Richmond Journal of Law and Technology

By Seely Kaufmann

 

The Brennan Center recently released a one-year review of President Biden’s criminal justice reform, noting that little to no progress has been made.[1] While mass incarceration broadly continues to be at the forefront of the conversation, there are several other areas that are in desperate need of reform. Capitalism perniciously pervades the criminal justice system from statutes that criminalize poverty to private companies that continue to make money off incarcerated individuals.[2]  Although Biden issued an executive order directing the Justice Department not to renew any contracts with for-profit firms that operate prisons within weeks of taking office, for-profit companies continue to make money in other ways.[3]

Electronic monitoring is an established alternative to detention, used in various stages of the criminal justice system, including at pre-trial, at sentencing, and following a period of incarceration.[4] Using either radio frequency or GPS technology, the courts have increased their reliance on these systems since the beginning of the COVID pandemic.[5] The market value for North America alone reached $823 million in 2020.[6] For example, in Baltimore, MD, the majority of home detention services were provided by for-profit private companies, charging individuals $11 to $17 a day to be electronically monitored.[7] Even worse, if individuals are being subjected to electronic monitoring pre-trial and are found not guilty or the charges are dropped, these individuals don’t get their money back, leaving many indebted to private companies. This business model ties a citizen’s freedom to their financial status, which further exacerbates the criminalization of poverty.

Another alternative to prison, many jurisdictions rely on diversion programs for low-level drug offenses, traffic violations, etc.[8] In theory, they sound like a win-win: the individual avoids prison, and the state reduces the fiscal burden of incarceration.[9] However, many of the programs are pay-to-participate programs, meaning that these programs are financially dependent on revenue from fines and fees imposed on program participants.[10] For example, in Maricopa County, AZ, a felony possession of marijuana can be dismissed altogether for those who complete a diversion program through the Treatment Assessment Screening Center.[11] To complete the program in 90 days, offenders must pay a $1,000 fee, $650 of that goes to Maricopa County Attorney’s Office.[12] Individuals who cannot pay the total fee at once must linger in the program, paying $15 to $20 fees for urine testing; if they cannot afford the urine testing, they fail and can be prosecuted for the felony.[13] Essentially, wealthy individuals buy their way out of diversion quickly, while poor individuals risk program expulsion and prosecution solely because they cannot afford to pay.[14] Of note, Maricopa County Attorney’s Office collected nearly $15 million from the diversion program from 2006 to 2016.[15]

Individuals in the criminal justice system often are subjected to risk assessments using algorithms to rate an individual’s risk of future crime; these assessments are used in a variety of ways, from assigning bond amounts to determining sentence lengths.[16] One of the most widely used assessment tools in the country is an algorithm created by a for-profit company, Northpointe.[17] In a study of 7,000 people arrested in Broward County, Florida, in 2013 and 2014, where Northpointe’s product is used, only 20 percent of the people predicted to commit violent crimes actually went on to do so.[18] Furthermore, black defendants were 77 percent more likely to be labeled as being at higher risk of committing a future violent crime.[19]

These three examples show that banning for-profit prisons is merely the tip of the iceberg for reducing profiteering off incarcerated individuals. In addition to continuing federal reform efforts, state and local governments must also contribute to criminal justice reform campaigns. There is much more work to be done.

 

[1] Ames Grawert et al., Criminal Legal Reform One Year into the Biden Administration, Brennan Center for Justice (Jan. 24, 2022), https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/criminal-legal-reform-one-year-biden-administration.

[2] Peter Edelman, Criminalization of Poverty: Much More to Do, 69 Duke Law Journal Online 114, 117 (2020).

[3] Grawert et al., supra note 1.

[4] Electronic Offender Monitoring Solutions Market Trends and Drivers 2021: Stronger Focus On Software and Analytics Within Offender Monitoring, Businesswire (December 14, 2021), https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20211214005999/en/Electronic-Offender-Monitoring-Solutions-Market-Trends-and-Drivers-2021-Stronger-Focus-On-Software-and-Analytics-Within-Offender-Monitoring—ResearchAndMarkets.com.

[5] Id.

[6] Id.

[7] Marilyn Mosby & Priya Sarathy Jones, It’s Time to Hit Pause on Home Detention Fees, The Crime Report (Feb. 3, 2021) https://thecrimereport.org/2021/02/03/its-time-to-hit-pause-on-home-detention-fees/.

[8] Roman Gressier, Who Profits From Pay-for-Treatment Diversion?, The Crime Report (Mar. 11, 2019), https://thecrimereport.org/2019/03/11/who-profits-from-pay-for-treatment-diversion-programs/.

[9] Id.

[10] Id.

[11] Michael Kiefer, Maricopa County attorney sued over marijuana diversion program, AZ Central (Aug. 24, 2018), https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2018/08/24/maricopa-county-attorney-sued-over-marijuana-diversion-program/1089031002/.

[12] Id.

[13] Id.

[14] Id.

[15] Id.

[16] Julia Angwin et al., Machine Bias, ProPublica (May 23, 2016), https://www.propublica.org/article/machine-bias-risk-assessments-in-criminal-sentencing.

[17] Id.

[18] Id.

[19] Id.

 

Image source: https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/bankingonbondage_20111102.pdf

By Hannah Ceriani

 

Companies have been utilizing non-compete agreements for years, prohibiting employees from working for a rival company for a period after leaving their current position.[1] Between 27.8% and 46.5% of private-sector workers in the US are bound by non-compete agreements.[2] There has been much debate over the use of such agreements among tech companies in particular.

Historically, tech companies have favored using non-competes, which has led to fierce battles in the industry.[3] Big tech companies like IBM, Microsoft, Amazon, and Google have aggressively tried to enforce non-competes against former employees in court.[4] These companies and other proponents are for non-competes because the agreements serve to protect their business interests.[5]

In Washington, New York, and other states where non-compete agreements are legal, some tech companies utilize these agreements to ensure that former employees don’t spill their trade secrets.[6] Companies also have an incentive to implement these agreements because it’s an industry standard – competitors will almost certainly utilize these agreements.[7]

On the other hand, the enforcement of non-competes is illegal in states like California. Therefore, it’s easier for former employees to take trade secrets to other companies or to form start-ups in those states.[8] But some argue that process has also led to innovation, which could be the reason that Silicon Valley became “the world’s tech Mecca”.[9] Indeed, opponents of non-competes say that the agreements “stifle innovation and hinder startup activity.”[10]

Additionally, non-competes can keep employees in less-than-ideal employment situations.[11] For example, an Amazon worker claimed that her non-compete agreement “kept her in an abusive and harmful environment”, subjecting her to harassment and discrimination.[12] Non-competes have a lock-in effect, which can prevent workers from leaving toxic workplaces.[13] The employee’s choices are to either stay in such an environment or to try their hand at a new career, shadowed by the terms of the non-compete.[14]

Another reason opponents argue against non-compete agreements is that their use discourages innovative prospects by refusing to see a potential employee’s perspective – “[i]mposing limits on innovators won’t entice them, it will send them searching for greener pastures.”[15] Similarly, an employee who understands that their future job prospects are limited due to a non-compete agreement may feel uneasy, unmotivated, or unhappy – possibly even “fearful of the consequences should they choose to leave.”[16] Disgruntled employees may turn to social media to vent, or to their friends and family – either way, a bad reputation is hard for even a big tech company to overcome.[17]

Opponents also argue that companies don’t need to utilize a non-compete to protect their trade secrets.[18] Companies could obtain such protection through non-disclosure agreements, confidentiality agreements, and the Trade Secrets Protections Act.[19]

President Biden is an opponent of non-compete agreements, which has led to speculation that 2022 may be the year that federal restrictions are implemented.[20] Last year, President Biden issued an executive order that specifically asked the FTC to consider restricting non-competes.[21] However, federal courts have historically frowned upon federal agencies exerting powers like those proposed by President Biden’s order.[22]

 

[1] Brad Stone, Biden Executive Order on Non-Competes Could Roil Tech, Bloomberg (July 12, 2021, 6:45 A.M.), https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2021-07-12/biden-executive-order-on-non-competes-could-roil-tech.

