug. 12, 2014, 9:45 AM), http://flavorwire.com/471802/musicians-drinking-the-spotify-haterade-the-collected-complaints.

[4] Stuard Dredge, Rdio on Taylor Swift’s Spotify block: ‘This is art. It’s the artist’s choice’, (Nov. 10, 2014, 7:09 AM), http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/nov/10/rdio-spotify-taylor-swift-streaming.

[5] Flo & Eddie Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., et al., No. CV 13-5693 PSG (RZx), 2014 WL 4725382, (C.D. Cal. Sept. 22, 2014). Eriq Gardner, After SiriusXM Success, The Turtles take on Pandora in $25 Million Lawsuit (Exclusive), (Oct. 2, 2014, 1:18 PM), http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/siriusxm-success-turtles-take-pandora-737673.

[6] Zack Greenburg, Why Wu-Tang Will Release Just One Copy Of Its Secret Album, Forbes (March 26, 2014, 12:00 PM), http://www.forbes.com/sites/zackomalleygreenburg/2014/03/26/why-wu-tang-will-release-just-one-copy-of-its-secret-album/.

[7] Id.

[8] https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/510343979/destroy-only-copy-of-new-wu-tang-album (last visited Nov. 10 2014).

[9] Id.

[10] Zack Greenburg, Unlocking The Wu-Tang Clan’s Secret Album in Morocco, Forbes (May 6, 2014, 11:03 AM), http://www.forbes.com/sites/zackomalleygreenburg/2014/05/06/unlocking-the-wu-tang-clans-secret-album-in-morocco/.

[11] Cliff Lee, Congratulations, Taylor Swift: You’ll be the only platinum artist of 2014, The Globe and Mail (Oct. 21 2014, 9:36 AM), http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/music/congratulations-taylor-swift-youll-be-the-only-platinum-artist-of-2014/article21180284/.

By: Jill Smaniotto, Associate Manuscript Editor

Following the shooting death of eighteen year-old Michael Brown by a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri this past summer, the issue of accountability for police firearm use has been at the forefront of public discourse.[1]  A firearms technology startup in Capitola, California known as Yardarm Technologies recently announced that it has developed a product that may provide the real-time information necessary to maintain greater oversight of the use of police force.[2]

While so-called “smart gun” technology has existed for quite some time, technological advances, coupled with the growing concern over mass shootings and police abuse of force, have prompted further development of the technology.[3]  Yardarm’s new product is a two-inch piece of hardware equipped with an accelerometer and a magnetometer that officers snap into the grip of their firearms.[4]

The sensor records information about when, where, and how police officers use their firearms,[5] providing dispatchers with real-time data.[6]  Currently, the technology requires the officer to carry a smartphone; as the device transmits the data by sending a signal to the phone, which then sends the information to Yardarm’s servers for secure storage.[7]  The Yardarm sensor has capabilities to track the gun’s location, whether the gun is in its holster, when new magazines are inserted, and when it is fired.[8]  Yardarm also intends to develop the product further so that it may be able to tell in which direction the gun is fired.[9]  The technology does not feature a remote disabling mechanism.[10]

Initially, Yardarm intended to sell the device on the consumer firearm market.[11]  Early plans for the device focused on tracking in the event of theft or misplacement of the individual’s firearm and remote locking, but the potential political sensitivities of entering the consumer firearm market proved too great a challenge to the ten-employee startup.[12]  Yardarm then decided to switch its focus to law enforcement agencies, which were already showing interest in the burgeoning technology.[13]  The Santa Cruz Sheriff’s Department and Carollton (Texas) Police Department have begun equipping officers’ weapons with the sensors on a trial basis.[14]

            Discussion surrounding the announcement of this new technology has been divisive. Proponents of technology like Yardarm’s new sensor cite the potential benefits to officer safety in the field, as well as the hope for a pool of objective data that may be used to investigate incidents of alleged police brutality.[15]  Law enforcement agencies are hopeful that this technology will help to solve a problem that is “the worst nightmare for any officer in the field”: deputies in trouble and unable to ask for additional assistance.[16]  Additionally, those in favor of the technology expect that the sensors, like dashboard cameras, will provide objective records of incidents when officers used firearms.[17]  This information may run on a two-way street, though, as it could be used “to exonerate an officer accused of misconduct, or to prosecute a criminal in a court of law.”[18]

