Emerging Litigation Podcast
Algorithmic Software Facilitated Price Fixing with Jonathan Rubin
Everyone knows that price fixing is against the law, chiefly Section 1 of the federal Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890. Competitors may not collude to set prices. However, there are relatively new price-calculation tools that some companies maintain take them out of the equation. With these tools, shared across an industry, firms do not have to directly swap private information with competitors. Instead, they feed their data to a third-party which uses algorithms to come up with prices. In this episode, we discuss what algorithmic or software-facilitated pricing is, what the law says about price collusion, how this new pricing mechanism violates the law, and recent developments in litigation. Our guest highly regarded antitrust attorney Jonathan Rubin, Partner and Co-Founder of MoginRubin LLP.
Biometric Privacy Litigation and Coverage Disputes with John Leonard and Cort Malone
Biometric data is big business. In many cases it even helps make our lives better. It also presents significant risks for a variety of parties, in addition to those of us who surrender our data. Companies collecting, storing, utilizing, and monetizing the data face penalties and litigation bolstered by the increasing number of states enacting biometric information privacy acts, or BIPAs, the first of which was in Illinois. In this episode, we discuss the state of biometric privacy litigation, the regulatory landscape, insurance coverage considerations, and recent rulings with guests John Leonard and Cort Malone of Anderson Kill P.C.
Mitigating Greenwashing Litigation Risks with Ramya Ravishankar
In this episode, we discuss mitigating greenwashing litigation risks with guest Ramya Ravishankar, General Counsel at HowGood, an independent research firm that helps the world’s largest food brands meet their sustainability commitments. Listen and learn more!
A Shameless Plug for Our Content Services
Your content marketing is everything you’ve ever dreamed of. Right?
Sara is marketing director at a boutique law firm. When we asked her how their blog was going, she made a sad face. But then, we made Sara smile.*
Critical Legal Content was founded by Tom Hagy, former Editor & Publisher of Mealey’s Litigation Reports and VP at LexisNexis, founder of HB, current litigation podcaster and editor-in-chief. CLC’s mission is to help smaller firms and service providers not only create content — blogs, articles, papers, webinars, podcasts (like the stuff on this site) — but also to get it out there. How? Via social media, this website, your website, and potential via our podcast and journal which we publish in collaboration with vLex Fastcase and Law Street Media. The goal is to attract readers and dizzy them with your brilliance.
*Inspired by actual events.
Create content like a real legal publisher.
Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation
Top Legal Risks with Generative AI by Graham Reynolds, Robin Sagstetter, and Damon W.D. Wright
The authors, Graham Reynolds, Robin Sagstetter, and Damon W.D. Wright discuss recent court cases which have brought to the forefront the top legal risks associated with the use of Generative AI.
The Use and Abuse of the Pollution Exclusion by Robert D. Chesler, Dennis J. Artese, and Jamie O’Neill
The authors, Robert Chesler, Dennis Artese, and Jamie O'Neill of Anderson Kill examine recent court decisions and ongoing cases that have brought to the forefront the critical issue of the reach of pollution exclusions in insurance policies.
Cracking the College Sports “Cartel”: Good for Athletes, Competition, and the Games by Joy Sidhwa and Tim LaComb
Momentum in the national debate over whether a college athlete should profit from licensing deals for their “names, images, and likenesses,” or NILs, swung in favor of players on June 21, 2021, when the Supreme Court ruled for the athletes in NCAA v. Alston. Authors Joy Sidhwa and Tim LaComb of MoginRubin, LLP discuss the impacts of the decision and subsequent court decisions and state legislation which have further cemented and defined the changing amateurism rules in college sports. As the authors note, "the ultimate test of whether amateurism drives demand will come after new state laws allow compensation unrelated to education. If compensation doesn’t trigger a drop in demand, the NCAA will lose its procompetitive justification for the restriction and likely bring an end to amateurism rules".
HB Webinars on the West LegalEdcenter
Legal Innovation: Choosing the Best AI Tools and Strategies for Success
During this webinar, Robinson+Cole's knowledge management professionals Liz Salsedo and Jim Merrifield help you better understand artificial intelligence and generative AI. Learn about the categories of work in which AI is being applied in the practice of law, e.g., legal research, document drafting, deposition preparation, and discovery review. Understand the various risks associated with AI, e.g., biased and inaccurate outputs, unauthorized disclosures of private data, and intellectual property infringement. Get an overview of governmental regulation and guidance. Finally, start your journey to develop best practices in establishing AI governance teams and processes with an eye toward complying with regulations and mitigating risk.
The Medical Monitoring Tort Remedy: Advanced Level
The medical monitoring tort remedy – allowing for medical monitoring without physical injury – is recognized in 14 states and not allowed in 23. The law is divided in two states while the rest have not specifically addressed the issue. States that allow medical monitoring to do so when a group of claimants is at increased risk of disease or injury due to exposure to a known hazardous substance or a dangerous product as the result of a defendant’s conduct. Under this tort remedy, claimants are tested periodically, for an agreed or decided period, usually between 10 and 40 years. In this CLE webinar, Gentle Turner & Benson LLC attorneys Edgar (“Ed”) C. Gentle III and Katherine (“Kip”) A. Benson discuss the evolution of the medical monitoring tort, related cases, tests to determine whether the tort should be applied, types of monitoring, and the arguments for an against medical monitoring.
Avoiding the Nuclear Verdict or the Defense Verdict
According to professionals in the insurance industry and the defense bar, the number of nuclear verdicts, or verdicts that exceed $10M, is on the rise. Although the defense may prevail over plaintiffs more often at trial, when the defense loses, they lose big. And plaintiffs who could have obtained needed resources in settlement, sometimes "roll the dice" at trial and get less, or nothing at all. Do clients really want to engage in such high stakes showdowns? Is there a better way to administer "justice?" In this CLE webinar, Mediator Arbitrator Jeff Trueman and Negotiation Educator and Author, John Lowry discuss these very questions. Register for the on-demand webinar today!
Content Partners