[2] Megan Rose Dickey, Tech’s Non-compete Agreements Hurt Workers and Anger Some Lawmakers, Protocol (May 13, 2021), https://www.protocol.com/policy/tech-non-compete.

[3] Stone, supra note 1.

[4] Id.

[5] 4 IT Legal Issues You Need to Pay Attention to Now, Tul. Univ. SoPa Blog, https://sopa.tulane.edu/blog/it-legal-issues-need-attention.

[6] Dickey, supra note 2.

[7] Id.

[8] Stone, supra note 1; Dickey, supra note 2.

[9] Stone, supra note 1.

[10] 4 IT Legal Issues You Need to Pay Attention to Now, supra note 5.

[11] Dickey, supra note 2.

[12] Id.

[13] Id.

[14] Id.

[15] Katy Imhoff, Why Tech Companies Should Avoid Non-Compete Agreements, Camden Kelly, https://camdenkelly.com/why-tech-companies-should-steer-clear-of-non-compete-agreements/.

[16] Id.

[17] Id.

[18] Dickey, supra note 2.

[19] Id.

[20] Kristen Senz, How Eliminating Non-Competes Could Reshape Tech, Harv. Bus. Sch.: Working Knowledge (Jan. 18, 2022), https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/how-the-end-of-noncompetes-could-reshape-tech.

[21] Id.

[22] Stone, supra note 1.

Image source: https://news.law.fordham.edu/jcfl/2017/09/23/a-bad-breakup-non-compete-agreements/

By Sophie Thornton

 

Elizabeth Holmes founded her company, Theranos, with one principle idea backing her: having your blood drawn and tested is painful and expensive.[1] So Holmes decided to create a solution to the problem by founding Theranos. Theranos was put forward as a laboratory sporting brand new technology in which a patient would give a few drops of blood, no more than a finger prick, and an onsite testing machine would run over 240 diagnostics tests.[2] This solution was supposed to make patients less reluctant to get blood tests, lead to earlier diagnoses, and ultimately save lives.[3] Investors loved the idea and over the years, Holmes raised over $945 million to fund her venture.[4] However, by January 3^rd, 2022, Holmes was convicted of four federal counts of wire fraud.[5] What was the missing ingredient in what should have been a great success for Holmes? The technology.

In theory, the Theranos technology was supposed to be simple.[6] The Theranos machine, Edison,[7] would accept a sample of blood and analyze it on the site of a local clinic, like Walmart or Walgreens.[8] What was remarkable about the proposed technology was that it purported to be capable of doing such a blood analysis within minutes and with only a finger prick worth of blood.[9] Investors poured in, wowed by the media coverage of Holmes’ vision and Theranos’ revolutionary technology.[10] By 2014, Theranos’ board of directors contained two former secretary of states and two United States senators. Theranos’ technology was rarely questioned at the start of the company despite Holmes being a college dropout herself[11] because she hired scientists and claimed they could actuate her vision.[12]

In practice, it is nearly impossible for the Theranos technology to work.[13] One problem was that in order to run tests, the Edison machine would have needed a specific volume of blood.[14] But Holmes was set on a single finger prick, and that small volume of blood would create a need to dilute the blood and diluted blood would “skew the data on analysis.”[15] There also simply was not enough blood to run this many tests because some tests require chemical reactions that alter the blood to the point that it cannot be reused.[16] This small amount of blood would also lack a common concentration of molecules like lipids and proteins like what would exist in a blood sample drawn from a vein.[17] This too would further distort the data.[18] Finally, one of the biggest hurdles was that even if Theranos had this technology, each one of the tests would have needed FDA approval because blood is a bodily fluid.[19] The only Theranos test that ever received FDA approval was a Herpes test.[20] The other 240 claimed diagnostics tests never got any approval.[21]

Not only did the science behind the blood tests not work, neither did Theranos’ Edison machine.[22] The Edison was designed to mimic the work of a chemist by using a robotic arm to “take samples, dilute them, add antibodies, and a reagent, and reveal a result.”[23] However, the Edison was extremely flawed.[24] “Pieces of the machine would fall off, doors wouldn’t close, and the device couldn’t properly regulate its temperature.”[25]

Ultimately, flawed technology is not what caused Holmes to face federal criminal charges. What got Holmes in trouble was lying about that technology and subsequently defrauding investors.[26] Holmes lied to investors and told them that the Edison was working, gave excuses as to why it wasn’t working when she made demonstrations,[27] and fervently denied media reports that the technology did not do what Holmes claimed.[28]  All the while, she was aware of the issues with the technology because her employees raised those red flags and in response, Holmes fired them.[29] Holmes additionally told investors that the Edison and Theranos’ technology had been used on the U.S. battlefield and that it had been validated by many big pharmaceutical companies.[30] But none of this was true.[31] In 2022, a jury determined that Holmes “intentionally misled investors” and found her guilty of “ten counts of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343.” [32]

In a post-pandemic world where new medical technology is much needed, Holmes’ actions have been taken very seriously. Holmes could face up to 80 years in federal prison because of her lies.[33] Although Holmes’ fraud was an insult to investors, the promise of new and groundbreaking medical technology was perhaps an even greater insult to the public in light of recent health concerns. The government may have pursued such harsh remedies against Holmes in light of such concerns. Even though Holmes was charged pre-pandemic, the jury announced their verdict in the post-pandemic landscape.[34] Some of those jurors or their family members may have even benefitted from Theranos’ technology had it been real. The sting of Holmes’ actions in lying about the nature of Thernos’ technology has never been more personal to the public and she is facing the consequences.

 

[1] John Carreyou, Hot Startup Theranos Has Struggled With Its Blood-Test Technology, Wall Street Journal (Oct. 16, 2015), https://www.wsj.com/articles/theranos-has-struggled-with-blood-tests-1444881901 [https://perma.cc/DT5W-AYBP].

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

[4] Erin Griffith & Erin Woo, How Elizabeth Holmes Soured the Media on Silicon Valley, New York Times (Nov. 23, 2021), https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/18/technology/elizabeth-holmes-theranos-trial.html [https://perma.cc/K9X9-NMJN].