            Detractors, however, are not comfortable with the potential implications of widespread use of technology.  Guns rights advocates, such as the National Rifle Association (“NRA”) are wary of the impact of smart guns on Second Amendment rights.[19]  Specifically, the NRA has voiced concern that the proliferation of these sensors may open the door to government regulations requiring this technology on personal firearms.[20]  The American Civil Liberties Union (“ACLU”) expressed concern that the sensors may present an invasion of privacy, but tempered that concern by also admitting that such invasion may be a necessary evil in order to attain some much needed transparency into police behavior.[21]

            While this technology is certainly new, the supposed ease of integration[22] and the volatile state of affairs surrounding police use of firearms may combine to create the spark necessary to ignite the widespread employ of such sensors sooner rather than later.  As Yardarm has made clear its intention to solely market the product to law enforcement and military,[23] detractors of the technology may find their criticisms lacking much weight as compared to the vast public safety benefits in the inevitable debate as to what place smart guns may have in our society.

[1] Hunter Stuart, Company Makes Gun Tech That Could Help Prevent Police Brutality, The Huffington Post (Oct. 24, 2014, 11:02 AM), http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/24/police-gun-tracking_n_6040930.html.

[2] Id.

[3] Haven Daley, California Startup Unveils Gun Technology for Cops, Aol.com (Oct. 24, 2014, 6:57 AM), http://www.aol.com/article/2014/10/24/california-startup-unveils-gun-technology-for-cops/20983460/; David Kravets, Silicon Valley Startup Unveils Internet-Connected Smart Guns for Cops, Ars Technica (Oct. 24, 2014, 12:30 PM), http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/10/silicon-valley-startup-unveils-internet-connected-smart-guns-for-cops/.

[4] Aaron Tilley, Internet-Connected Guns Are the Next Step for Data-Hungry Police, Forbes (Oct. 24, 2014, 10:00 AM), http://www.forbes.com/sites/aarontilley/2014/10/24/yardarm-sensor-gun/; Stuart, supra note 1.

[5] Stuart, supra note 1.

[6] Kravets, supra note 3.

[7] Stuart, supra note 1.

[8] Tilley, supra note 4.

[9] Id.

[10] Daley, supra note 3.

[11] Tilley, supra note 4.

[12] Id.; Kravets, supra note 3.

[13] Tilley, supra note 4.

[14] Daley, supra note 3; Kravets, supra note 3; Stuart, supra note 1; Tilley, supra note 4.

[15] Daley, supra note 3; Stuart, supra note 1.

[16] Daley, supra note 3. See also Stuart, supra note 1 (“[T]he technology can be also used to keep police officers safer. When an officer draws his weapon, for example, the gun will send an alert to the police command center and to nearby officers, alerting them to a potentially dangerous situation.”).

[17] Stuart, supra note 1.

[18] Id.

[19] Krave
ts, supra note 3.

[20] Id. See also Daley, supra note 3 (noting that Gun Owners of California spoke to concern of future government mandated use of the technology on personal firearms).

[21] Tilley, supra note 4.

[22] See Tilley, supra note 4 (noting that Yardarm is designing its software to easily fit into existing dispatcher software); Daley, supra note 3 (indicating that the device can fit into the handle of most police guns and relies on Bluetooth technology for data transmission).

[23] Tilley, supra note 4.

By: Andrew Landrum, Associate Technical Editor

The global advent of interconnectivity has led to breakthroughs in communication, innovation, scientific collaboration, and, most importantly, how to spend money in the comfort of your pajamas.  Online shopping has become the way of the future.  No more will store hours, location, or Netflix conflict with the impulse to buy.  Indeed, this past August, the United States Department of Commerce has reported a steady growth of E-Commerce, as it now comprises an adjusted total of almost 7% of all total retail sales.[1]  For just the second quarter of 2014, the United States E-Commerce sales totaled $75.0 billion.[2]  The problem, however, is that these sales run zero-sum with brick-and-mortar companies.[3]

Brick-and-mortar companies are those businesses that maintain a physical presence in a state.  Their presence supports the local economy, provides jobs, and offers face-to-face customer experiences.  However, it also succumbs them to state and local regulations, like sales taxes.  These sales taxes support state and local governments but also constitute extra burdens on local consumers.[4]  These burdens, however beneficial, are pushing consumers online.[5]

States have attempted to react by passing Internet sales taxes.[6]  These taxes are meant to level the playing field between brick-and-mortar companies and E-Commerce industries.[7]  However, these measures have not gone without resistance.  Policymakers have also been weary of unfair taxation and thus passed the Internet Tax Freedom Act, meant to protect, “unfettered access to one of the most unique gateways to knowledge and engines of self-improvement in all of human history.”[8]  This legislation has served as a springboard for litigation. Online companies argue Internet sales taxes implicate Internet tax freedom and discriminate against out-of-state companies solely because of the nature of their business.

