HB Partner Webinars on the West LegalEdcenter
Take these CLE webinars on the West LegalEdcenter platform. Each program features leading litigators in their respective fields on emerging subjects. Speakers and topics are handpicked by HB. Your organization may have already subscribed to the platform, but each session is also available for individual purpose. For questions or if you wish to propose a webinar, write to us at: Webinars@LitigationConferences.com.
Contract Drafting Fundamentals
Register Now Contract Drafting Fundamentals: What I Wish They Taught Me in Law School Speaker: Will Marshall | Partner UBM Law LLP Date: Thursday | July 23, 2020 Time: 2pm ET 1pm CT 12pm MT 11am PT Duration: 75 minutes Price: Early Bird Registration: $75 After July 14: $95 Special: Complimentary with discount code! What you get: CLE credit Course materials Webinar recording Answers to your questions! Contact CLE Manager Get practical insights on contract drafting. For new and seasoned attorneys alike, this 75-minute program will cover core, practical aspects of contract drafting, including a broad range of fundamental concepts, skills, and tips. The program is designed to make you a more deliberate drafter and improve your ability to assess the purpose and effectiveness of each provision in your contract. We will discuss not only what is on the page, but external dynamics that affect drafting and negotiation. Finally, we will reserve time to answer your questions. I am offering this program for free to my network to help you develop these foundational skills. If you haven't received it, please contact me directly for the complimentary pass code. -- Will Marshall, Partner, UBM Law Group LLP Key topics: The goals and challenges of good drafting. The anatomy and building blocks of a contract. Categories of contract language. Typical sources of ambiguity. Tips on everything from file naming conventions to how to draft a nested signature block and what a tipping basket is. Your questions via live chat or by email before or and after the event. Send Will a Question Meet our panelist. Will Marshall | Partner UBM Law Group, LLC Will is a co-founder of UBM Law Group. He [...]
Organizational Values & Coronavirus Business Risks | Join Our Webinar June 18
Webinar: June 18, 2020 2:00 pm ET 60 mins. CLE: 1+ Complimentary with registration. Get: +CLE +Materials +Recording +Answers! Also available to subscribers of the West LegalEdcenter. Register there! Email us your: Speaker questions CLE questions Speaker: Professor Edward L. Queen Ph.D. , J.D. Director Ethics and Servant Leadership: Emory Center for Ethics Emory University Organizational Values & Coronavirus Business Risks Properly Balancing Stakeholder Concerns Thursday, June 18, 2020 | 2pm ET | 1pm CT | 12pm MT | 11am PT The pandemic brings with it complex liability concerns, stakeholder demands and legal duties. We will take a closer look. The current pandemic confronts businesses, nonprofit organizations, governments, and the legal profession with innumerable ethical challenges. Management issues and liability concerns, stakeholder demands and legal duties become even more complex in an environment of uncertainty and one where the consequences could result in serious illness or even death. This program seeks to engage the participants in thinking through these challenges and developing processes of ethical response to them. Managers must acknowledge and address the framework of fear associated with the pandemic, ranging from fear of contagion and death to fears of unemployment, child care, and the duties of home-schooling. Additionally, as the economy reopens there must be serious attention to the processes of doing so, including: We will address: Appropriate accommodation for high-risk employees or employees with family members who are at a heightened risk; Attention to means of mitigating transmission and infection; Contact tracing and management of data collected, including health data, as well as responses to employees who refuse to report; Duty to avoid discrimination and stigmatization; Developing plans to address possibility of re-occurrence in the fall and managing possible outbreaks in company’s offices. [...]