[5] Sara Randazzo & Heather Somerville, Elizabeth Holmes Found Guilty on Four Counts, Wall Street Journal (Jan. 3, 2022), https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/elizabeth-holmes-trial-theranos [https://perma.cc/6P5D-F5HE].

[6] Neil Jurkiewicz, What Went Wrong with Theranos?, eCampus Ontario (2019), https://ecampusontario.pressbooks.pub/bio16610w18/chapter/what-went-wrong-with-theranos/#:~:text=One%20of%20the%20big%20problems,data%20on%20analysis(6) [https://perma.cc/FA58-7NXL].

[7] Carreyou, supra note 1.

[8] Jurkiewicz, supra note 6.

[9] Id.

[10] Griffith & Woo, supra note 4.

[11] Id.

[12] Carreyou, supra note 1.

[13] Jurkiewicz, supra note 6.

[14] Id.

[15] Id.

[16] Nicole Wetsman, Thernos Promised a Blood Testing Revolution- Here’s What’s Really Possible, The Verge (Dec. 15, 2021), https://www.theverge.com/22834348/theranos-blood-testing-innovation-drop-holmes [https://perma.cc/QM87-9U3A].

[17] Id.

[18] Id.

[19] Id.

[20] Id.

[21] Id.; Carreyou, supra note 1.

[22] Cory Stieg, What Exactly Was The Theranos Edison Machine Supposed To Do?, Refinery 29 (Mar. 12, 2019), https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2019/03/224904/theranos-edison-machine-blood-test-technology-explained [https://perma.cc/55NU-674X].

[23] Id.

[24] Id.

[25] Id.

[26] Theranos Founder Elizabeth Holmes Found Guilty of Investor Fraud, U.S. Dep’t of Just. (Jan. 4, 2022), https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/pr/theranos-founder-elizabeth-holmes-found-guilty-investor-fraud#:~:text=Holmes%20was%20initially%20charged%20on,%C2%A7%201343 [https://perma.cc/H768-QAXP].

[27] Stieg, supra note 22.

[28] Griffith & Woo, supra note 4.

[29] Stieg, supra note 22.

[30] Theranos Founder Elizabeth Holmes Found Guilty of Investor Fraud, supra note 26.

[31] Id.

[32] Id.

[33] Randazzo & Somerville, supra note 5.

[34] Theranos Founder Elizabeth Holmes Found Guilty of Investor Fraud, supra note 26.

 

Image source: https://www.dallasnews.com/business/health-care/2021/10/24/dallas-companys-recording-of-theranos-founder-elizabeth-holmes-emerges-as-prosecution-jackpot/

By Sarthak Gupta

*Sarthak Gupta is a fourth-year law student at the Institute of Law, Nirma University.

 

Introduction

Buy Now Pay Later (BNPL) refers to a point-of-sale financial product where a borrower is allowed to purchase products on a deferred payment basis and pays in a predetermined number of installments. At present BNPL industry is booming and set to surge over ten-fold as tens of millions of online shoppers get lured by it.[1] However, BNPL has also raised certain fundamental concerns globally[2] from the consumer perspective including in India. Recently, the Reserve Bank of India sought data from BNPL providers regarding their working, reflecting a growing regulatory interest in the BNPL market in India.[3] Through this article, the author would like to discuss consumer concerns and the legal regulatory gap that exist today with reference to BNPL market in India.

Consumer and Risk Involved

BNPL is surely one of the most talked about financial services trends in recent times.  More and more consumers are embracing its ease and convenience, and retailers are benefiting from higher conversion rates. It is a new cost-free way to access credit easily and simply.  However, every side has two stories, the same is the case here. Although there are numerous benefits to BNPL, there are certain harms and risks involved also. In this part, the author will try to decipher those risks and harms, especially from the consumer perspective.

I.  Affordability

The Revenue Model of Buy Now Pay Later providers mainly depend upon three sources i.e., Merchant Transaction Fee, Late Payment Fee, and App Monetization Charge.[4] Among these sources also, it is the Merchant Transaction Fee that is the primary source of revenue for the BNPL provider.[5] It reflects that in the real sense, the target customers of BNPL providers are not borrowers, but the merchants with whom they engage They market themselves to retailers on the basis that consumers spend more when they use BNPL offers than they would be paying by traditional methods. As a result, merchants are ready to pay a charge to BNPL providers to cover the cost of lending. When this works, all three parties benefit, the consumer, the merchant, and the BNPL provider. However, there is a risk that a close relationship between the BNPL provider and the merchant would harm the customer. It is possible that the presentation of BNPL offerings and the whole customer journey will be geared to push sales without regard for affordability commitment, a prime consideration before granting any kind of credit.

II.  Ambiguity

BNPL offers are often presented as just one of the payment methods in a long list of almost indistinguishable options, as a result, consumers don’t necessarily view BNPL offers as credit, but just as another payment/financial service method.[6] It puts customers at risk because they may not apply the same amount of scrutiny to their decision-making as they would for other credit products, such as taking into account the possible implications of failing to repay. The E-Commerce Payments Bill in Sweden, which went into effect in July 2020 recognized this problem and hence provided credit alternatives from being provided before debit options on online retail platforms.[7] As a result, BNPL offerings cannot be promoted as the “first choice” above the lowest cost direct payment alternative.

III.  High-Levels of Indebtedness

The Regulatory bodies around the globe are concerned regarding the risk of financial distress posed by the BNPL services.[8] As discussed above, one of the key sources of revenue for the BNPL provider is the Late Payment Fee which keeps on getting compounded with each passing day hence the risk of consumers falling into a vicious cycle of debt, also keeps on rising. It may be argued that even a similar risk is also possessed by the Credit Card and it is one of the most widely used products for the purpose of credit. However, it has to be understood that most BNPL providers complete a very basic credit assessment, usually through a combination of soft credit searches and previous repayment history, which makes the cost of switching between the platform for consumers almost nil. An analysis by Financial Conduct Authority in the UK  revealed even though the average amount borrowed per BNPL platform is comparatively quite small (almost between £65 and £75) however multiple outstanding transactions across different providers and almost a nil switching cost between the platforms makes it relatively easy for a consumer to amass around £1000 of BNPL credit using multiple lenders, and this when the focus of BNPL provider at present is predominantly on fashion and accessories when this focus shift to higher-value item, this can become a big headache for both the regulators and the consumer.[9]

Legal Lacuna in India

Some of the world’s largest and most renowned BNPL markets, including the United States[10], the United Kingdom[11], Australia[12], etc have recently come under regulatory scrutiny. India has been slightly behind the curve with respect to the regulations, only recently Reserve Bank of India has specifically sought relevant data from BNPL providers with respect to their working and other aspects.[13] A few months back Reserve Bank of India has also published a detailed 150 plus page report on Digital Lending[14], however, the prime focus of the report was on Online Instant Loan platforms.