The Internet Tax Freedom Act was passed in 1988 and will likely be extended indefinitely by the end of this year.  The text of the act clearly prohibits two things: (1) taxes on internet access; and (2) multiple of discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce.[9]  Clearly the first prohibition on internet access has no relevance to online sales tax litigation.  The real issue falls on what is defined as a “discriminatory tax” on E-Commerce.  There has been much debate among online service providers, and state and local governments as to what constitutes a discriminating tax.  These businesses hold that taxing a service or good merely because the transaction occurs online should constitute discrimination and runs in the face of the Internet Tax Freedom Act.[10]  However, as explained by the 7^th Circuit, the misleading name does not ensure “tax freedom” but only freedom from unfair taxation.[11]

According to the relevant provisions of the Act itself, discriminatory E-Commerce taxes are those taxes that: (1) are not imposed on the same or similar property, goods, services, or information accomplished through other means; (2) are imposed at a higher rate than those goods, services, or information accomplished through other means; (3) imposes an obligation to collect or pay the tax on a different entity than would otherwise be normally taxed; or (4) the taxes are imposed on an internet access service provider merely because the provider displays the resellers information or processes the orders through an out-of-state computer server.[12]

Accounting for the first three sections, courts have allowed E-Commerce tax statutes for purposes of levelling the playing field between online industries and companies physically present.[13]  E-Commerce taxes that run at a similar rate as those imposed on brick-and-mortar companies have not been found to qualify as “discriminatory” under the Internet Tax Freedom Act.[14]  This statute, despite its name, does not create “tax freedom” per se but instead merely prohibits disadvantaging one type of retailer over another.[15]

The fourth provision has created litigation between cities and states, and online auction and solicitation websites such as Ebay, Craigslist, or Stubhub!.[16]  Courts have drawn a line between these service providers and have declared that if an intermediary takes an active role in, “staging an auction and exchanging goods for money” they have so involved themselves in the transaction that state imposed taxation on the providers service is not discriminatory.[17]  Those that play an active role act as an agent of the reseller and can be taxed accordingly, whereas passive websites that merely list the offer and the offeror’s information cannot.[18]

The availability of online services has blurred the commercial lines, making comparisons between internet companies and brick-and-mortar businesses difficult.  States are, however, allowed to tax each type of company similarly, assuming their services provided are comparable and the tax imposed is equitable.  In an increasingly diverse market, all states can do it ensure all companies have a fair shot at competing for your business.

[1] U.S. Census Bureau, Quarterly Retail E-Commerce Sales, U.S. Department of Commerce (Aug. 15, 2014, 10:00 AM) available at, http://www.census.gov/retail/mrts/www/data/pdf/ec_current.pdf.

[2] Id.

[3] Grant Gross, U.S. residents oppose Internet sales tax, say they’ll shop online less, Computer World (May 13, 2013 5:43 PM), http://www.computerworld.com/article/2497336/e-commerce/u-s–residents-oppose-internet-sales-tax–say-they-ll-shop-online-less.html; See, U.S. Census Bureau, supra at note 1 (displaying an increase of E-Commerce makes up an increasingly large amount of overall retail transactions).

[4] U.S. Census Bureau, Quarterly Summary of State and Local Government Tax Revenue for 2014:Q2, p.2, Sept. 23, 2014, available at http://www2.census.gov/govs/qtax/2014/q2infosheet.pdf (sales tax totaled $89.5 billion in Q2 of 2014).

[5] See, U.S. Census Bureau, supra at note 1.

[6] Kate Tummarello and Bernie Becker, Senators renew Internet sales tax push, the Hill (July 16, 2014, 6:00 AM), available at http://thehill.com/policy/finance/212385-senators-renew-internet-sales-tax-push.

[7] Id.

[8] PERMANENT INTERNET TAX FREEDOM ACT, 160 Cong Rec H 6228.

[9] Interstate Tax Freedom Act, § 1101(a)(1), (2), 47 U.S.C. § 151 note.

[10] Id.

[11] Id.

[12] Interstate Tax Freedom Act, § 1105(2); 47 U.S.C. § 151 note.                     

[13] StubHub!, Inc., 624 F.3d at 366.

