The Roundtable
Welcome to the Roundtable, a forum for incisive commentary and analysis
on cases and developments in law and the legal system.
on cases and developments in law and the legal system.
 By: Asmita De
For many Americans, daily life is dependent on vehicles. Commuting to work, buying groceries, accessing healthcare, and even visiting friends and family often requires driving. This is not simply because all people prefer driving, but because most cities were legally designed to make alternatives nearly impossible. The United States became car-centric from over a century of zoning laws, highway policies, and land-use decisions that created an environment where cars are necessities. This type of urban planning originated in 1926 with Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., which was a Supreme Court case that affirmed the constitutionality of zoning in cities. This ruling allowed cities to separate residential, commercial, and industrial land uses into separate districts. The roots of zoning emerged from public health concerns. Before Euclid (1926), cities were already regulating buildings for “public health, safety, morals, and general welfare” [1]. For example, tenement laws were put into place in the 19th to early 20th centuries to ensure proper ventilation and prevent overcrowding and disease [2]. In parallel, smoke-releasing factories were seen as nuisances to daily life for nearby neighborhoods [3]. The Court in Euclid repeatedly justifies zoning with public health and safety rationales, framed more broadly as general welfare. However, over time, this ruling forced separation which made everyday destinations like schools, grocery stores, workplaces, and hospitals much farther apart. As a result, walkability decreased while driving distances increased. What followed was an aggressive national push for suburban expansion. The Federal Housing Administration’s loan policies in the mid-20th century favored single-family developments outside cities. Simultaneously, redlining denied investment in denser, walkable urban neighborhoods with many amenities nearby. Highways funded by the 1956 Interstate Highway Act then cut through many established neighborhoods, often Black and low-income communities, to make more lanes and paths [4]. While strong interstate transit systems are crucial for the transportation of goods and people, these choices weakened vibrant urban centers. Eventually, the form of most American cities had been reshaped around vehicle travel. Local zoning codes reinforced this transition. One of the most consequential examples is single-family zoning, which prohibits multifamily housing in portions of residential land. This keeps neighborhoods low-density and spreads destinations further apart, making vehicles necessary. It also drives up housing prices which excludes many low-income residents from high-opportunity areas that are often safer, have better school districts, and higher paying workplaces. Cities like Minneapolis have recently started eliminating single-family zoning by arguing that the zoning is both economically inefficient and historically tied with racial exclusion [5]. Today, the legal environment around urban planning is shifting. As many cities tackle housing shortages, climate change, and unequal access to transportation, some existing zoning laws are being reexamined. Some local governments are considering “upzoning” to allow for more housing, and resultingly, population density in one area [6] The current reforms highlight how the layout of American cities is greatly dependent on the regulations of the area. Many laws created the sprawling suburbia and car-dependent America of today. New legal reforms will determine if U.S. cities can evolve into places valuing walkability, diverse density, and easier access to transportation. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/13/us/minneapolis-single-family-zoning.html. [1] “Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (1926).” 1926. Justia. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/272/365/. [2] Garb, Margaret. 2003. “Health, Morality, and Housing: The “Tenement Problem” in Chicago.” NIH National Library of Medicine. 10.2105/ajph.93.9.1420. [3] Mires, Charlene. n.d. “Industrial Neighborhoods.” The Encyclopedia of Greater Philadelphia. https://philadelphiaencyclopedia.org/essays/industrial-neighborhoods/. [4] King, Noel. 2021. “A Brief History Of How Racism Shaped Interstate Highways.” NPR. https://www.npr.org/2021/04/07/984784455/a-brief-history-of-how-racism-shaped-interstate-highways. [5] Mervosh, Sarah. 2018. “Minneapolis, Tackling Housing Crisis and Inequity, Votes to End Single-Family Zoning.” New York Times. [6] Carmona, Tonantzin. 2021. “The double-edged sword of upzoning | Brookings.” Brookings Institution. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-double-edged-sword-of-upzoning/.