The Intersection of Privacy and Antitrust Webinar Now Available On-Demand on the West LegalEdcenter
Available as part of your subscription to The Thomson Reuters West LegalEdcenter®. Don't subscribe to the West LegalEdcenter? This webinar is still available directly from HB. Take it now! Questions for speakers Questions@LitigationConferences.com CLE questions CLE@LitigationConferences.com Check out the MoginRubin blog for more insights on antitrust and privacy law. What attorneys and companies need to know about the increasing interplay between these critical areas of the law. Highly publicized cases and investigations in the U.S. and Europe of big technology, e-commerce, and social media companies demonstrate how anti-competition laws are being used to scrutinize and challenge not only how these corporations conduct themselves in the marketplace, but the very core of their colossal success: the mass collection and utilization of user data. Are the privacy and antitrust worlds beginning to cross over? Or do they simply run parallel while addressing entirely different types of conduct? Whatever the answer, data is the raw material that drives the likes of Google, Facebook, Apple and Amazon, so how it is handled is a critical question when counseling clients on mergers and acquisitions. Moderator Daniel J. Mogin | Managing Partner, MoginRubin LLP Speakers Jennifer M. Oliver, CIPP/US | Partner, MoginRubin LLP Thomas N. Dahdouh | Director, Western Region, Federal Trade Commission Franklin M. Rubinstein | Partner, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati Randi W. Singer, CIPP/US, CIPT | Partner, Weil, Gotshal & Manges Contributor Dina Srinivasan | Independent Researcher & Author of The Antitrust Case Against Facebook Dina was unable to present but we thank her for her content contributions. Agenda Who should regulate privacy violations in the U.S.? Which antitrust issues implicate privacy concerns? What role does machine learning play on the competitive landscape? What is big data really? How is it different from “data”? What are the elements of effective merger reviews? What are the appropriate [...]
The Intersection of Antitrust & Privacy | A MoginRubin Webinar | 10.31.2019
[two-fifths-first] Recorded: Oct. 31, 2019 Duration: 100 minutes Presented by: MoginRubin LLP Produced by: HB Litigation Conferences The Panel Moderator Daniel J. Mogin | Managing Partner, MoginRubin LLP Speakers Jennifer M. Oliver, CIPP/US | Partner, MoginRubin LLP Thomas N. Dahdouh | Director, Western Region, Federal Trade Commission Franklin M. Rubinstein | Partner, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati Randi W. Singer, CIPP/US, CIPT | Partner, Weil, Gotshal & Manges Contributor Dina Srinivasan | Independent Researcher & Author of The Antitrust Case Against Facebook Dina was unable to present but we thank her for her content contributions. What you will get: At least 1 hour of CLE credit. Answers to your questions via email. The opportunity to share with others on your team. The complete Powerpoint. The Antitrust Case Against Facebook Dina Srinivasan's statement to the House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law The Chicago Booth School Stigler Center Committee on Digital Platforms Final Report Write to us at CLE@LitigationConferences.com to: Ask about CLE Request the materials Send a question for the speakers [/two-fifths-first][three-fifths] Market Behavior and Data-Driven Market Power Highly publicized cases and investigations in the U.S. and Europe of big technology, e-commerce, and social media companies demonstrate how anti-competition laws are being used to scrutinize and challenge not only how these corporations conduct themselves in the marketplace, but the very core of their colossal success: the mass collection and utilization of user data. Are the privacy and antitrust worlds beginning to cross over? Or do they simply run parallel while addressing entirely different types of conduct? Whatever the answer, data is the raw material that drives the likes of Google, Facebook, Apple and Amazon, so how it is handled is a critical question when counseling clients on mergers and acquisitions. Meanwhile, there is increasing [...]
PTSD Claims Brought by Facebook’s ‘Graphic Content’ Reviewers Goes to ADR, Putting Civil Action on Pause
By Tom Hagy Facebook can be great fun. How else would I have seen a video of an eight-year-old drummer-girl utterly thrashing Led Zeppelin’s Good Times Bad Times? Or a dog running away with a lit skyrocket as his human friends run, duck and ditch for their lives? Or what your cat looks like in a tuxedo? Facebook can also be a source of horror. Some of the most distressful commentary and images you wish you could un-see. And that’s just from my family. Imagine your entire job is to monitor Facebook discussions and remove its graphic content. Day in and day out. That’s literally all you did. A group of Facebook employees says that was their job, and their exposure to an “unmitigated barrage of horrifying content” and “toxic images” has caused them to suffer “debilitating trauma-related injuries.” In September 2018 they filed suit in California Superior Court in San Mateo seeking an order requiring Facebook to implement safety guidelines for content moderators which, they say, the company has admitted are “necessary and appropriate.” They also want the company to fund a medical monitoring program for the diagnosis and treatment of psychological injuries including post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD. The plaintiffs quote Chris Harrison, whom they characterize as a Facebook executive in charge of the company’s “global resiliency team” as saying “of course” the company should offer content moderators post-employment counseling. The plaintiffs filed the suit as a proposed class action, and relied on state laws including the California Unfair Competition Law alleging Facebook’s conduct was negligent, and negligence forms the basis of a UCL claim. Facebook moved for a judgment on the pleadings, saying the facts are insufficient to constitute a community of interest required for class actions and that there is no ascertainable class. The company [...]