[14] Id.

[15] Id., at 365;Travelocity.com, LP v. Wyo. De
p’t of Revenue, 2014 WY 43, 103 (Wyo.2014) (Noting that policies that do not single out individual consumers and generally apply to all willing to engage in taxed commercial practices are not discriminatory).

[16] Stubhub!, Inc., 624 F.3d at 366.

[17] Id. At 366-67 (“Because the ordinance applies equally to ticket resales at physical auction houses, the Chicago Board of Trade, and venues such as StubHub!, the tax is not “discriminatory”).

[18] Id.

By: Andrea Mousouris, Associate Articles Editor

Whether we realize it or not, our online activity is being watched. And whether we like it or not, Twitter, among other tech giants, shares our personal data with the U.S. government. Should consumers be aware of what and how much the government asks for? Twitter thinks so.

Twitter is suing the U.S. government in an effort to relax federal restrictions on what the tech company can say publicly about the national security related requests.[1] Defending principles of free speech, Twitter believes the government is violating its First Amendment right by criminalizing the disclosure of the number and type of spying orders it receives.[2]

Consumer technology companies often hold data on suspects that agencies like the National Security Agency are tracking.[3] Many of these agencies routinely request user data from these companies as part of continuing investigations.[4] But for years, technology companies have been limited by the law as to how much they can publicly disclose to their users about these government requests.[5] That has put companies like Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn in the difficult position of not being able to let their users know when they hand over their data.

The legality of government spying itself is not at issue in this case; the suit is a dispute about disclosure. Other Internet companies have also protested these restrictions, and in January 2013 the U.S. Department of Justice gave permission to Facebook, Google, LinkedIn, Microsoft and Yahoo to publish the information in bands of 1,000, starting with 0-999.[6] But Twitter’s data requests are much smaller, and so they want the right to tell its users that their accounts do not undergo widespread government surveillance.

On the one side, Twitter’s complaint challenges the basis for adopting a “preapproved disclosure format”, one that constitutes “an unconstitutional prior restraint and content-based restriction on, and government viewpoint discrimination against, Twitter’s right to speak about information of national and global public concern.”[7] On the other side, the government argues that in the FBI and National Security Agency’s pursuit of defending the country from real security threats, the more that the world knows about their sources and methods, the greater the security risk.[8] The court will have to decide whether such a risk meets the level of legal scrutiny required to restrict a First Amendment right.

In the mean time, Twitter continues to hope for comprehensive reform from Congress of government surveillance powers.[9] The USA Freedom Act of 2014, introduced by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT), would allow companies like Twitter to provide more transparency to its users.[10] But until then, the suit will continue as part of a long battle between the U.S. government and the technology companies that hold information on billions of people.

[1] Eric Brader, Twitter Sues U.S. Government Over National Security Data, CNN.COM, http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/07/politics/twitter-sues-u-s-government/ (last updated Oct. 7, 2014).

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

[5] Mike Isacc, Twitter Sues U.S. Government Over Data Disclosure Rules, NEW YORK TIMES.COM, http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/10/07/twitter-sues-u-s-government-over-data-disclosure-rules/ (last updated Oct. 7, 2014).

[6] Supra Note 1.

[7] Complaint at 47, Twitter Inc. v. The U.S. Government, (N.D. Cal. 2014)(No. 14-cv-4480).

[8] Supra Note 5.

[9] Ben Lee, Taking the Fight for #transparency to Court, Twitter Blog, https://blog.twitter.com/2014/taking-the-fight-for-transparency-to-court (Oct. 7. 2014).

[10] Id.

By: Micala MacRae, Associate Notes & Comments Editor

A virtual adultery epidemic has swept the nation. Online chat rooms, Facebook, twitter and other forms of social media have enabled individuals to make virtual connections that some argue are grounds for divorce.  In 1996, a New Jersey man filed for divorce based on adultery after discovering that his wife had been carrying on a “virtual” affair with a man in North Carolina through online chat rooms.[1]  Although the wife never met her cyber-paramour in person the relationship began to take over their lives and she began to neglect her job, family, and marriage.[2]  In the United States the courts have refused to hold virtual relationships reach the level of intimacy necessary for adultery.  Adultery is defined as intimate sexual activity outside of marriage.  However, virtual infidelity has become an increasingly important issue in Family Law.