0 Comments
By: Izzy Chapman
As of this November, New York has become the first state in the nation with a law explicitly targeting personalized pricing. The law–General Business Law 349-a–requires that all companies which use algorithms to set prices to say so in a public disclosure: “THIS PRICE WAS SET BY AN ALGORITHM USING YOUR PERSONAL DATA.” The expansion and development of AI has led companies to use it to alter prices based on user behavior. For example, the algorithm can artificially raise prices for Internet users with a history of expensive clothing purchases while maintaining reasonable options for those who do not. It allows companies to optimize profits by raising prices for only those customers whose purchasing histories indicate they would be amenable to a more expensive version of a product. Although increasing in popularity and efficacy with the current advent of AI, the use of personal data to adjust prices and strategies is not new. In 2012, for instance, The Wall Street Journal reported on the travel site Orbitz, which had displayed pricier hotel ads for Mac users than PC users. However, price fixing can be challenging to document. Last January’s Federal Trade Commission report indicated that businesses can track behaviors like Internet users’ mousepad movements and unpurchased items left in an online cart to adjust prices and display. But few companies will admit to this kind of surveillance. Chad Yoes, who used to oversee Walmart’s prices, maintained that retailers restricted such a level of personal data analysis to rewards programs, and that in any case, the New York law would only serve to breed fear and mistrust between customer and retailer. The law has accrued significant backlash from the retail sector. Ryan Thornton of Uber denied using customers’ data for price fixing at all and denigrated the new law as “ambiguous,” while the National Retail Federation similarly called it “misleading and ominous” and echoed Walmart in insisting that personal data-based adjustments are exclusive to price-lowering for members of companies’ voluntary rewards programs. At the same time as the companies it targets insist the law stokes unnecessary fear, users offer anecdotes for evidence. Consumer Watchdog researcher Justin Kloczko recounts searching for an Uber–the company that explicitly denied price-fixing allegations–at the same time and place as his wife, whose options were remarkably more affordable. Delta Air Lines is unusual for openly promoting a personalized pricing plan. The Justice Department recently settled a lawsuit with the real estate company RealPage, which came under fire for using landlords’ data to set an algorithm charging artificially high prices. The law has received attention as one of the first tangible steps toward addressing the use of AI in price-fixing. Lina Khan, formerly of the Federal Trade Commission and now part of incoming New York mayor Zohran Mamdani’s transition team, called it “vital” but emphasized the need to do more; AI lawyer Goli Mahdavi said the bill reflected the next “big battleground.” Forcing companies to be transparent about price-fixing is a crucial step in both publicizing and discouraging the practice. At the same time, the disclaimer that the law would require bears striking resemblance to the kind of cookie agreements that Internet users tend to unthinkingly click “agree” on when first clicking on a website. Although well-intentioned and seemingly inescapable, constant cookie pop-up agreements have had a numbing effect on their target audience, and some companies have learned to sidestep the question of consent by hiding the “opt out” option from the front page. Yet at least having such a law requires companies to be upfront and transparent, and perhaps that requirement will discourage some surveillance behavior to begin with by forcing it out of the shadows. New York’s law may be the first of its kind, but a long line appears behind it: ten other states have similar laws currently undergoing review, some of which actually ban the practice, rather than solely requiring disclosure. Works Cited Balk, Tim. “Personalized Surveillance Pricing, AI and What It Means for New York.” The New York Times, November 29, 2025. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/29/nyregion/personalized-surveillance-pricing-ai-new-york.html. Federal Trade Commission. “FTC Surveillance Pricing Study Indicates Wide Range of Personal Data Used to Set Individualized Consumer Prices.” Press release, January 17, 2025. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/01/ftc-surveillance-pricing-study-indicates-wide-range-personal-data-used-set-individualized-consumer-prices. McCabe, David. “RealPage, DOJ Settle Rent‑Pricing Suit.” The New York Times, November 24, 2025. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/24/technology/realpage-doj-settlement.html. Mattioli, Dana. “On Orbitz, Mac Users Steered to Pricier Hotels.” The Wall Street Journal, August 23, 2012. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304458604577488822667325882. Kaye, Danielle. “Personalized Pricing.” The New York Times, July 26, 2025. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/26/business/dealbook/personalized-pricing.html. Robeson, Nate. “AI Creates a New Antitrust Puzzle.” Politico, October 20, 2025. https://www.politico.com/newsletters/digital-future-daily/2025/10/20/ai-creates-a-new-antitrust-puzzle-00615415. The State of New York, Office of the Governor. “Protecting New Yorkers From Secret Online Price Hikes: Governor Hochul Announces Nation-Leading Surveillance Pricing Law Now in Effect.” November 24, 2025. https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/protecting-new-yorkers-secret-online-price-hikes-governor-hochul-announces-nation-leading.  By: Natasha Agarwal