Entities engaged in BNPL services are broadly divided into two categories – Balance Sheet Lenders (BSLs) and Lending Service Providers (LSPs).[15] BSLs are entities in the business of lending that carry the credit risk in their balance sheet/provide capital for associated credit risk. These are often RBI-regulated enterprises (RE), like banks, non-banking financial firms (NBFCs), or other businesses registered to conduct out lending operations under State Money Lenders Acts, Chit Funds Act, 1982, etc. LSPs are essentially technology-centric entities that act as ancillary lending service providers. They are not in ‘business of a financial institution’ as defined under the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) Act, 1934, and the loans, which are sourced, appraised, or serviced by them, are not their assets. They are a marketplace that helps to connect the lender and the borrower. In India majority of BNPL providers fall under the latter category i.e., they act as LSPs. These platforms act in partnership with BSLs for example one of the leading BNPL providers in India, named LazyPay (LSP) has partnered with an NBFC named PayU Finance India Private Limited (BSL) to conduct its lending operations smoothly.

When LSPs act in partnership with regulated BSLs entities such as Bank and NBFC, their activities are governed by certain detailed guidelines, for instance in the case of partnership with Banks, 2006 RBI issued Guidelines on Managing Risks and Code of Conduct in Outsourcing of Financial Services[16] are applicable. These guidelines take into consideration various risks including strategic risk, reputation risk, compliance risk, operational risk, etc., and provide detailed direction with respect to important subjects such as Confidentiality, Security, Responsibilities of Recovery Agents, etc. However, there are no similar guidelines on outsourced activities by other BSLs (which are not regulated), thus precluding the LSPs from partnering with them from compliance to any rules and regulations.

Further, these transactions are not reported to the Credit Information Company as they do not fall under the definition of ‘credit’ as there is no interest charged on these transactions.[17] In India, there are 4 Credit Information companies named The Credit Information Bureau Limited, Equifax, Experian Credit Information Company, and High Mark Credit Information Services, and they are governed by Credit Information Companies Regulation Act, 2005. As per Section 15 read Section 17 of the Act, it is mandatory for credit institutions to join any of the credit information companies and provide details to that company with respect to the credit facilities granted or to be granted, by a credit institution to any borrower, however, these transactions remain not affected by these provisions. This creates a blind spot in lending[18] and an environment of lack of transparency where a regulated credit provider never gets a complete picture of a customer’s financial position when assessing affordability, creating a clear recipe for some serious financial crisis in the long run. There are further various other issues associated with BNPL like first loss default guarantee, grievance redressal measure, etc of which also there is no clear answer at present.

Conclusion

Even though BNPL platforms have a lot of benefits like the ease of credit access, no interest charges, etc., however, there are certain detrimental harms and risks associated with it also as discussed aforesaid. Hence in the view of the author, there is an urgent need to regulate the BNPL platform in India on various aspects like a clear guideline on outsourcing by Balance Sheet Lenders, reporting of transactions to credit bureau, first loss default guarantee aspect, etc.

 

[1] BNPL Industry Set to Surge Over Ten-Fold in India, BW BUSINESSWORLD (Nov. 09, 2021), http://www.businessworld.in/article/BNPL-Industry-Set-To-Surge-Over-Ten-Fold-In-India/09-11-2021-411290/.

[2] Brian Murphy, Rapid Growth of Buy Now Pay Later Market Raises Global Consumer Protection Concerns as CFPB Watches and Waits (For Now), JD SUPRA (Oct. 25, 2021), https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/rapid-growth-of-buy-now-pay-later-8246896/.

[3] Raghu Mohan, RBI seeks details of NBFCs’ ‘buy now, pay later’ deals with e-tailers, BUISNESS STANDARD (Jan. 19, 2022), https://www.business-standard.com/article/finance/rbi-seeks-details-of-nbfcs-buy-now-pay-later-deals-with-e-tailers-122011900037_1.html.

[4] Warikoo, Buy-Now-Pay-Later Explained, YOUTUBE (Jan. 04, 2022), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vUuxP4QzGM.

[5] India Fintech Diaries, BNPL – A deep dive into the world of BNPL, YOUTUBE (July 16 ,2021), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vtJKB1KW8U.

[6] FINANCIAL CONDUCT AUTHORITY, THE WOOLARD REVIEW – A REVIEW OF CHANGE AND INNOVATION IN THE UNSECURED CREDIT MARKET, 47 (2021), https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/corporate/woolard-review-report.pdf.

[7] New rules in Sweden to discourage online shoppers from paying with credit, NORDEA (June 29, 2020), https://insights.nordea.com/en/business/new-rules-in-sweden-to-discourage-online-shoppers-from-paying-with-credit/.

[8]BNPL Under Global Regulatory Scrutiny, With UK as Likely Frontrunner, PYMNTS (Dec.09, 2021), https://www.pymnts.com/buy-now-pay-later/2021/bnpl-under-global-regulatory-scrutiny-with-uk-as-likely-frontrunner/.

[9] FINANCIAL CONDUCT AUTHORITY, THE WOOLARD REVIEW – A REVIEW OF CHANGE AND INNOVATION IN THE UNSECURED CREDIT MARKET, 47 (2021), https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/corporate/woolard-review-report.pdf.

[10] CFPB Begins Scrutinizing Companies Using ‘Buy Now, Pay Later’ Credit, THE NATIONAL LAW REVIEW (Dec. 20, 2021), https://www.natlawreview.com/article/cfpb-begins-scrutinizing-companies-using-buy-now-pay-later-credit.

[11] UK government sets out regulation of Buy Now Pay Later (BNPL), LEXOLOGY, https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=2f09844a-5a0b-43f7-af2b-7cc11ca27dab.

[12] Australia Takes the Lead in Buy Now Pay Later Regulation, PAYMENTS JOURNAL (Apr. 07, 2021), https://www.paymentsjournal.com/australia-takes-the-lead-in-buy-now-pay-later-regulation/.

[13] Raghu Mohan, RBI seeks details of NBFCs’ ‘buy now, pay later’ deals with e-tailers, BUISNESS STANDARD (Jan. 19, 2022), https://www.business-standard.com/article/finance/rbi-seeks-details-of-nbfcs-buy-now-pay-later-deals-with-e-tailers-122011900037_1.html.

[14] RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, REPORT OF THE WORKING GROUP ON DIGITAL LENDING INCLUDING LENDING THROUGH ONLINE PLATFORMS AND MOBILE APPS (2021), https://rbidocs.rbi.org.in/rdocs/PressRelease/PDFs/PR124479A17DED84DD4CCDAE790BCAC26F072C.PDF.

[15] India Fintech Diaries, BNPL – A deep dive into the world of BNPL, YOUTUBE (July 16, 2021), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vtJKB1KW8U.

[16] Reserve Bank of India, Guidelines on Managing Risks and Code of Conduct in Outsourcing of Financial Services by banks (Issued on Nov. 03, 2006), https://rbi.org.in/scripts/NotificationUser.aspx?Id=3148&Mode=0.

[17] Sunainaa Chadha, How to make ‘buy now pay later’ work for you, THE TIMES OF INDIA (Jan. 07, 2022, 07:40 PM), https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/how-to-make-buy-now-pay-later-work-for-      you/articleshow/88737863.cms#:~:text=%E2%80%9CBNPL%20transactions%20are%20not%20reported,may%20be%20converted%20into%20EMI.