Virtual infidelity can eventually lead a party to act.  If a spouse travels to meet an online partner in person, courts may infer adultery without much difficulty.  Courts have taken into consideration parents’ excessive time spent online on interactive gaming websites when determining child custody.[3]  When parents are not providing adequate support and care for their children due to their exorbitant time online courts infer from this they have relinquished their parental responsibilities.[4]  Courts may eventually see virtual infidelity as a renouncement of parental duties in divorce proceedings awarding the spouse who did not participate in the virtual infidelity full custody of the children.

Though courts have held virtual infidelity does not satisfy grounds for divorce it may satisfy other requirements such as neglect or abandonment.[5]  The spouse carrying out a virtual relationship abandons the marital relationship and the family when he or she spends great periods of time pursing the virtual relationship.  Many courts are willing to accept that sexual activity that is not proven to rise to the level of intercourse can still constitute legal adultery.[6]  Some courts even disapprove of emotional affairs, which are almost analogous to virtual adultery.

Although virtual infidelity may never involve physical contact courts may rule these virtual relationships that lead to the degradation of the marital relationship are grounds for divorce.  Online infidelity may qualify as adultery when the conduct is a substantial factor in the breakdown of the marriage.  Courts may expand the definition of adultery to include virtual infidelity as a factor in determining whether a divorce should be granted.  The law is behind the pace of technology and the evolution of views on marriage and infidelity.  It may be time to expand the law of adultery to include virtual infidelity, so that relief can be afforded to the victims.

[1] Douglas E. Abrams et al., Contemporary Family Law (3rd ed. 2012)

[2] Id.

[3] Andrew Feldstein, Is Cybersex Grounds for Divorce?, Huffingtonpost.com, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-feldstein/is-cybersex-grounds-for-d_b_4555583.html (last updated Mar. 10, 2014).

[4] Id.

[5] Edward Nelson, Virtual Infidelity: A Ground for Divorce, Examiner.com, (Sept. 11, 2010, 4:18 PM), http://www.examiner.com/article/virtual-infidelity-a-ground-for-divorce.

[6] Id.

By: Barry Gabay, Notes & Comments Editor

Amazon.com has completely transformed humans’ understanding of book availability. A book that may have eluded our grasp for months or even years can now be readily attained in a matter of seconds. We no longer have travel costs associated with visiting a book retailer, and we no longer experience the disappointment of the retailer being out of stock. There is no more stress or hassle in book shopping in the world of e-Commerce, as the world’s largest library is constantly at our fingertips. Now imagine the same phenomenon with wine.

In November 2012, Amazon, the world’s largest online retailer, launched a wine marketplace with over 1,000 domestic wines available.[1] Today, the portal offers more than 5,000 wines from some 700 merchants, 80 percent of which are from domestic brands.[2] The website facilitates “direct-to-consumer” transactions between wineries and consumers, whereby consumers are delivered bottles and cases of wine packaged and shipped directly from the winery.[3]

The marketplace’s potential is self-evident, as Amazon netted over $61 billion in sales in 2012, up more than 27 percent from the previous year.[4] On top of that, the United States is the world’s largest wine consumer; we drank 856 million gallons of wine in 2012, roughly 2.73 gallons per citizen, and spent nearly $35 billion on wine. [5] Further, of the roughly 7,500 wineries existing in the United States, the vast majority of are boutique wineries who do not market out of state.[6] Thus, with Amazon’s direct-to-consumer shipping, these small wineries will be able to sell to customers across the nation, and consumers across the country will be able to purchase premium wines with the click of a button from any winery who registers…in an ideal world.

Due to highly regulated interstate distribution laws, the Amazon marketplace, at present, only serves customers in 22 states and the District of Columbia.[7] The major impediment is the three-tier system of alcohol distribution, under which wine, distilled spirits, and beer producers (tier one), wholesalers (tier two) and retailers (tier three) are completely separated, and alcohol must pass through all three tiers before it reaches the consumer.[8] The system was adopted by many states after the passing of the Twenty-First Amendment, which effectively gave states absolute authority to control alcohol within their borders. It originally served to halt the future emergence of Prohibition-era criminal syndicates, run by the likes of George Remus and Al Capone who used vertical integration tactics in their control of the liquor industry. The system is now used in nearly every state in hopes of “promoting temperance, ensuring orderly market conditions and raising revenue.”[9]

The three-tier system has, remarkably, survived recent constitutional challenges under the Commerce Clause, notably in the 2005 decision of Granholm v. Heald.[10] But while countless articles and several courts have found the three-tier system to, by its very nature, discriminate against out-of-state producers and consumers and thus in violation of the Dormant Commerce Clause, the current rise in e-Commerce offers a yet another justification for loosening state regulations on alcohol distribution.[11] Wineries, like nearly every other industry, have identified the Internet as a gateway for national distribution and expansion. E-Commerce provides an outlet for small wineries to reach consumers they would otherwise never have access to; the growing popularity of boutique wineries makes this outlet even more valuable.