Canna Law Blog Reviews Hemp-CBD Regulations State-by-State, Week-by-Week
“When it comes to hemp, few states have embraced it like Colorado,” writes Harris Bricken attorney Daniel Shortt. “If you buy a product containing hemp, in any state across the country, it likely came from Colorado.” The state has allocated more than 12,000 acres of outdoor space and 2.35 million square feet of indoor space to hemp cultivation, according to Marijuana Business Daily. Shortt and his colleagues are working their way through a state-by-state series on the Canna Law Blog™, titled Hemp-CBD Across State Lines. The Harris Bricken team has covered Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas and California, and added Colorado to the list yesterday, July 21. The firm’s series covers state regulatory activity following the enactment of the federal Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, aka “The Farm Bill,” which removed hemp and its derivatives from the definition of marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act. The bill gave the USDA regulatory authority over hemp cultivation at the federal level, but states may maintain primary regulatory authority over the crop cultivated within their borders by submitting a plan to the USDA, Shortt explains. Read the Canna Law Blog's Colorado post and follow this series, updated weekly. Related Webinar This Week The Harris Bricken law firm has been on the forefront of the law regarding cannabis and related products for years. Three Harris Bricken attorneys, Daniel Shortt, Nathalie Bougenies, and Griffen Thorne -- plus Anastasia Gilmartin, General Counsel at CBD product maker OLEO Inc. -- will discuss how the legal landscape of hemp-derived CBD is affecting various stakeholders. They will: + Discuss both the 2014 and 2018 Farm Bills + Analyze the FDA’s position on products containing hemp and/or CBD (including food, beverages, cosmetics, dietary supplements, drugs, and smokeable products) + Provide an overview of state laws + Share insights on where [...]
Setting the record straight on cyber insurance claim denials and the ‘war exclusion’
Is insurance coverage for cyber claims barred by a war exclusion? Judy Selby and Peter McLaughlin asked this question in a recent post for IAPP. Two corporate giants, Mondelez International and Merck, made the headlines recently as they sustained serious damage as a result of a NotPetya infection, an encrypting ransomware. They have each filed declaratory judgments after their carriers denied their claims. Reports of these insurance disputes have led to concerns that cyber incidents involving state actors would not be covered by cyber policies with war exclusions. The Verizon 2019 Data Breach Investigations Report attributes 23% of breaches to nation-states or state-affiliated players. "These state-sponsored attacks typically range from theft or espionage to financial gain; however, some attacks appear to have been driven by grudge or by swatting a neighbor," Selby and McLaughlin write. "[P]erhaps we are viewing this through an old lens. Insurance has often been purchased to address hazards. Specifically, an organization obtains a policy to counter the slim risk of a fire, flood or other catastrophe. Fred Kaplan wrote an article for Slate in April in which he argues the inevitability of attacks – state-sponsored or otherwise – means that we should view cyber insurance more like we do health insurance: coverage against the inevitable, rather than against a hazard risk." Read on for what else Selby and McLaughlin had to say here.