Natasha Agarwal is a freshman studying Law & Society at Penn’s College of Arts and Sciences. In 2023, a self-driving car at Cruise robotaxi company dragged a jaywalking pedestrian across a bustling San Francisco street [1]. The incident quickly went viral—sparking public outrage, legal confusion, and a corporate scandal. Yet it also revealed a broader issue: despite the rising prevalence of AI-powered vehicles, collision laws still take a back seat. By 2030, over 60% of vehicles sold are projected to feature some level of automation, from fully driverless models to human-operated cars equipped with lane assist or sensor technologies [2]. As these vehicles become increasingly popular among individuals, rideshare services, and businesses, establishing clear liability standards for collisions involving automated vehicles becomes essential to ensure public trust, accountability, and consumer protection. Yet assigning fault remains a gray area. Automation varies across vehicle companies and states, blurring the lines between human and machine responsibility while driving. Automated vehicles operate on a spectrum, classified from fully manual (Level 0) to fully autonomous (Level 5) [3]. Collisions of vehicles at the middle or higher levels—where human oversight is still recommended—often spark debates over who is responsible: car owners, software, or manufacturers. Not only does this problem complicate court proceedings, but it highlights the growing gap between innovation and the law’s ability to keep up. Courts currently approach each AV collision as an independent case, leading to delayed compensation and inconsistent judgments. The 2023 Cruise incident demonstrates this issue: the company initially claimed the human driver who struck the pedestrian was solely responsible, while officials and civilians contended that Cruise’s AI system misperformed. The resulting controversy, coupled with allegations of a corporate cover-up, damaged the company’s reputation to the point where General Motors, Cruise’s parent company, shut down the division entirely [4]. More broadly, this incident suggests a defensive industry posture that prioritizes reputation over safety [5]. Such practices undermine public trust and raise serious ethical questions surrounding accountability and transparency. Despite sophisticated sensors and systems, automated systems are largely fallible. Pre-release safety testing remains largely self-governed, and as of 2024, only twelve U.S. states legally mandate testing or piloting of AVs—with procedures varying widely in magnitude and enforcement [6]. Federal frameworks were written for human-driven vehicles and do not account for autonomous decision making, sensor calibration, or live visual processing [7]. AI cannot yet make impulsive decisions akin to human judgement as training is still an evolving science. Without standard guidelines or oversight, companies are left to police their own technologies, leaving room for safety errors to occur before vehicles reach the market. Legislators can address these risks by introducing nationalized safety benchmarks like blackbox testing—a level one to five vehicle-simulation method that enables AVs to master various conditions [8]. This testing method relies on optimization, reinforcement, and other human psychological strategies to evaluate software without revealing the machine’s internal codes. A phased rollout—starting with the testing of higher-automation vehicles (Levels 3-5)—can safeguard public welfare while allowing room for continued innovation. Collecting and publishing performance data before vehicles are released into the market will help regulators, insurers, and owners understand how these systems behave in stressful situations. Level one to four vehicle collisions require more situational fault assignments, depending on the driver’s mental state and ability to intervene during an adverse situation. National guidelines should explicitly account for the four driver scenarios that liability expert Jeffrey Gurney identifies—the distracted, diminished capabilities, disabled, or attentive driver [9]. This way, collision responsibility is proportionally and contextually assigned among humans, sellers, and manufacturers. Determining these fault assignments at the national level would provide courts with a consistent framework for liability evaluation, reduce payout delays, and curb corporate cover-ups. Nevertheless, such efforts may face resistance from states hoping to control traffic and vehicle regulations. Collaboration between federal and state officials can occur through joint legislative committees and lobbying initiatives that include insights from DMVs, transportation agencies, automakers, and insurance firms. Providing federal incentives like funding for pilot programs, technical testing, or access to collision history can encourage state participation—allowing them to maintain autonomy while adopting improved frameworks. Assigning fault after automated vehicle collisions can take months or years, and victims often encounter compensation delays. Insurance policies should be updated to reflect automation-related risks, such as system failures or cybersecurity breaches. Collecting data on algorithm error rates would help these companies assign limits proportional to each vehicle automation level. For example, if Level 3 vehicles collide less than Level 2 ones, insurance for Level 3 vehicles may cost less. Tiered limits more accurately reflect the shared responsibility among drivers, sellers, and manufacturers while promoting timely compensation for victims. Safety reports and proportional coverage also improve clarity and reduce blame-related tension. While these reforms require significant coordination across state, federal, and corporate bodies, they are feasible through gradual implementation. