The author, Darius Gambino of Saul Ewing LLP examines the legal and regulatory challenges surrounding loot boxes in video games, highlighting the risks of litigation, government scrutiny, and the need for industry self-regulation.
In this episode we talk to Rich Lee, founder of New Era ADR, about hot topics and issues involving what is referred to here as "Advanced Dispute Resolution", or ADR. What are the benefits of ADR? How can ADR enhance Access to Justice? How does employing ADR impact Accessibility, Diversity, and the Environment? What is the influence of Gamesmanship in legal proceedings? As Rich explains, "ADR is about rethinking litigation to make it more efficient for both sides. Get parties to be pragmatic, get to the point, present their arguments, and get it resolved". Listen now to learn more!
Traditional antitrust economics face significant challenges grappling with the relatively new digital economy. The author, Jonathan Rubin examines these and other issues raised in the case of FTC v. Amazon, which he anticipates will be a crucial test for antitrust and the FTC Act.
In this article, the authors discuss new updates from the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency on how software and artificial intelligence medical devices will be regulated in the United Kingdom after Brexit. Read and learn more!
New litigation alleging violations of the Video Privacy Protection Act -- which came well before online video streaming -- demonstrates how plaintiff attorneys are creatively applying traditional causes of action to litigate modern privacy issues in the absence of a federal law. Listen now for insights.
PFAS claims are the next frontier of mass tort and environmental litigation. With the EPA poised to finally enact the first regulation of these chemicals, that frontier is ripe for exploration. This article explores PFAS and the origin of litigation around the substances as well as the state of PFAS litigation and regulation today. It concludes with some thoughts on what to expect when it comes to PFAS litigation going forward.
Since 2003, when Congress opened the door for human-trafficking victims to sue for civil damages under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (TVPRA), the TVPRA and similarly drafted state statutes have allowed for human-trafficking victims to seek civil damages against any party that has benefited from their trafficking. Given this expansive inclusion of third-party liability, more and more businesses, especially those in the hospitality industry, are ultimately the ones left to pay for the criminal acts of human traffickers. In this article, the authors, Coryne Leyendecker and Pamela Lee discuss the evolving litigation around human-trafficking claims and offer guidance on how businesses can build a foundation for their own defense while simultaneously helping prevent human-trafficking crimes from occurring in the first place.
The Authors John defends manufacturers in product liability litigation involving a range of products, e.g., ATVs, RVs, institutional chemicals, medical devices, and pharmaceuticals. From single cases to mass tort litigation and class actions, John has defended clients in courtrooms around the country. Michael is General Counsel of Thor Motor Coach Inc., a final-stage manufacturer of motor homes headquartered in Elkhart, Indiana. He is also an adjunct professor of commercial law at the Notre Dame Law School. Taryn focuses her practice on litigation. She has experience dealing with products liability, discovery issues, corporate structure and governance, wealth management, private and commercial lending, real estate, and Indian affairs for lobbying both on state and federal levels. Taryn contributed valuable research to this article. Interviews with leading attorneys and other subject matter experts on new twists in the law and how the law is responding to new twists in the world. The Use—and Abuse—of Rule 41(a) to Destroy Federal Question Jurisdiction Post-Removal "A plaintiff seeking to divest the court of subject matter jurisdiction post-removal should at least comply with the requirements of the rule they have relied on. Glossing over those requirements undermines the purpose and intent of both the rule and removal statutes. The case should stay put in federal court in the [...]
Last year the Aylstock, Witkin, Kreis & Overholtz law firm filed the first class action against L’Oréal and Softsheen-Carson for injuries, primarily to Black women, allegedly caused by hair relaxers and straighteners. Now, many cases are consolidated in multidistrict litigation. Listen for unique insights from a leading plaintiff attorney.
Businesses must understand how Auto-GPT technologies use data, the potential for biased results, and how to responsibly leverage these powerful technologies. Listen to my interview with Jason I. Epstein, Partner at Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, as we explore this emerging field.
Consumers and businesses -- indirect purchasers of products whose prices are fixed by those who supply the maker of your purchase may not collect damages in states that -- surprisingly, do not have antitrust laws that give them standing. But what about federal law? Why do some states provide for damages and others do not? Are there alternatives?Â
Guest Writer Does the European Union Commission’s Proposal on AI Liability Act as a Game Changer for Fault-Based Liability Regimes in the EU? By Nils Lölfing Abstract: In this article, the author discusses increasing risks that artificial intelligence system providers, developers, and users will face from a liability directive proposed by the European Union Commission. The AI Liability Directive proposed by the European Union Commission puts additional liability risks on providers, developers and users of specifically high-risk artificial intelligence (AI) systems. If enacted, it could become a game changer for fault-based liability regimes in the European Union, as it introduces a presumption of causality to prove fault and a right of access to evidence from companies and suppliers regarding high-risk AI systems. This will help victims enforce non-contractual civil law claims for damages caused by an AI system. What this is about and how it increases the liability risk exposure of actors in the AI systems supply chain will be discussed in this article. Background On September 28, 2022, the EU Commission published its proposal for a Directive to establish new fault-based liability rules for AI systems (AI Liability Directive), along with a reform for the existing rules on the strict liability of manufacturers for defective products. The current article focuses on [...]