PTSD in Multi-Plaintiff and Mass Tort Cases | Webinar OnDemand
[one-fourth-first] Price: $47 When: On-demand Where: Your computer or mobile device CLE: 1 hour Speakers Mark I. Levy MD, DLFAPA Medical Director Forensic Psychiatric Associates Medical Corporation Associate Clinical Professor, Psychiatry University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine 415.388.8040 mlevy@fpamed.com Sarah A. Hall, PhD. Psychologist for Forensic & Neuropsychological Assessments Forensic Psychiatric Associates Medical Corporation shall@fpamed.com [/one-fourth-first][three-fourths] What tort attorneys need to know about PTSD claims. Mass tort claims arise most frequently in man-made and natural disaster catastrophe litigation as well as personal injury, employment, product liability and toxic tort litigation. Frequently, these lawsuits include either primary or secondary allegations of emotional distress. PTSD is one of the most common emotional distress claims alleged within mass tort litigation, as well as allegations of depression and emotional stress (anxiety). Join an experienced psychiatrist and psychologist who will cover the following topics relevant to the forensic psychiatric assessment of emotional damages within mass tort and complex litigation: + Introduction: Defining PTSD. What it is and what it is not. + The methodological approach to assessing allegations of emotional distress in mass tort & complex litigation. + The importance and the methodology of psychological testing as part of the assessment of emotional distress claims in mass tort litigation. + Claimant population screening. Using psychological test instruments to differentiate claimants who require in-depth forensic psychiatric assessment from claimants who do not. + Are all psych tests the same? Types of psychological test instruments we recommend and ones that we do not -- and why. + So-called “PTSD Tests.” Do they have a role in forensic psychological assessments? + Accuracy and reliability of conclusions derived from psychological test data. + Taking a “team approach” to emotional distress claim assessment in mass tort litigation. [/three-fourths]
Cyber Captive Survey 2019 — AON
Aon’s Cyber Captive Survey 2019 says that the rapid growth in the captive market of cyber-specific policies underscores that cyber is one of the primary risks for organizations across the world driven by an increasingly complex operational, technological and regulatory environment. Key findings include: Healthcare and energy industries are leading the way, with 19% and 15% of organizations in these industries utilizing captives for cyber coverage respectively. 41% of captives surveyed are incubating cyber risk. The range in limits of cover taken out is up to USD$100 million. An estimated 34% of all captives will be writing cyber in five years’ time. Read the complete report here!
Nevada to try limited banking for cash-heavy pot industry — ElkoDaily.com
Most marijuana dispensaries are forced to handle massive amounts of cash. Business owners are paying their employees with envelopes full of dollar bills, and bringing duffle bags full of money to government buildings to pay their taxes. That could all change with the new Nevada state law that allows dispensaries to offer a cashless option. This program will be tested for three years before being considered as a permanent feature. State Treasurer Zach Conine likened the system to gift cards or digital apps such as Venmo and said the program would not include broader banking services like loans. Since marijuana is still not legal federally, states are on their own with coming up with a cashless option. Hawaii took similar steps and included a debit payment app, which has spread to other states as well. California lawmakers are also devising a cashless system by creating a class of banks specifically for the industry. This temporary law is set to take place by July 1, 2020 with the hopes of easing transactions and lessen cash handling for customers and businesses Read the complete post by Michelle L. Price on ElkoDaily.com here!
First Class Action Lawsuit Filed on Behalf of Victims of First American Title Company Data Breach — Yahoo!
"Gibbs Law Group LLP has filed the first nationwide class action lawsuit accusing First American Title Company of failing to properly secure 885 million sensitive customer files, instead choosing to store them in a 'woefully insecure,'” publicly-accessible system. “First American has turned the American dream of home ownership into a financial security nightmare for its customers,” according to the complaint. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that First American Title Company was negligent, and violated its contracts with customers, in the way it stored their personal information, which included bank account numbers, Social Security numbers, financial and tax records, and photos of their drivers’ licenses. "This grave lapse in security resulted in publicly exposing hundreds of millions of customers’ personal files, leaving them vulnerable to identify theft and other cybercrimes," the plaintiffs maintain. Read the complete Press Release on Yahoo! here
Wells Fargo Proposes to Settle Auto Insurance Case for $386M — Yahoo!