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration could oversee standardized safety protocols for automated vehicle testing, while the Department of Transportation and state Departments of Motor Vehicles could manage the implementation of national frameworks in collision reporting, proportional fault assignment, and victim compensation. Although full adoption of these solutions will take several years, starting with higher-automation (Level 3–5) vehicles will allow for scalable and timely reform. With these measures in place, AI will continue to develop as a safe, transparent, and collaborative force in the transportation industry—ensuring that the law is no longer the blind spot on our roads. Bibliography [1] https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2406.05281 [2]https://www.iea.org/reports/by-2030-evs-represent-more-than-60-of-vehicles-sold-globally-and-require-an-adequate-surge-in-chargers-installed-in-buildings [3] https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/self-driving-vehicles [4] https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2406.05281 [5] https://www.brookings.edu/articles/setting-the-standard-of-liability-for-self-driving-cars/ [6]https://www.bakerdonelson.com/autonomous-vehicle-statutes-and-regulations-across-the-50-states [7] https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/av-framework-plan-modernize-safety-standards [8] https://doi.org/10.1613/jair.1.12716 [9] https://ssrn.com/abstract=2352108  By: Hannah Steinberg From runway to social media to website to store, consumers race to shop the newest trends, carefully curating their purchases to reflect their own style while relaying trends. However, fashion consumerism would not be what it is today without department stores. Upon emerging in the 19th century as large-scale retail establishments offering a wide variety of goods under one roof, they revolutionized shopping with fixed prices, elegant displays, and customer service innovations. As luxury brands gained traction and appeal, many flocked to these flagships to seek out their latest purchase and gain their newest form of expression and wealth. When Lord & Taylor, a popular location for consumers to splurge on their newest Gucci item, was revealed to sell counterfeit items, Gucci pursued aggressive legal action. The nature of such action is part of a broader movement of luxury brands fighting back against counterfeit sellers, something pioneered by Chanel’s victory against Amazon in 2017. This case inspired and aided in the development of Gucci’s case, as the ruling in Chanel v. Amazon reinforced the precedent that resellers and retailers can be held liable for the selling of counterfeit luxury goods, despite them not being the original manufacturers. Gucci’s legal strategy tangibly expresses the growth of this movement and the broader initiative of luxury brands to use intellectual property law to maintain brand integrity, in a time of fashion dominated by the internet, a major hub for the selling of counterfeit goods. In November of 2023, Gucci filed a lawsuit against Lord & Taylor Ecomm LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, in which the luxury brand accused Lord & Taylor of selling counterfeit Gucci products, including handbags, shoes, and belts, through its e-commerce platform. Gucci alleged that these items unlawfully bore counterfeit versions of its well-known logo and used related design elements, misleading consumers and diluting the brand’s exclusivity [1]. The default judgment issued by the court was grounded in the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1114, § 1125). In the United States, this act allows for trademark registration and protection of the owners of registered trademarks from the use of similar marks if such use allows for consumer confusion, thus the act is commonly used in cases of counterfeiting [2]. In particular, the act only protects trademarks that are used for commercial purposes; are distinct in nature, such as being an iconic brand logo. Similarly, the trademark can not be mandatory for a product to properly function, drawn from the functionality doctrine that protects against monopolies, meaning one trademark owner can not own all rights to a specific product. Under the Lanham Act, Gucci was successfully able to argue that Lord & Taylor’s sale of counterfeit goods constituted trademark infringement. This act supports how Lord & Taylor created consumer confusion in replicating Gucci’s iconic logo and trademark as many customers were deceived into thinking they were buying an authentic Gucci product. This trademark is integral to their commercial sales as many buy Gucci products due to its status as a luxury brand with impressive quality, distinct designs, and an iconic fashion statement. Thus, deception of the authenticity of the item's logo raises commercial concerns. As the Gucci logo is famously distinct, this has significant legal importance as a non-authentic