[18] Ridhima Saxena, Popularity of ‘Buy Now, Pay Later’ Creates A Blind Spot in Lending, BLOOMBERG QUINT (Jan. 19, 2021, 08:41 AM), https://www.bloombergquint.com/bq-blue-exclusive/popularity-of-buy-now-pay-later-creates-a-blind-spot-in-lending.

By Mimi Perka

 

Covid-19 has undoubtedly affected the world on a massive scale for almost two years now. As employees return to a sense of normalcy in the workplace, a new set of privacy concerns have risen due to the increased use of biometric systems, aimed at combating the spread of the virus.^[1]

To mitigate the immediate risks and concerns as employees return to work, many employers have turned to biometrics devices such as facial recognition technology, non-contact infrared thermometers, thermal imaging, and wearable radiometric thermometry systems.^[2] While these systems could protect their workplaces from potential outbreaks of Covid-19, these systems could also lead to legal implications for those businesses that assume the risks of employing biometric systems in the workplace.^[3]

Biometric-enabled devices have become ubiquitous in the workplace due to the accurate, reliable, and facile methods of collecting and storing employee information.^[4] In recent years, many employers replaced the traditional paper-based time cards with biometric fingerprint readers.^[5] However, as these devices were among the most heavily touched devices in the workplace, many employers looked to facial recognition time and timekeeping systems to provide a contactless time and attendance solution.^[6]

As many helpful aspects that biometrics systems might have in the workplace, especially throughout the pandemic, these systems have caused widespread concern among employees whose data is being used, collected, and stored. Notably, employees worry about the transaction, lack of disclosure, and destruction of such biometric data.^[7]

As concerns rise, a few states have taken the lead on protecting individual rights and restricting the collection and use of biometric information by requiring notice and consent from individuals.^[8]

The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) has been the forerunner of modern biometric information privacy laws in the United States.^[9] BIPA prohibits private entities from collecting, using, storing, or disclosing biometric data without providing notice and obtaining a written release from individuals before collecting such information.^[10] In a recent decision in Cothron v. White Castle System, Inc., a federal court interpreting Illinois law found that employers could be liable for in excess of $1,000 per day, per employee, for each day that biometric information was collected, stored, or used improperly.^[11]

In this case, the named plaintiff was asked to use her fingerprint to access the computer system each time she needed access to the system. As the plaintiff was the manager, she frequently needed access in this capacity.[12] After several years of having her biometric data scanned and collected without written release, the plaintiff filed a class action lawsuit against her employer in violation of BIPA.[13]

The most notable aspect of BIPA is that the law does not require an “injury in fact” for legal standing– the person bringing an action under BIPA need not have sustained actual damage beyond the violation of the person’s rights under BIPA.^[14] The Seventh Circuit held in Fox v. Dakkota Integrated Systems, LLC that an employer who fails to adhere to restrictions on biometric data retention imparts as a concrete injury, as does a violation of restrictions on biometric data collection.^[15]

While BIPA is the most well-known law of this type, other states–such as Texas, California, Washington, and Arkansas–have enacted legislation to regulate biometrics.^[16] Additionally, many other states–including Arizona, Florida, and Massachusetts– have all proposed bills to protect biometric data.^[17]

Thus, as the country continues to face the challenges associated with Covid-19, and as more states enact legislation on biometric data, employers will undoubtedly continue to struggle with the dichotomy between using data to keep employees safe and to comply with biometric data legislation.

 

^[1] David Oberly, Biometric Data and COVID-19 in the Workplace, JDSUPRA Legal News (Nov. 23, 2020), https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/biometric-data-and-covid-19-in-the-86112/.

^[2] Mary Margaret Moore, Patrick DePoy, & Lauren J. Caisman, U.S. Covid-19: Biometrics and Business Re-Opening, BCLP At Work (May 14, 2020), https://www.bclplaw.com/en-US/insights/blogs/bclp-at-work/u-s-covid-19-biometrics-and-business-re-opening.html.

^[3] Christopher Jevsevar, The Legal Minefield Surrounding Biometrics In The Workplace, Fisher Phillips Insights (Oct. 2, 2020), https://www.fisherphillips.com/news-insights/the-legal-minefield-surrounding-biometrics-in-the-workplace.html.

^[4] Id.

^[5] Oberly, supra note 1.

^[6] Id.

^[7] Susan Gross Sholinsky, Shawndra G. Jones, & Brian G. Cesaratto, Updates on Biometrics in the Workplace: Scanning the Legal Landscape in New York and Beyond, Epstein Becker Green Insights (Aug. 19, 2021), https://www.ebglaw.com/insights/updates-on-biometrics-in-the-workplace-scanning-the-legal-landscape-in-new-york-and-beyond/.

^[8] Id.

^[9] Jevsevar, supra note 3.

^[10] Oberly, supra note 1.

^[11] Joel W. Rice & Franklin Z. Wolf, The Illinois Biometrical Landscape Gets Even Tougher for Employers, Fisher Phillips Insights (Sep. 17, 2020), https://www.fisherphillips.com/news-insights/the-illinois-biometric-landscape-gets-even-tougher-for-employers.html.

[12] Id.

[13] Id.

^[14] Sholinsky, Jones, & Cesaratto, supra note 7.

^[15] Id.

^[16] Natalie A. Prescott, The Anatomy of Biometric Laws: What U.S. Companies Need to Know in 2020, Nat’l L. Rev. (Jan. 15, 2020), https://www.natlawreview.com/article/anatomy-biometric-laws-what-us-companies-need-to-know-2020.

^[17] Jevsevar, supra note 3.

Image source: https://www.jonesday.com/en/insights/2017/11/biometric-data-in-the-workplace-could-trigger-privacy-litigation-wave

By Christopher Vinson

 

Internet giants such as Facebook, Twitter, and Google have found themselves the subjects of increased political scrutiny. While much of the focus is on content moderation, the latest efforts from Congress aim to address a perceived lack of competition in the tech industry.[1] Large companies like Yelp have equally lamented the barriers to competition currently in the tech industry.[2] In a bipartisan effort on January 20, 2022, the Senate Judiciary Committee advanced the American Innovation and Choice Online Act.[3] Experts view this bill as the best opportunity for substantial legal reform in this area.[4] The advancement by the Senate Judiciary Committee will see the bill move to the full Senate for debate.[5]

The bill is designed to prevent self-preferencing by dominant platforms.[6] Self-preferencing occurs when platforms on their sites place or rate their products above similar third-party products.[7] Eliminating this tactic will prevent Amazon from placing their products at the top of search results or Google from rating their apps higher than similar third-party apps.[8]

Naturally, this effort has been met with stiff opposition from both industry leaders and commentators.[9] Critics of the legislation claim that Congress is moving too quickly without considering the ramifications of this bill.[10] Advocacy groups working for these large tech platforms believe additional hearings are necessary to gather more information.[11] In response, proponents have noted that this bill has been debated, researched, and marked-up extensively.[12] This is a delay tactic being implemented by large tech companies to prevent a vote on the bill.[13] The advancement of the bill out of committee demonstrates the Senate’s desire to enact meaningful antitrust tech legislation. Whether rushed or not, Congress should move quickly on issues they deem of major importance, especially considering the ever-present criticism that Congress moves too slow to enact legislation.