In 2017 customers of Wells Fargo & Company (WFC) filed a class action lawsuit alleging the bank forced unwanted auto insurance without permission from the customers. Currently WFC plans to pay around $386 million to settle the 2017 class action lawsuit. The high payout is due to the sheer number of customers affected. About 270,000 WFC customers were "pushed into delinquency " and "almost 25,000 wrongful vehicle repossessions." In addition to the class action settlement, WFC will be reaching out to individual customers offering financial service recovery, and restructuring their leadership teams. WFC is still seeing a decrease in sales and their numbers. In six months WFC shares "lost 4.5% against 6.5% growth recorded by the industry." Read the complete post on Yahoo! here.
The Future of Cyber Operations and the Government
In the forthcoming National Defense Authorization Act the House Armed Services Committee -- specifically the Subcommittee on Intelligence and Emerging Threat Capabilities -- seeks to amend the annual legislation to ensure that Congress is informed when the executive branch executes offensive or defensive cyber operations. The bill defines offensive or defensive cyber operations as a “sensitive military operation.” The goal of this shared information is additional oversight, especially given the newness of cyber tactics. As reported by journalist Derek B. Johnson of FWC.com, two covert cyber operations have taken place since POTUS announced the new policy. The first was in October 2018, a cyber operation with a goal of informing Russian operatives not to meddle with the midterm election. The second took place the following November in which the U.S. Cyber Command blocked access to Russian Internet Research Agency post election. While these two operations have been called “mild” in some critiques, former White House Director of Cyber Infrastructure Protection under President George W. Bush, Jason Healey, believes this highly specialized tactic is ideal since it presents the least potential for collateral damage. While Healey warns against grand and overt attacks, he states that sometimes "conflict is straightforward and you just have to stop adversaries from punching you in the mouth.” Read the complete post by Derek B. Johnson on FCW.com here.
The New York Privacy Act Would Allow Direct Action
The New York Privacy Act, introduced last month by state Sen. Kevin Thomas, advocates for consumer agency over their personal data and would give New Yorkers the right to sue companies directly for privacy violations. Thomas wants companies to put customer data protection ahead of their budgetary and business goals. The bill summary reads: "Enacts the NY privacy act to require companies to disclose their methods of de-identifying personal information, to place special safeguards around data sharing and to allow consumers to obtain the names of all entities with whom their information is shared; creates a special account to fund a new office of privacy and data protection." "Fiduciaries, like an attorney or a doctor, hold onto your information. They don't share it, unless there is a need for the purpose for which they collected it,” Thomas said. “That's not what's going on here with these data companies and these data brokers. They're sharing it, and we're getting targeted.” Pushback from the tech industry has been swift. John Olsen, Director of the Internet Association, said, “The NY Privacy Act, in its current form, is unworkable for businesses that want to comply and fails to provide New York residents meaningful control over how their data is collected, used, and protected." Facebook also chimed in saying they would have to shut down Facebook access to New York users if the bill becomes law. Read the NY Senate Bill S5642.
CannaLawBlog — Legalizing Cannabis Cash
On May 20, 2019 banking associations from all 50 states and 1 territory sent a letter to Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee urging them to conduct hearings on the merits of providing cannabis-related business access to banking services. CannaLawBlog highlighted the primary concerns of the letter in a recent post: "Again, the primary concern expressed was that current law forces state-legal businesses to operate on a cash basis, which poses a safety risk, complicates enforcement efforts, and could damage local economies." The banking associations wanted to emphasize their neutrality on the legality of cannabis, rather they wanted to show strength as a national community and validate, support, and respect those communities that have voted for legalized recreational marijuana. Read the complete post by HarrisBricken attorney Jihee Ahn on The CannaLawBlog.
CNN — Jury returns $2 billion verdict against Monsanto for couple with cancer — the biggest so far
[one-half-first] [/one-half-first] [one-half] A California jury returned a $2.055 billion verdict against Monsanto and their popular weed killer, Roundup. “The verdict in Oakland includes more than $55 million in compensatory damage and $2 billion in punitive damages.” The septuagenarian plaintiffs, represented by attorney Michael Miller of The Miller Firm, were a California couple that said long-term exposure to Roundup caused both of them to be diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a cancer that usually cannot be traced back to a source according to the American Cancer Society. The particular carcinogen in Roundup is glyphosate, which the EPA has stated was not a carcinogen in a 2015 assessment, which contradicts WHO’s statement that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic to humans”. While a Monsanto spokesperson previously denied any manipulation, a jury found that a series of texts and emails between Monsanto and the EPA that proved Monsanto culpable of manipulating science. [/one-half] Read the complete post by Michael Nedelman on CNN.com here!