Gucci product that contains the logo may trick customers into thinking it is authentic resulting in its sale and potential harm to the Gucci brand name if the quality is subpar. Moreover, the Lanham Act is applicable to convict Lord & Taylor as the third provision can be applied as the Gucci logo, the product’s trademark, is not integral to the product’s function. Hence, it is legally sound for Gucci to hold this trademark as it does not create a monopoly so Lord & Taylor has no ground to sell products that steal this trademark. Additionally, Gucci utilized the Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995 to assert a claim of trademark dilution. Trademark dilution is the unauthorized use of a famous mark in a way that weakens its distinctiveness or harms its reputation. This act is applicable regardless of whether consumer confusion occurs since these trademarks are so famous and are a “household-name” so jurisdictions aimed to protect them in other circumstances as well. The forms of dilution include blurring, when a famous mark’s uniqueness is diminished by its use on unrelated products, and tarnishment, when the use of the trademark creates damaging associations that harm the brand’s reputation [3]. Consequently, as Gucci is a highly-reputable and well-known brand, they are protected even if Lord & Taylor’s actions did not cause any consumer confusion to occur. Gucci’s logo was diluted as it was tarnished in its use on products that do not necessarily represent the brand or its standards and thus might hurt their impressive reputation. As a result of both of these acts being violated, the court ordered an inventory inspection at Lord & Taylor, which they complied with, leading to the confirmation of counterfeit goods being sold. Nevertheless, Lord & Taylor later failed to respond to Gucci’s discovery requests, leading the court to enter into a default judgment in Gucci’s favor in August of 2024. This decision included a court-issued permanent injunction, an order prohibiting the retailer from selling counterfeit Gucci products, and a mandate that Lord & Taylor surrender all counterfeit inventory to Gucci for impoundment and destruction [4]. Despite this clear ruling, Lord & Taylor has refused to comply, prompting Gucci, on February 6, 2025, to file a memorandum, a document recording the terms of the legal decision, and to request that the court hold Lord & Taylor in civil contempt—a legal sanction imposed when a party disobeys a court order. The goal of such an action is not to punish the disobedient party but rather compel their compliance, sometimes issuing fines or jail time to accomplish this. However, such punishments are avoidable by simply complying with the court’s requirements [5]. Gucci argues that Lord & Taylor’s ongoing noncompliance meets the legal standard for contempt as established in A.V. by Versace, Inc. v. Gianni Versace, S.p.A which established that to prove contempt, a party must show that (1) the underlying court order is clear and not up to interpretation, (2) the violation has concrete evidence, and (3) the opposing party gave no reasonable effort to comply [6]. This request is currently being evaluated and pursued by the court due to Gucci’s concrete argument for this sanction. This includes the court’s 2024 default judgment being explicit, the lack of evidence of both Lord & Taylor’s adherence and any effort made to rectify this. Nonetheless, the court is currently evaluating whether or not civil contempt is in fact applicable. More importantly, Gucci emphasizes that willfulness is not required for a contempt finding, meaning that Lord & Taylor’s continued inaction alone justifies sanctions. Although the outcome is still unclear, based on the presented evidence and precedents set, Gucci has a good chance of receiving their request and a sanction of civil contempt to be issued on lord & Taylor. If so, law enforcement will be empowered to confiscate and destroy the counterfeit merchandise, effectively preventing Lord & Taylor from profiting further from the sale of unauthorized goods. Additionally, monetary sanctions could be levied against the retailer, adding financial pressure to ensure future compliance. This case highlights the broader challenges luxury brands face in combating counterfeit sales within the evolving retail landscape. As someone who has grown up walking wide-eyed through department stores to gawk at the newest luxury items, I have always formed an association between the two and looked to these stores as a dependable source of designer goods. Hence, this revelation was groundbreaking for the fashion world, especially as it raises the question, how many other brands have suffered the same fate at department stores or in general? [1] The Fashion Law. 2025. “Gucci Claims Lord & Taylor Won’t Turn over Counterfeits in Lawsuit.” TFL. February 12, 2025. https://www.thefashionlaw.com/gucci-claims-lord-taylor-wont-turn-over-counterfeits-in-on going-lawsuit/. [2] Cornell Law School. 2018. “Lanham Act.” LII / Legal Information Institute. November 12, 2018. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/lanham_act. [3] International Trademark Association. 2020. “Trademark Dilution (Intended for a Non-Legal Audience).” International Trademark Association. November 9, 2020. https://www.inta.org/fact-sheets/tra demark-dilution-intended-for-a-non-legal-audience/. [4] O’Hanlon, Cara. 2025. “Gucci Escalates Legal Action against Lord & Taylor over Counterfeits - Fordham Intellectual Property, Media & Entertainment Law Journal.” Fordham Intellectual Property, Media & Entertainment Law Journal. March 12, 2025. http://www.fordhamiplj.org/2025/03/12/gucci-escalate s-legal-action-against-lord-taylor-over-counterfeits/. [5] Wex Definitions Team. 2022. “Contempt of Court, Civil.” LII, Legal Information Institute. Cornell Law School. July 2022. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/contempt_of_court_civil. [6] U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. 2025. “AV by Versace, Inc. V. Gianni Versace, SpA, 279 F. Supp. 2d 341 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).” Justia Law. 2025. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/d istrict-courts/FSupp2/279/341/2386336/.  By Ritha Igout