The CEOs of Apple and Alphabet, Tim Cook and Sundar Pichai, have worked tirelessly to convince Senators to vote against the bill.[14] For example, Tim Cook made direct phone calls to Senator Ted Cruz to lobby against the bill.[15] The main argument is that this bill may decrease consumer data privacy.[16] Apple’s Senior Director of Public Affairs, Timothy Powderly, claimed that the bill would open up serious risks of privacy due to security breaches.[17]

This is a legitimate concern and one that Senators shared during the debates in the Committee.[18] However, Senators Amy Klobuchar and Chuck Grassley pushed back against these claims saying that they distort the intention of the bill.[19] The bill requires changes to these platforms’ marketplaces, but Senators believe it will not have a serious impact on data privacy.[20] It will not make it more difficult for Apple to let consumers opt out of monitoring from apps.[21]

While increased competition is a worthwhile goal, commentators are concerned that antitrust policy in the tech industry may lead to the fracturing of services and increased costs for services that are currently low-cost or free.[22] There is also concern that it will disincentivize innovation and start-up companies by lowering potential acquisition costs.[23] These concerns preview a debate that may make the passage of this legislation difficult.

Additionally, several senators that ultimately voted to advance the bill expressed concerns about its language and potential effects.[24] It is very possible that these individuals will vote “no” if their concerns are not assuaged.[25] Furthermore, Senate leaders would need to make this legislation a priority.[26] This is no guarantee as the current focus has been on national voting legislation and filibuster reform. Nevertheless, this bill enjoys bipartisan support which bodes well in its quest for adoption.[27]

 

[1] Mark Sullivan, U.S. Senators Are Parroting Big Tech’s Anti-trust Talking Points, Fast Company (Jan. 21, 2022), https://www.fastcompany.com/90714797/big-tech-antitrust-objections-senators-klobuchar-grassley-bill.

[2] Lauren Feiner, Senate Committee Votes to Advance Major Tech Antitrust Bill, CNBC (Jan. 20, 2022, 12:54 PM), https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/20/senate-committee-votes-to-advance-major-tech-antitrust-bill.html.

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

[5] Id.

[6] Id.

[7] Id.

[8] Id.

[9] Id.

[10] Cristiano Lima & Aaron Schaffer, Tech Giants Say Antitrust Legislation is Being ‘Rushed.’ History Suggests Otherwise., MSN (Jan. 20, 2022), https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/tech-giants-say-antitrust-legislation-is-being-e2-80-98rushed-e2-80-99-history-suggests-otherwise/ar-AASYeWe?ocid=BingNewsSearch.

[11] Id.

[12] Id.

[13] Id.

[14] Breck Dumas, Apple’s Tim Cook and Google’s Sundar Pichai Working Capitol Hill Together to Stop Big Tech Bill, Fox Business (Jan. 21, 2022), https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/apple-tim-cook-google-sundar-pichai-working-capitol-hill-big-tech-bill

[15] Sullivan, supra note 1.

[16] Id.

[17] Id.

[18] Id.

[19] Sullivan, supra note 1; Lima and Schaffer, supra note 10.

[20] Lima and Schaffer, supra note 10.

[21] Dumas, supra note 14; Lima and Schaffer, supra note 10.

[22] Tracy Hernandez & Ahmad Thomas, Federal Antitrust Bills Threaten California Businesses Big and Small, OC Register (Jan. 24, 2022, 3:25 PM), https://www.ocregister.com/2022/01/24/federal-antitrust-bills-threaten-california-businesses-big-and-small/.

[23] Id.

[24] Feiner, supra note 2; Lima and Schaffer, supra note 10.

[25] Lima and Schaffer, supra note 10.

[26] Feiner, supra note 2.

[27] Lima and Schaffer, supra note 10.

Image Source: https://wacotrib.com/opinion/columnists/llewellyn-king-big-tech-should-be-left-alone-while-it-is-still-creating/article_c975f98c-4aee-11eb-88ff-9bb67d7ac293.html

By Brian Kennedy

 

Autonomous vehicle development is far from science fiction, but the technology that makes these vehicles operate raises serious concerns for many. Waymo, a subsidiary of Alphabet, is “an autonomous driving technology company.”[1] In August of 2021, the company announced the launch of its “Waymo One Trusted Tester program” in San Francisco.[2] The program allows accepted residents to ride in Waymo’s autonomous vehicles in the hopes of improving the service.[3] California is not new to the concept of autonomous vehicles considering the California Department of Motor Vehicles “oversees the largest autonomous vehicle testing program in the country, with over 60 companies permitted to operate test vehicles on public roads.”[4]

Now, Waymo is facing challenges to keep certain aspects of the autonomous technology secret.[5] The company recently filed suit against the California DMV in an effort to maintain secrecy on topics related to “how it plans to handle driverless car emergencies, what it would do if a robot taxi started driving itself where it wasn’t supposed to go, and what constraints there are on the car’s ability to traverse San Francisco’s tunnels, tight curves, and steep hills.”[6] It should be noted that these uncertainties are required by the DMV in order to issue a permit to companies using autonomous cars on public roads.[7] The question this lawsuit presents is whether Waymo has trade secret protection regarding this information.[8]

The lawsuit began after an unidentified party submitted a public records request to obtain the company’s deployment application.[9] Under Barclays Official California Code of Regulations “an autonomous vehicle shall not be deployed on any public road in California until the manufacturer has submitted and the department has approved an application for a Permit to Deploy Autonomous Vehicles on Public Streets…”[10] After receiving the public records request, the DMV then permitted the company to “censor sections” that may be sensitive with regard to trade secrets.[11] To which Waymo did, however, the requester objected to the censored information.[12] At which point the DMV invited Waymo to file a lawsuit against the agency.[13]

In the complaint filed by Waymo, the company argued that “[r]evealing this information to Waymo’s competitors, either directly or through publication in the media, would provide Waymo’s competitors with unique insight into Waymo’s approach and strategy on a number of critical technology, engineering and business issues central to its development of autonomous vehicle technology…”[14] Additionally, they argue that the company has taken steps to ensure the confidentiality of this information including limiting this information to certain individuals within the company, implementing software and physical barriers, requiring confidentiality agreements for certain individuals, and specifically marking information provided to the DMV as “Confidential Business Information.”[15]

Despite this controversy, the company “has been more willing to share data then most AV companies, but largely on its own terms.”[16] For example, Waymo published “6.1 million miles of driving data from 2019 and 2020 from its test fleet in Arizona, including 18 crashes and 29 near-miss collisions.”[17] Regardless of its previous disclosures, this lawsuit raises serious questions as to what information should be available to the public.[18] Consumers may want to know more about these vehicles before they put their own safety in the hands of robots.

 

[1] General: What is Waymo?, Waymo, https://waymo.com/faq/ (last visited Jan. 28, 2022).

[2] Welcoming our First Riders in San Francisco, Waymo (Aug. 24, 2021), https://blog.waymo.com/2021/08/welcoming-our-first-riders-in-san.html.