Dr. Babyl: Artificial Intelligence Could Save Lives, Time and Money — TheDailyBeast.com
Itchy throat? Headache? Upset stomach? There's an app for that. There is a new AI healthcare system called Babylon UK’s National Health Service which features an AI-driven app that is reportedly able to separate “run-of-the-mill” illnesses from more life-threatening ones, while saving time, money, and anxiety for patients and doctors alike. Babylon offers more than diagnostic assistance; it is accessible to people in remote areas. "For example, Babyl, the Rwandan version of Babylon, offers remote appointments with clinicians, fills prescriptions, orders lab tests, and issues referrals.” Babyl enables affordable, personalized healthcare, combined with “the brains of thousands of doctors at once” to reach patients who cannot get to a doctor’s officer. In addition to assisting doctors with everyday check-ups and treating the common cold, the AI’s abilities extend to clinical trials. “In 2018 the Mayo Clinic partnered with IBM’s Watson to match patients with breast cancer to accessible clinical trials covered by their health plans. The matching program increased the enrollment of breast cancer sufferers in Mayo Clinic’s own clinical trials by 80%." Questions are being raised, however, about how to mitigate risks posed by hacking or by nefarious manipulation of the system. Read about this and more in the complete post by Joelle Renstrom on TheDailyBeast.com.
The Wrong-Headedness of Hindsight Standards — Michelle Yeary | Drug & Device Law Blog
Dechert LLP attorney Michelle Yeary cautions against applying perfect hindsight to drug liability. "We all know hindsight is 20/20. And, it’s easy. There are dozens of television and radio programs that thrive on Monday morning quarterbacking. There’s no risk in saying the coach should have called for a pass when you already know the run didn’t work. It’s also dangerous because it’s easy. People are often too quick to point out that you should have taken path B after everyone learns path A is full of potholes. Pointing it out is one thing, holding you liable for it is another." Yeary takes a look at what happened in Holley v. Gilead Science, Inc., 2019 WL 2077845 (N.D. Cal. May 10, 2019). The case involves two of the main active ingredients in AIDS drugs: TDF and TAF. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant should be responsible for allegedly knowingly using TDF over TAF (allegedly a safer alternative). TDF was FDA approved first and TAF second. Unfortunately, Yeary wrote, hindsight "can be used to demand perfection," allowing plaintiffs to "proceed on what is essentially a stop-selling theory," that first-generation drugs should not be submitted to the FDA because, in hindsight, "later approved treatments were safer." That's what happened in Holley, she said. Read the complete post by Michelle Yeary on the Drug and Device Law Blog here. Read the opinion here.
J&J Hit with $120 Million Verdict at Mesh Trial
A Philadelphia jury returned a $120 million verdict against Johnson & Johnson after finding that a negligently designed pelvic mesh implant caused chronic pain and suffering, which left plaintiff Susan McFarland incontinent and unable to have sex for the last 10 years. McFarland alleged the implant she received in 2008 caused the product to saw through the soft tissue in her pelvis and become exposed in her vagina. She had to undergo a second surgery to remove a portion of the implant (Susan McFarland,et al. v. Ethicon Inc., et al., No. 130701577, Phila. Comm. Pls. Ct.). This is the second of two trials. The jury in the first trial was deadlocked, unable to agree on the extent of negligence of the design of the Ethicon product. Tracie Palmer, McFarland’s attorney, added in the second trial that the vaginal mesh was on market prior to clinical studies determining its safety and efficacy. Defense attorney Adam Spicer maintained that the chronic pain McFarland experienced could be due to other causes, including her age. He said the product had been used for years prior. McFarland’s case is one of more than 100,000 cases brought together in the MDL, down from nearly 105,000 cases against seven manufacturers. The MDL will be closing and there will be two more waves of trial, with next wave comprising 150 cases. Final settlement conferences are scheduled for August 1 with trial set to begin August 14. McFarland and her husband are represented by Tracie Palmer, Braden Lepisto, Shanin Specter and Lee Balefsky of Kline & Specter PC. Ethicon is represented by Kate Skagerberg of Beck Redden LLP, Adam Spicer, Paul Rosenblatt and Jordan Walker of Butler Snow LLP, and D. Alicia Hickok, Kenneth Murphy and Melissa Merk of Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP.