Today, 44 states and the District of Columbia allow the direct shipment of wine to the consumer in some capacity,[12] though more often than not, there are stiff regulatory issues the winery must comply with.[13] Direct-to-consumer shipments were worth more than $1.46 billion from in 2012, an eight percent increase during that time frame the year prior.[14] Yet, although we are the world’s largest wine consumer, we are well behind Europeans (eight to ten percent of their wine purchased online) and the Chinese (27 percent) in terms of direct-to-consumer wine sales.[15] A decade-old Federal Trade Commission report found that the single biggest factor inhibiting the rise of direct-to-consumer wine sales was the three-tier system.[16] When that report was filed, total American e-Commerce sales were around $58 billion. That number reached $259 billion last year.[17] Thus, the extent to which the three-tier system inhibits wine distribution is self-evident and simply staggering.

With the emergence of Amazon’s wine marketplace, the potential benefits of direct-to-consumer shipment are once again being discussed in state legislatures.[18] Greater market competition benefits consumer costs, as lower online wine prices would induce local wineries to take competitive action. Opening up the market to allow wineries to sell directly to retailers and consumers will benefit boutique wineries and consumers. Boutique wineries will be able to independently expand their distribution out of state, and consumers will have a lifetime of different wine from which to choose without increased wholesale markup. In the current shift toward a universal marketplace, our wine cellar could be infinite.  

[1] Mark Brohan, Amazon Sales Top $61 Billion in 2012, Internet Retailer (Jan. 29, 2013), http://www.internetretailer.com/2013/01/29/amazon-sales-top-61-billion-2012; Andrea Chang, Amazon Launches Online Wine Marketplace, L.A. Times (Nov. 9, 2012), http://articles.latimes.com/2012/nov/09/business/la-fi-amazon-wine-20121109.

[2] Lauren Indvik, Amazon Begins Shipping Wine to New York, Michigan, Mashable (Oct. 17, 2013), http://mashable.com/2013/10/17/amazon-wine-new-york/.

[3] Chang, supra note 1.

[4] Brohan, supra note 1.

[5] Table 6.1: World Wine Consumption, 2008-2011, % Change 2011/2008, and % of World Consumption-2011, The Wine Institute (2011), http://www.wineinstitute.org/files/World_Consumption_by_Country_2011.pdf; 2012 Wine Sales in U.S. Reach New Record: Record California Wine Crop to Meet Surging Demand, The Wine Institute (2013), http://www.wineinstitute.org/resources/pressroom/04082013.

[6] North American Winery Total passes 8,000, Wines & Vines (2013), http://www.winesandvines.com/template.cfm?section=news&content=111242; Devin McIntyre, Is Amazon Closer to Solving the Wine Shipping Puzzle?, The Wash. Post (2013), http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/is-amazon-closer-to-solving-the-wine-shipping-puzzle/2012/10/08/79b5353a-0da2-11e2-bd1a-b868e65d57eb_story.html.

[7] Amazon Wine States, http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=201020560 (last visited Feb. 1, 2014).

[8] Amy Murphy, Discarding the North Dakota Dictum, 110 Mich. L. Rev. 819, 824-25 (2012).

[9] Wine Country Gift Baskets.com v. Steen, 612 F.3d 809, 814 (5th Cir. 2
010) (citing North Dakota v. United States, 495 U.S. 423, 432 (1990) (plurality opinion) (internal citations omitted)).

[10] Granholm v. Heald, 544 U.S. 460, 463 (2005).

[11] See e.g. Murphy, supra note 8; Desireé C. Slaybaugh, A Twisted Vine: The Aftermath of Granholm v. Heald, 17. Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 265 (2011); Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Hoen, 407 F. Supp 2d. 1247 (W.D. Wash. 2005); Cherry Hill Vineyards LLC v. Lilly, 553 F.3d 423 (6th Cir. 2008); Family Winemakers of California v. Jenkins, 592 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2010).

[12] State Shipping Laws for Wineries (Jan. 24, 2014), http://wineinstitute.shipcompliant.com/Home.aspx; see e.g.

