Posted by Ryan Gibbons.

DeepMind’s Mustafa Suleyman left the company in August of 2019. With little to no reason, the co-founder decided to walk away from his company. DeepMind is an artificial intelligence company which was founded in 2010. In 2014, it was acquired by Google. People assumed Suleyman would return to the company a short while after his departure, but that has not been the case. Suleyman took a job with Google, being in AI policy role. However, the switch may not be as out of the blue as people thought.

A report from the Wall Street Journal cited that Suleyman had his management duties and responsibilities taken away due to bullying his staff. To add on, Google and DeepMind confirmed these claims, also stating that a legal team was hired to investigate the situation. When asked to speak on the matter, Suleyman did not have anything to say. However, he did speak to the Wall Street Journal stating, “response to questions from The Wall Street Journal he said he “accepted feedback that, as a co-founder at DeepMind, I drove people too hard and at times my management style was not constructive.””

This story relates back to ethics in the workplace. When a company first starts out, they want to create an ethical code of conduct. The company should create a conduct to show what is expected at the workplace ethically, and communicate it to the employees. Employees should also be made aware of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which allows employees to confidentially go to court if the company is committing illegal or unethical acts. While it was great that DeepMind was able to figure out what Suleyman was doing, perhaps the situation could have been avoided all together if they took time to go over ethics at the workplace with their staff.

Ryan is a political science major at Seton Hall University, Class of 2025.

Posted by Jennie Neilsen.

To loosen child-labor restrictions and to make it easier for minors to work without a permit, Arkansas enacted a new state law entitled the Youth Hiring Act. According to the article, this new law “ended a requirement that businesses must obtain a work permit from the Department of Labor and Licensing if they want to employ a child under 16 years old” (Flores & Calfas). Before the Youth Hiring Act was passed in Arkansas, a parent or guardian would have to co-sign for their child to receive a working permit and then employers would have to tell the state how many days and hours the minor was expected to work. Those in favor of this law believe that lightening the child-labor requirements removes an unnecessary burden for businesses and enables parents to make decisions for their children without permission from the government. Those opposed to this new law argue that it removed an essential, protective measure that helped to ensure the hours worked by minors were not violating federal child labor laws. More states like Georgia, Iowa, Missouri, and Ohio are now beginning to introduce similar bills that seek to ease child-labor protections and alter the hours minors can work.

Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders believes that protecting children is very important, but that the state’s permit requirement was a huge burden for parents and businesses. Governor Sanders has made it clear that all protective child-labor laws still apply, and businesses are expected to comply to these laws as always. Proponents of the Youth Hiring Act believe that it is positive because legislation is modernizing state law and more people are being exposed to the workforce, aiding industries that are experiencing work shortages. Senator Tim Schaffer, a sponsor of the bill, is quoted saying, “giving more power to these families, to the schools and the employers, more power and more flexibility, is really what they want” (Flores & Calfas). Yet, with more power comes more responsibility. Opponents still worry that certain parents will choose to take advantage of the Youth Hiring Act and exploit their children for more money. They also worry that this new state law will expose children to more dangerous jobs and longer shifts. The Arkansas Department of Labor and Licensing has not yet responded to such concerns.

In my opinion, the Youth Hiring Act may serve as a positive change for Arkansas so long as the state regulates federal child labor laws and ensures that children are not being exploited by adults. I agree with the proponents who argue that lightening the child-labor requirements removes an unnecessary burden for businesses and enables parents to make decisions for their children without permission from the government. Families, schools, and employers need more flexibility to combat the work shortage and to increase productivity in a safe, moral, and legal way for children. The Youth Hiring Act is not going against protective child labor laws, but rather, modernizing state law to improve upon how children are legally able to work.

Jennie is a finance and technology student at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2026.

Article Link: https://www.wsj.com/articles/states-look-to-ease-some-child-labor-laws-amid-tight-market-a46322c6?page=1

Posted by Michael Picariello.

Former star Washington running back Clinton Portis, along with nine other former NFL players, have been charged with healthcare fraud after a $3.9 million scheme that involved the players submitting false claims to the NFL health program. The former athletes asked for reimbursements for around $40,000 to $50,000 for medical equipment that was never actually purchased by fabricating documentation submitted to the NFL. According to the CNBC article, this healthcare system has been in place for a while as it states, “The allegedly bogus claims were submitted to the Gene Upshaw National Football League Health Reimbursement Account Plan, which since 2006 has provided tax-free reimbursement for out-of-pocket medical costs of former players, their wives, and dependents of up to $350,000 per player” (CNBC). The players abused a system that the NFL uses to help former players as football is the most physically taxing sport that has long-term effects on an athlete.