Suits Allege Apple Concealed Knowledge of iPhone 7 Defect
Apple Inc. has been sued in federal courts in Illinois and California for allegedly knowingly selling iPhone 7 and 7 plus models with an audio chip defect, called the “Audio IC Defect” or “Loop Disease” by consumers, which causes an array of operational issues. The bug gums up handset audio functions, grays out speaker buttons during calls, and degrades microphone fidelity. And if that's not enough it can kill Siri's voice command capabilities. The plaintiffs accuse Apple of actively concealing the Audio IC Defect while advertising the iPhone 7 as “the best iPhone we ever made.” The plaintiffs claim that when they first experienced operational problems Apple didn't offer complimentary repairs. The suits allege breach of warranty and violation of California and Illinois consumer protection laws. Plaintiffs seek class certification, damages, attorneys' fees, and injunctive relief. In Illinois, the plaintiffs may also try to force Apple to repair, recall, and/or replace current defective iPhone 7s in the United States and notify all purchasers of the Loop Disease. Evidence shows “Apple’s internal acknowledgement and subsequent discontinuation of their out-of-warranty repairs without public announcement of the Audio IC Defect amounts to misrepresentation and concealment of the Audio IC Defect,” the California complaint in Casillas v. Apple reads. Complaints available on Scribd.com. Casillas v. Apple, N.D. Calif., No. 3:19-cv-2455 Castelli v. Apple, N.D. Ill., Eastern Div., No. ______
Artificial Intelligence: DeepMind on Debugging Learned Predictive Models
DeepMind, an artificial intelligence research company, in a recent blog post discusses three ways to eliminate bugs in learned predictive models. The company was founded in London in 2010. Google acquired it in 2014. In addition to London they have research centers in Edmonton and Montreal, Canada, and a DeepMind Applied team in Mountain View, California. "Bugs and software have gone hand in hand since the beginning of computer programming," the post reads. "Over time, software developers have established a set of best practices for testing and debugging before deployment, but these practices are not suited for modern deep learning systems. Today, the prevailing practice in machine learning is to train a system on a training data set, and then test it on another set. While this reveals the average-case performance of models, it is also crucial to ensure robustness, or acceptably high performance even in the worst case. In this article, we describe three approaches for rigorously identifying and eliminating bugs in learned predictive models: adversarial testing, robust learning, and formal verification." Read the complete post here!