[13] See e.g. Ala. Code § 28-3-5 (1975): (“Any retail dealer of alcoholic beverages … purchasing or receiving such commodities from without the state … shall, within 12 hours of receipt of such alcoholic beverages, mail … a true duplicate invoice of all such purchases or receipts to the board at Montgomery, Alabama, said invoice carrying the name of the person or firm from whom or through whom such purchases or shipments of the alcoholic beverages were received and showing kinds and quantities.”); Ind. Code § 7.1-3-26-9 (2011) (“A direct wine seller’s permit entitles a seller to sell and ship wine to a consumer” provided that the customer purchases the wine “in an initial face-to-face transaction.”).

[14] Jeff Carroll, Pawel Smolarkiewicz & Lynne Skinner, Direct to Consumer Wine Shipping Report 2013, Wines & Vines, 1-2, http://www.winesandvines.com/pdf/2013Direct-to-Consumer-Shipping-Report.pdf.

[15] Rebecca Gibb, Internet Wine Sales Top $5 Billion, Wine-Searcher (June 18, 2013), http://www.wine-searcher.com/m/2013/06/internet-wine-sales-top-5-billion.

[16] Federal Trade Commission, supra note 7, at 3 (Note: The country’s two largest wine wholesalers, Southern Wine & Spirits and Republic National Distribution Company, generate revenues upwards of $13 billion, and the Wine & Spirit Wholesalers of America, the industry’s largest lobbying effort, spent $9.3 million in political action committee funds in the 2008 presidential election.).

[17] Allison Enright, U.S. e-Commerce Sales Could Top $434 billion in 2017, Internet Retailer (Apr. 25, 2013, 4:33 PM), http://www.internetretailer.com/2013/04/25/us-e-commerce-sales-could-top-434-billion-2017; U.S. Census Bureau, Quarterly Retail e-Commerce Sales: 3rd Quarter 2013 (2013), http://www.census.gov/retail/mrts/www/data/pdf/ec_current.pdf.

[18] See e.g. Steve Annear, Changes to Wine Direct Shipping Laws Are Fermenting on Beacon Hill, Boston Magazine (Nov. 11, 2013), http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2013/11/11/massachusetts-wine-delivery-laws-free-the-grapes/.

By: Bradford Schulz, Associate Staff

Juries across the nation recently are being asked to determine reasonable standards for football concussion helmet suits.[1] In a trademark case this past summer, the NFL settled with thousands of former professional league football players in a concussion related claim class action suit.[2]  The total NFL payout is $870 million with $675 million awarded for compensatory claims, $75 million for testing, $10 million for medical research, and $112 million for lawyers’ fees.[3]  The final settlement has approximately three payout formula categories; (1) a young retiree with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis or Lou Gehrig’s disease will be awarded $5 million, (2) 50-year-old retires with Alzheimer’s disease could receive $1.6 million, and (3) 80-year-old retires with early dementia will be awarded $25,000.[4]  Just this month, a splinter group from the settlement launched and lost their bid for appellate intervention on the merits of the settlement.[5]  The goal for the Sean Morey Objectors was to establish a legal custom in defining what football organizations know or should know about concussion safety.[6]  Juries in football concussion suits are quickly recognizing that the absence of a reasonable custom is not the only issue that needs addressing.

Before juries can tackle the appropriate legal custom in concussion related tort actions, scientists need to first figure out what a concussion is. Doctors struggle with establishing parameters for diagnosing concussions because they are unsure what specifically causes concussions. “If you talk to any doctor out there, you’re going to get 14 different opinions on what causes a concussion . . . [w]e don’t know if it’s a big hit or if it’s a whole bunch of little hits.”[7]  It is known that helmets protect the player’s head and are able to absorb a hit’s energy; however, helmets do not protect the brain from the hit’s acceleration.[8]

Any hit will likely have a perpendicular component and an angular component. A perpendicular hit is aligned straight at the head, directed exactly at the brain’s center of gravity. Football helmets do a satisfactory job absorbing the energy from a perpendicular hit because the structure of the shell transfers the energy away from the impact. The helmet significantly reduces the force, i.e. acceleration, of the perpendicular hit felt by the brain. Whereas an angular hit is any hit not straight at the brain’s center of gravity. This angled hit creates a rotational force around the brain’s center of gravity causing the head to spin, twist, or rotate. The helmet provides little protection to stop this additional rotation, because after all, the player needs to turn his head to look around. Imagine wearing a helmet and having someone hit the crown with a hammer; the helmet may not break, but you will likely undergo whiplash. It is believed that this rotational acceleration is a major component in football concussions.[9]