The plan paid over $3.4 million from June 2017 to December 2018, but the fraud was stopped when the health insurer Cigna became suspicious. Some of the claims were for equipment used to treat horses so the company stopped paying the claims and notified authorities. The article states, “Information is charging devices regularly used against defendants who have reached an agreement with prosecutors to plead guilty (CNBC). Six players have agreed to plead guilty and make a deal with prosecutors as four other former players have been arrested. Charges against the players include healthcare fraud and wire fraud with five being accused as the ringleaders.

The scheme devised by these 10 former players including a former star running back in Clinton Portis was proven to be highly illegal after there were missteps in their process of the fraud allowing Cigna to find these false claims. I think that players who surely made a good amount of money during their playing career should not be taking advantage of a system that is in place to help people with actual health issues. Football players struggle with many lingering issues after they retire, most notably CTE which affects the brain and can change a person for life, the fact that people were abusing the system to help people in actual need is embarrassing. The players involved should be prosecuted to the highest extent and be brought to justice for the mistakes they made. I think the Eastern District of Kentucky is handling this situation perfectly and making sure that this never happens again.

Michael is a marketing and finance student at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2025.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/12/former-nfl-players-criminally-charged-with-health-care-claims-fraud.html

Posted by Jimmy Sali.

In the 2021-22 NBA season, the Boston Celtics ended with a 51-31 record, all the way as the second seed in their conference. At the helm of this was head coach Ime Udoka. Udoka got himself into some controversy just weeks before the beginning of the 2022-23 season, when news broke of a scandal he’d been involved in with a female member of the Celtics staff. He had an “inappropriate relation with a female team employee,” and “violated team policies” in the process. Due to this, he’d been suspended for at least one year away from the team and would not serve as their head coach, despite a successful season and NBA Finals appearance months prior to the scandal. Joe Mazzulla served as interim coach for a majority of the ongoing NBA season, and has now been granted a multi-year extension with the team. Udoka is no longer with the Celtics at all.

An investigation into the Udoka allegations was conducted all throughout the summer. This was done by an unspecified, independent law firm. Considering the relationship, though sexual, was apparently consensual on both ends, many questions are raised by the public on whether Udoka deserved the suspension or not. Udoka has a wife outside of the league, but cheating is not typically something that can be regulated by a job. From the Celtics public release, it was noted that the situation was part of a larger issue within the organization. The owner of the team, Wyc Grousbeck, promised to ensure that policy violations did not grow further than the isolated Ime Udoka cheating scandal.

From the perspective of women within the organization, strides had to be made by the Celtics to ensure they were supported and protected from social media accusations. Grousbeck himself, even after a legal investigation, admitted that the suspension came from “conscience and gut feel, because there’s no clear guidelines.” A situation like this continues to be in hot debate, but down to an ethical issue, Udoka had to be suspended from the team. The Celtics without him have continued to find success thus far this season, boasting a 47-21 record at the time of writing and once again second in the East.

Jimmy is a finance major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2026.

Original Article: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/23/sports/basketball/ime-udoka-boston-celtics.html

Posted by Matthew Gegenfurtner.

FTX co-founder and ex-engineering chief Nishad Singh pleaded guilty to six criminal fraud charges in Manhattan federal court. FTX was a cryptocurrency exchange that promotes the liquidity and transacting of coins and tokens. FTX allowed users to connect their wallets, place trades, exchange digital currencies, enter into derivative contracts, or buy and sell NFTs. U.S. Attorney Damian Williams said in a statement- “They rocked our financial markets with a multibillion-dollar fraud. And they corrupted our politics with tens of millions of dollars in illegal straw campaign contributions. These crimes demand swift and certain justice and that is exactly what we are seeking in the Southern District of New York.” This statement shows that as mentioned the whole FTX idea was a fraud and corrupted the politics of campaign Contributions as it rocked and shaped the financial Markets.

As the markets of FTX collapsed the Former billionaire Sam Bankman-Fried, the founder of befallen crypto exchange FTX, has been charged with four new criminal counts including allegations of illegal political donations and bank fraud. Nishad Singh was hired by Sam Bankman-Fried as they were friends before the business dating back to childhood. Nishad Singh was the newest person to enter the inner circle to admit participating in wrongdoing at the bankrupt crypto currency exchange which was the last straw and eventually Led to the bankruptcy.

After the bankruptcy happened and accusations were made Singh expressed remorse in the courtroom Tuesday, saying, “I am unbelievably sorry for my role in all of this.” Later that evening Singh was released on a $250,000 personal recognizance bond and ordered to surrender all travel documents. Not only was Singh involved in this scandal, but Former Alameda Research CEO Caroline Ellison has pleaded guilty to several charges connected to the collapse of the hedge fund’s sister firm, FTX.

Matthew is mjoring in business at thee Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2026.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/business-leaders/former-ftx-exec-nishad-singh-pleads-guilty-fraud-charges

Posted by Hayden Keeperman.

The recent collapse of Silicon Valley Bank has sent shockwaves through the tech and banking industry, highlighting the risks and uncertainties that come with investing in high-growth startups. The bank’s troubles began when it became overexposed to risky tech startups, leading to a surge in bad loans. As a result, regulators have stepped in to stabilize the situation and ensure that customers’ assets are protected.