Top Five Things to Know if You’re Building Your Cannabis Empire Through M&A — CannaLawBlog
Cannabis is associated with calm. Joining the industry is anything but. Hilary Bricken already has nearly a decade of experience in the field of cannabis law. She founded the Canna Law Blog in 2010, which now has several contributors from the Harris Bricken firm and is easily one of the best out there. Her latest post offers insights on companies who wish to build their cannabis business through mergers and acquisitions. In her May 6 post, titled "Top Five Things to Know if You're Building Your Cannabis Empire Through M&A," she writes: "It’s no secret that multiple state-by-state operators are building their cannabis empires through aggressive mergers and acquisitions. Last year, our cannabis business attorneys closed more than $100 million in cannabis company acquisitions, and that shows no signs of stopping in 2019. Cannabis M&A is not your run-of-the-mill business dealing though, and working from boilerplate, rote M&A documents is hugely dangerous. In addition, diligence is oftentimes like a regulatory spiderweb laden with liabilities that other businesses do not face. In addition, the barriers to entry in the cannabis industry are increasingly high, tedious, and protectionist, which can really torture business deals." Bricken writes that "if you find yourself turning into a larger multi-state operator though acquiring cannabis businesses," there are at least five things you should know. Read on for what she has to say. Read the complete post on CannaLawBlog.com here. Cannabis photo by Matthew Brodeur on UnSplash.com
Moving Your Corporate Data to the Cloud: Top 13 Things to Think About as you Review Your Hosting Agreement — Judy Selby Consulting
Some data migration risks can be mitigated at the cloud contract stage, Allison Bird, Judy Selby’s partner at Clearview Privacy Consulting LLC, explains. Regarding indemnification, Bird says, "If data is lost or exposed by the hosting company, your company as well as any affiliates who use the services will be subject to suits from clients and individuals whose data was impacted. You may also be subject to regulatory scrutiny which could result in legal costs and regulatory penalties. To the extent possible, negotiate a full indemnification of third party claims arising out of the hosting services." She says the limitation of liability section of your hosting agreement "may be the single most important" part. "Your hosting company may make a lot of promises in the agreement. However, if their liability under the agreement is significantly capped, you won’t receive the monetary compensation necessary to make up for hosting company’s acts and omissions that damage the company. Negotiations for a higher cap will translate into real dollars in the event of a security incident." Of course, insurance is always a good solution if done right. "You can negotiate the perfect contract but unless your hosting company has a deep pocket, it may not have sufficient capital to make good on contractual obligations in the event of a breach or data loss situation, especially one affecting many of its customers," Bird says. "Consider adding language into the agreement which requires your hosting company to maintain insurance (with your company as a named insured) covering data breach and inability to access data." Read the complete post by Allison Bird on Judy Selby Consulting's blog.
The Cloud: Selected Benefits, Risks, and Insurance Coverage Issues (Part 1) — Barnes & Thornburg
Cloud Risk: Do You Transfer Liability Along with Data? Many of us were using data clouds before we even knew what they were. Now, while most of us are comfortable with the concept, we may not be comfortable knowing who is liable when data is lost, damaged or breached. It's not a given that your cloud provider absorbs any liabilities, and it's not a given they can even afford the liability should it arise. Below are quotes from an article by Scott Godes, Kara Cleary, and Heidi Fessler of Barnes & Thornburg LLP on the subject, and a link to their complete article. Godes, Cleary, and Fessler list several cloud-related risks: data breaches, data loss, interruption of access, compromised credentials and broken authentication, and denial of service. But two other categories for concern are: #1. BYOC, or Bring Your Own Cloud. Employees may be innocently using productivity applications that store work data on non-company clouds, in effect, "bringing their own clouds" to the workplace. #2. Multi-Tenancy. This involves risks posed when unrelated cloud users are sharing the same computing resources. "Both the cloud provider and the user must be aware of system and data security to prevent a breach in the security. In addition, when a risk is realized, it may not always be clear who is at fault for the system or security failure. "There are a lot of misconceptions around the cloud and liability," the Barnes & Thornburg attorneys write. "Many companies assume that along with the transfer of their data, they have also transferred their risk to the cloud provider," they say. "Absent a clear agreement that shifts liability to the cloud provider, the practical reality is that in most cases, there’s very little protection in terms of liability with cloud providers, unless parties are willing [...]
Anderson Kill’s 5th Annual Cyber Insurance Recovery Conference
[one-half-first][/one-half-first] [one-half]Recent news of "Collection 1", a cache of sensitive data now appearing for sale on the dark web and comprised of an astonishing 773 million records, is a grim reminder of the scope of cyber perils for most. Last year's staggering tally of serious data breaches and theft coupled with a spate of new legislation for companies gathering, hosting and selling consumer data means policyholders must rise to the challenge. New state legislation compounds an already daunting federal and international regulatory landscape, and regulatory compliance will be a must to deal with the attendant fines, penalties and consumer claims that non-compliance can trigger. New technology also continues to drive the evolving conversation about the legal relationships between parties transacting business electronically. Risks range from anonymity that raises jurisdictional and collection issues to “immutable” record keeping that creates a permanent, public record of transactions. --Anderson Kill [/one-half] Find out more about this complimentary seminar from Anderson Kill here!