There are efforts in the scientific community to analyze the forces felt from a football hit. Researchers at several universities have installed sensors within their school’s helmets to measure the forces felt during hits. For instance, the InSite software measures violent movement and impact duration, and then it transmits this data to training staff on the sideline.[10]  Another program monitors player’s change in molecular information throughout a season in order to identify possible blood-based molecular correlations with concussions.[11] Dr. Duma, a university researcher, has found that “routine” hits equate to 20-40 times the force of gravity and “violent collisions” equate to 120 times the force of gravity.[12] An imperfect comparison is to acknowledge that astronauts train at 9 times the force of gravity; however, the durations are significantly different.

Several manufactures, some of which were involved in the NFL settlement, are beginning to offer new helmet designs. One manufacture is adding bullet stopping Kevlar inside their helmets; another is changing its external design to incorporate rubber padded foam, while others have sensors that update training staff on possible concussion-causing hits.[13]

So how is this affecting tort law? Other than the typical safety advertising suit, the lack of information on football hit concussions is affecting the custom standards juries use in determining reasonable safety precautions and designs. The first affect is that players, especially high school youth, believe that helmets protect them from concussions. As such, juries are willing to protect these youth by awarding plaintiffs for inadequate helmet safety warnings.[14] The second affect is that juries are struggling in establishing a test for negligent design. It is clear that juries are unsatisfied by the common practice in helmet manufacturing[15], but until the scientific research catches up juries are unable to hold the football helmet design to a satisfactory reasonable standard. And after all, unpredictable juries make for nervous litigators. Until science catches up and litigators have a clear custom for helmet safety negligence, we may see more settlements like the NFL case this past summer.

[1] FORBES, Hard Knocks: Xenith’s Helmet Technology Stands Tall Amidst Football’s Concussion Crisis, Sept. 2014 (available http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2014/08/20/hard-knocks-xeniths-helmet-technology-stands-tall-amidst-footballs-concussions-crisis/).

[2] Associated Press. Federal Judge Approves NFL Concussion Settlement, July 7, 2014 (last updated July 9, 2014) (available at http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000363672/article/federal-judge-approves-nfl-concussion-settlement).

[3] Id.

[4] In re Nat’l Football League Players’ Concussion Injury Litig., 2:12-MD-02323-AB, 2014 WL 3054250 (E.D. Pa. July 7, 2014).

[5] Paul D. Anderson, Objectors Seek Potentially Damning Discovery, NFL CONCUSION LITIGATION, Sept. 2014 (available at http://nflconcussionlitigation.com/).

[6] Id.

[7] Gary Mihoces, More Padding the Issue of Concussions and Better Helmets; USA TODAY SPORTS, Aug. 2013.

[8] Jim Avila and Serena Marshall, Riddell Unveils Overhauled New Football Helmet SpeedFlex, GOOD MORNING AMERICA, Aug 2014 (available at http://abcnews.go.com/US/riddell-unveils-football-helmet-speedflex/story?id=25141779).
 
[9] Id.

[10] Chris Fuhrmeister, New Riddell SpeedFlex Football Helmet Pits Technology vs. Concussions, SB NATION, Mar. 2014 (available at http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2014/3/28/5547618/riddell-speedflex-helmets-insite-technology).

[11] Hackney Publications, Riddell and TGen Team up with Arizona State University’s Football Program to Further Genetic Research into Athlete Concussion Detection and Treatment, Concussion Policy & the Law, August 2014 (available at http://concussionpolicyandthelaw.com/tag/helmet/).

[12] Gregg Easterbrook, Virginia Tech Helmet Research Crucial, July 2011 (available at http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook-110719_virginia_tech_helmet_study).

[13] Jim Avila and Serena Marshall, Riddell Unveils Overhauled New Football Helmet SpeedFlex, GOOD MORNING AMERICA, Aug 2014 (available at http://abcnews.go.com/US/riddell-unveils-football-helmet-speedflex/story?id=25141779); Gary Mihoces, More Padding the Issue of Concussions and Better Helmets; USA TODAY SPORTS, Aug. 2013.

[14] FORBES, Hard Knocks: Xenith’s Helmet Technology Stands Tall Amidst Football’s Concussion Crisis, Sept. 2014 (available http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2014/08/20/hard-knocks-xeniths-helmet-technology-stands-tall-amidst-footballs-concussions-crisis/).

[15] Id.