[3] See Jennifer Elias, Waymo Opens Self-driving Car Testing to Some San Francisco Residents, CNBC (Aug. 24, 2021, 12:43 PM), https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/24/waymo-opens-self-driving-car-testing-to-some-san-francisco-residents.html.

[4] Andrew J. Hawkinis, Waymo Sues California DMV to Keep Diverless Crash Data Under Wraps, the Verge (Jan. 28, 2022, 12:36 PM), https://www.theverge.com/2022/1/28/22906513/waymo-lawsuit-california-dmv-crash-data-foia.

[5] Russ Mitchell, Waymo Sues State DMV to Keep Robotaxi Safety Details Secret, L.A. Times (Jan. 28, 2022, 5:00 AM), https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2022-01-28/waymo-robot-taxi-sues-state-secret-black-ice.

[6] Id.

[7] Id.

[8] Id.

[9] Id.

[10] Cal. Code Regs. tit. 13, § 228.06 (2021).

[11] Mitchell, supra note 5.

[12] Id.

[13] Id.

[14] Complaint at 8, Waymo LLC v. Cal. Dep’t of Motor Vehicles (Cal. App. Dep’t Super. Ct. Jan. 21, 2022).

[15] Id.

[16] Hawkins, supra note 4.

[17] Id.

[18] See Mitchell, supra note 5.

Image source: https://waymo.com/careers/

By: Sophie Thornton

 

Conservatorships typically apply to the elderly or severely mentally incapacitated.[1] However, a different view of conservatorships was suddenly thrust into the public eye when Britney Spears was placed under a conservatorship in 2008.[2] The #FreeBritney movement began to gain momentum in 2019.[3] By 2021, pop culture icon Britney Spears’ 13-year long conservatorship was terminated.[4] A movement that started on social media gained enough traction to not only change the course of Britney’s life but to spur potential reactive legislation against harsh and abusive conservatorships. [5]

A conservatorship is “the appointment of a conservator by the court to manage a person’s affairs who is unable to handle them due to their mental capacity, age, or physical disability.”[6] Conservatorships can be short-term, temporary, or permanent in duration.[7] They may also be financial, physical, or both.[8] A financial conservatorship gives the conservator “full authority over the conservatee’s finances,” while a physical conservatorship gives the conservator authority over “the conservatee’s health and life.”[9] Finally, a conservatorship may be general or limited.[10] A general conservatorship provides the conservator with complete authority over all significant decisions concerning the conservatee. In contrast, a limited conservatorship gives the conservator control over only specific aspects of the conservatee’s life.[11]

Britney Spears was placed under a temporary conservatorship in 2008 after going through a divorce, losing custody of her two children, and attending two mental health facilities.[12] The media depicted her visits as evidence that she had a mental health condition.[13] Within that same year, Britney’s conservatorship was made permanent.[14] From 2008 until 2018, Britney continued to release albums, go on world tours, participate in long-term performance commitments in Las Vegas, and make other media appearances.[15] From 2008 to 2013, Britney’s father, Jamie Spears, acted as the conservator of Britney’s person.[16] From 2008 to 2019, he also acted as conservator of her finances.[17] This meant that Mr. Spears received a salary as Britney’s conservator and additional commissions from her career earnings.[18] The conservatorship also eliminated Britney’s autonomy in deciding her career path and financial choices. Most notably, the conservatorship also barred Britney from freedoms like getting remarried, having more children, or hiring her own legal counsel.[19]

As early as 2009, fan websites began speaking out against Britney’s conservatorship.[20] They believed that Britney’s continued work throughout her conservatorship proved that she was not legally incapacitated to the point of being unable to make any decisions about her life.[21] Fans also noticed that Britney was speaking out against the conservatorship and wanted to help.[22] Although the #FreeBritney movement does not have one pinpointed starter, it is entirely fan led.[23] Through podcasts, demonstrations outside court hearings, publishing court documents, and a social media frenzy, these fans brought attention to the violation of basic rights through Britney’s conservatorship.[24] This fan attention eventually led to a New York Times documentary on the subject, countless exposés and news articles, and even more public support in 2021.[25] Consequently, this growing pressure from social media helped terminate Britney’s conservatorship on November 12, 2021.[26]

The #FreeBritney movement has also sparked public concerns over the ethics of conservatorships. Zoe Brennan-Krohn, an American Civil Liberties Union’s disability rights lawyer, spoke out against conservatorships in stating, “We don’t know how long they’ve been there in them. We don’t know whether they want to be there. We don’t know why they’re there. We don’t know whether they have their own lawyers.”[27] In response to such concerns brought forward by the #FreeBritney movement, Congress members have spoken out, including Ted Cruz, Seth Moulton, and Elizabeth Warren.[28] Additionally, a bipartisan bill entitled the Freedom and Right to Emancipate from Exploitation Act (“FREE Act”) was introduced.[29] The FREE Act would “allow a person under a legal… conservatorship the right to petition the court to have their court-appointed [conservator] replaced with a public [conservator].”[30]

The #FreeBritney movement has made not only Britney’s voice, but the public’s voices heard. It remains a pivotal social media movement that has come to stand for more than a pop star. The #Free Britney movement stands for the human rights of all those in a conservatorship, and it is evident that their call for change impacted the law. “The cumulative voices of a community are powerful for shaping policy… #FreeBritney shows how people can join together and use their voices to enact change.”[31]

 

 

[1] Complete Guide to Conservatorship, Trust & Will, https://trustandwill.com/learn/what-is-conservatorship [https://perma.cc/9XTZ-W4LS] (last updated 2021).

[2] Free Britney! What Is a Conservatorship?, The Legal Examiner (Aug. 25, 2021) https://www.legalexaminer.com/legal/free-britney-what-is-a-conservatorship/ [https://perma.cc/HRA4-MHXM].

[3] E.g., Conservatorship Timeline How Did We Get Here?, FREEBRITNEY.ARMY, https://www.freebritney.army/timeline [https://perma.cc/RP6V-C29X], (last visited Jan. 19, 2022) [hereinafter FreeBritney].

[4] E.g., Id.

[5] See Aishvarya Kavi, Push to ‘Free Britney’ Gains Steam on Capitol Hill, NY Times (July 15, 2021), https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/15/us/politics/britney-spears.html [https://perma.cc/N6S8-BBNU] (last updated Nov. 12, 2021).

[6] Conservatorship, law.cornell.edu, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/conservatorship#:~:text=A%20conservatorship%20is%20the%20appointment,referred%20to%20as%20%E2%80%9Cconservatee.%E2%80%9D [https://perma.cc/HRQ9-YVM7] (last visited Jan. 19, 2022).

[7] Eric Reed, What Is a Conservatorship, and How Does It Work?, smartasset (July 1, 2021), https://smartasset.com/financial-advisor/what-is-conservatorship [https://perma.cc/9HYW-GNUL].

[8] Id.

[9] Id.

[10] Id.

[11] Id.

[12] FreeBritney, supra note 1.

[13] See Id.

[14] Id.

[15] See Id.

[16] Id.