Ritha Igout is a freshman studying International Relations and History in the College of Arts and Sciences interested in going to law school. The relationship between the U.S. judiciary and executive has been marked by centuries of precarious protests over power. As the first nation to address Montesquieu’s concerns and successfully establish a large republic, the U.S. is often seen as a model of federalism. Much of this success stems from the separation of powers, a balance carefully curated by the quasi-sanctified Constitution. Although effective, the Constitution leaves many areas open to interpretation. These gray areas have fanned the flames of political debate for centuries, with one of the most persistent battles being the tug-of-war between the judiciary and the executive. With recent executive orders and Supreme Court decisions raising this issue to the surface once more, the question of power–and how much each branch should have–becomes more salient than ever.  By Hannah Steinberg
In our materialistic yet increasingly individualized society, fashion is a large form of expression and aspect of life. Even more so, fashion is a symbol of status. Luxury brands have their origins in European craftsmanship, with houses like Hermès (1837) and Louis Vuitton (1854) beginning as specialized artisans before evolving into global icons of wealth and exclusivity. Over the 20th and 21st centuries, luxury expanded beyond fashion into automobiles, jewelry, and experiences, driven by heritage, celebrity influence, and strategic marketing. The increasing role of the media has further persuaded many into aspiring to own designer items, whether it be for the monetary or fashionable personal statement it provides. Luxury items are known for being exclusive and one of a kind.  Image: https://assets.medpagetoday.net/media/images/112xxx/112895.jpg?width=0.8
Aaron Tsui is a junior studying computer engineering and robotics in the School of Engineering and Applied Science interested in technology law and intellectual property. While the rapid growth of digital consumerism has created prosperous avenues for businesses and has fundamentally altered the interaction between people and products, it has also allowed for the illegal, unethical, and profit-driven exploitation of vulnerabilities in consumer behavior and psychology.  Written by Michael Merolla
Michael Merolla is a second-year student at the University of Pennsylvania’s College of Arts and Sciences studying political science. On June 28, 2024, the United States Supreme Court overturned forty years of administrative precedent by issuing a landmark decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v Raimondo. The case originated from an action brought by a group of commercial fishermen – Loper Bright – against the National Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS) [1]. The fishermen found fault with the Service’s application of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act - passed by Congress in 1976 to combat overfishing in the seafood industry [2]. The plaintiffs were seeking redress for the NFMS’s monitoring program that required fishing companies to fund federal compliance inspectors, arguing that the agency overstepped the regulatory authority enumerated in the Magnuson-Stevens Act. In a 6-2 ruling (Justice Jackson recused herself since she ruled on the case at the D.C. Circuit), the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Loper Bright Enterprises, remanding the case back to the Appellate Court. In his majority opinion, Chief Justice Roberts states, “Courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority” [3].  By Ingrid Holmquist
Content Warning: This article contains mentions of sexual assault. Since the #MeToo movement took the internet by storm in 2017, social awareness surrounding the rights of sexual assault survivors has shot up. These conversations were particularly relevant in Amber Heard’s highly publicized defamation trial in 2022 [1]. While supporters of Johnny Depp harassed and mocked Heard online, legal experts watched worriedly, concerned that this may set a horrible precedent. And if the online abuse wasn’t enough, the court's ruling surely was: in June 2022, the jury found Heard liable for three counts of defamation and ordered her to pay $1 million to the man she accused of abusing her [2].  By Hannah Steinberg
In our visually expressive world, logos, symbols, and designs are often the governing force in an identification of a person, brand, or place. These trademarks often function as the key to success for companies and individuals as it allows for an increase in profitability and fame. The laws of intellectual property govern the protection and regulation of such trademarks, primarily using the Lanham Act, established by Congress in 1946. |