[17] Joe Coscarelli & Julia Jacobs, Judge Ends Conservatorship Overseeing Britney Spears’s Life and Finances, NY Times (Nov. 12, 2021), https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/12/arts/music/britney-spears-conservatorship-ends.html [https://perma.cc/V89G-APUB] (last updated Nov. 15, 2021).

[18] Id.

[19] See Britney Spears: Singer’s conservatorship case explained, BBC News (Nov. 12, 2021), https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53494405 [https://perma.cc/754T-J6L7]; Coscarelli & Jacobs, supra note 14.

[20] FreeBritney, supra note 1.

[21] See The history behind the ‘Free Britney’ movement, Spectrum 1 News (Sept. 23, 2021, 4:00 PM), https://spectrumnews1.com/ca/la-west/la-times-today/2021/09/23/the-history-behind-the–free-britney–movement [https://perma.cc/R5NB-CJJN].

[22] Coscarelli & Jacobs, supra note 14; See Blake Morgan, What The #FreeBritney Movement Teaches About The Power of Community, Forbes (Sept. 7, 2021, 6:07 PM), https://www.forbes.com/sites/blakemorgan/2021/09/07/what-the-freebritney-movement-teaches-about-the-power-of-community/?sh=40cbd1e43fae [https://perma.cc/S8SM-3CNY].

[23] See Dani Anguiano, The #FreeBritney movement finds its moment: ‘All the hard work was worth it’, The Guardian (Nov. 14, 2021, 4:00 PM), https://www.theguardian.com/music/2021/nov/14/freebritney-movement-britney-spears-conservatorship [https://perma.cc/8R2X-DKD6].

[24] Id.

[25] See FreeBritney, supra note 1.

[26] See Coscarelli & Jacobs, supra note 14.

[27] Kavi, supra note 3.

[28] Id.

[29] Bianca Betancourt, Why Longtime Britney Spears Fans Are Demanding to #FreeBritney, Harper’s Bazaar (Nov. 12, 2021, 5:39 PM) https://www.harpersbazaar.com/celebrity/latest/a34113034/why-longtime-britney-spears-fans-are-demanding-to-freebritney/ [https://perma.cc/TL57-QNCF].

[30] Id.

[31] Morgan, supra note 19.

Image Source: https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/cultures/free-britney-movement-freebritney

By: Nate Gilmore

 

Fentanyl overdoses are now the leading cause of death for adults between the ages of 18-45.[1] It was tied to nearly 64 percent of all drug fatalities in 2021, nearly doubling from 2020.[2] During this time, fentanyl overdoses have killed more people than car accidents, gun violence, breast cancer, and suicide.[3] It is not a political debate; it is an infestation. U.S. Customs and Border Protection confiscated over 11000 pounds of fentanyl coming over America’s southern border in 2021, almost three times greater than the year prior.[4] Immediate action must be taken to reduce the risk of these overdoses.

Fentanyl is a synthetic opioid commonly added to other drugs such as cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine.[5] Deadly fentanyl levels mixed into these drugs cannot be detected by sight, taste, or touch.[6] Fentanyl test strips are inexpensive and are seen as one of the only ways to effectively determine if fentanyl is present.[7] With such a cheap and effective way to help lower the death tows rising, why are these strips not offered in stores across the country? The main problem is that these testing strips are only legal in a few states.[8] In states such as Florida, however, they are considered “drug paraphernalia,” where possession is a first-degree misdemeanor.[9] The potential life-saving strip could land you up to a year in prison.[10]

Things are looking up, however, in the sunshine state. This month, Florida State Representative Andrew Learned and State Senator Sevrin Jones have filed identical bills in the Florida House and Senate that would decriminalize fentanyl test strips.[11] Drug paraphernalia is currently defined as “all equipment, products, and materials of any kind which are used, intended for use, or designed for use in planting, propagating, cultivating, growing, harvesting, manufacturing, compounding, converting, producing, processing, preparing, testing, analyzing, packaging, repackaging, storing, containing, concealing, transporting, injecting, ingesting, inhaling, or otherwise introducing into the human body a controlled substance. . . .”[12] “Testing” is to be removed from the definition, and the bills would also decriminalize drug testing equipment such as fentanyl test strips.[13] Passage of these bills would be a massive step forward in increasing the availability of fentanyl test strips across the state and hopefully help stall overdose rates. Opponents of fentanyl test strips say that this approach encourages illegal drug use, as it is not requiring that someone stops taking drugs.[14] While this is a valid claim, the staggering fentanyl overdose rates over the last few years show that immediate action should be taken in an attempt to lower these rates, and the research on fentanyl test strips shows how efficient it can be.[15]

Fentanyl has crossed over our borders and poisoned this great country from within. With overdose rates increasing every year, U.S. citizens should be outraged and demand immediate legislative action. Legalizing fentanyl test strips would help identify fentanyl in a substance and will help reduce the risk of overdose, saving the lives of struggling addicted citizens.[16]

 

[1] Dan Grossman, Fentanyl is the Leading Cause of Death in Americans Ages 18-45, The Denver Channel (Jan. 04, 2020, 7:28 PM), https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/national/fentanyl-is-the-leading-cause-of-death-in-americans-ages-18-45.

[2] Deidre McPhillips, Drug Overdose Deaths Top 100,000 Annually for the First Time, Driven by Fentanyl, CDC Data Show, CNN Health (Nov. 17, 2021, 12:27 PM), https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/17/health/drug-overdose-deaths-record-high/index.html.

[3] Adam Shaw & Andrew Mark Miller, Fentanyl Overdoses Become No. 1 Cause of Deaths Among US Adults, Ages 18-45: ‘A National Emergency’, Fox 10 Phoenix (Dec. 16, 2021), https://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/fentanyl-overdoses-become-no-1-cause-of-death-among-us-adults-ages-18-45-a-national-emergency.

[4] See id.

[5] The Facts About Fentanyl, CDC (Nov. 2, 2021), https://www.cdc.gov/stopoverdose/fentanyl/index.html.

[6] Id.

[7] Id.

[8] Fentanyl Test Strips: Why Are They Illegal, Addiction Resource (Jan. 13, 2022), https://www.addictionresource.net/blog/fentanyl-test-strips/ (stating that in Alaska, Colorado, Maryland, Nebraska, New York, South Carolina, Virginia, Washington D.C., and Wyoming, fentanyl test strips are legal or decriminalized).

[9] Fla. Stat. § 893.147.

[10] Fla. Stat. § 775.082.

[11] McKenna Schueler, Florida Lawmakers File Legislation to Decriminalize Fentanyl Test Strips, WMNF (Jan. 7, 2022), https://www.wmnf.org/florida-lawmakers-file-legislation-decriminalize-fentanyl-test-strips/.

[12] Fla. Stat. § 893.145.

[13] Schueler, supra note 11.

[14] Fentanyl Test Strips: Why Are They Illegal, supra note 8.

[15] Fentanyl Test Strips: Why Are They Illegal, supra note 8.

[16] Fentanyl Test Strips: Why Are They Illegal, supra note 8.

 

Image Source: https://www.brown.edu/news/2019-01-18/fentanyl