The Silicon Valley Bank collapse serves as a reminder of the importance of diversification and risk management in financial institutions. The bank’s over-reliance on high-risk startups has proven to be a recipe for disaster, and it is a cautionary tale for investors and financial institutions alike. It is also a stark reminder of the importance of prudent financial management and regulation, particularly in the tech industry, which has traditionally been less regulated than other sectors.

The intervention of the Treasury, Federal Reserve, and FDIC is a welcome development for customers of Silicon Valley Bank, as it should help to prevent a wider financial crisis. However, it also highlights the need for better oversight of financial institutions and a more comprehensive regulatory framework for the tech industry.

The collapse of Silicon Valley Bank is also likely to have significant implications for the wider tech industry. Startups may find it harder to secure funding, as investors become more cautious in the wake of the bank’s collapse. This could lead to a slowdown in the pace of innovation and growth in the tech sector, which would have broader implications for the economy as a whole.

Despite the potential fallout from the Silicon Valley Bank collapse, it is also an opportunity for the industry to learn from its mistakes and build a more resilient and sustainable financial ecosystem. This could include better risk management practices, greater diversification, and more robust regulatory frameworks.

Ultimately, the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank is a sobering reminder of the risks and uncertainties inherent in the tech industry. While the fallout from the bank’s collapse is likely to be significant, it also presents an opportunity for the industry to reflect on its practices and build a more stable and sustainable financial ecosystem for the future.

Hayden is a finance and economics student at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2026.

Posted by Zaki Illyas.

In September 2020, Vanessa Bryant sued Los Angeles county officials in a federal civil case following the death of her husband, Kobe Bryant, and daughter, Gianna. Ms. Bryant reached a nearly $29 million settlement in the case. Kobe Bryant and his daughter Gianna were on their way to a basketball tournament in Orange County, California via helicopter ride. Tragically, the pilot “became disoriented in the clouds” and Kobe and Gianna along with 7 others, including the pilot, passed away as they crashed in the hills around Calabasas, California.
The legal issue at hand was the fact that first responders to the crash had taken pictures of the bodies of the victims. Not only were pictures taken, but they were shared with people, which built a really strong case against the county. According to the lawsuit “One sheriff’s deputy, Joey Cruz, showed the photos to patrons at a bar.” Another woman testified that a Fire Department member showed some of the photos at a gala event. Ms. Bryant testified saying “I felt like I wanted to run down the block and just scream,.. But I couldn’t escape. I can’t escape my body.”

Understandably, Ms. Bryant was disheartened by this. The lawyers representing her claimed that “She lives in fear that she or her children will one day confront horrific images of their loved ones online.” Los Angeles County still refuses to admit wrongdoing in the settlement. Lawyers for the county claimed “This is a photograph case but there are no photographs” since no one in the courtroom explicitly viewed the images. However, the jury disagreed with the county for two reasons: 1.) They found that the failure to train the agencies of first responders about the right to privacy is a constitutional violation. 2.) They found that the sheriff departments’ actions of taking and sharing pictures of human remains is a violation of Ms. Bryant’s constitutional rights. While a settlement was still reached, the emotional distress that this issue caused Ms. Bryant is not negated and this was definitely a traumatic event to deal with for the Bryant family.

I grew up a Lakers fan, largely because of Kobe. He was the reason I got into, and came to love the sport of basketball. When I heard about his tragic passing I was distraught; I did not think it was real. So naturally, learning about the actions of these first responders made me sick and it is undoubtedly a breach of the Bryant family’s privacy and mental health. While Ms. Bryant was able to settle for nearly $29 million, it cannot excuse the emotional trauma that the family had to deal with.

Zaki Illyas is a student at Seton Hall University majoring in Finance (Class of 2025).

https://www.wsj.com/articles/vanessa-bryant-reaches-nearly-29-million-settlement-over-kobe-bryant-crash-photos-1ea9af76

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/24/us/vanessa-bryant-verdict-crash-photos.html#:~:text=Ms.,plaintiff%20was%20awarded%20%2415%20million.

Posted by Ethan Choi.

On February 21, 2023, Gonzalez v. Google was heard in the United States Supreme Court, a case that can fundamentally change the internet forever. This case considers Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which acts as a shield that “protects [companies] from being held liable for third party content posted on its service” (Feiner). However, Gonzalez argues that YouTube’s algorithm which recommends content to users falls outside the protection of Section 230. This case is very similar to Twitter v. Taamneh, where the Supreme Court will “consider whether Twitter can be held liable for aiding and abetting under the Anti-Terrorism Act” (Feiner).

The petitioner’s counsel, Eric Schnapper, defined parts of YouTube’s website such as video thumbnails and featured sections of YouTube’s home page as “a joint creation between YouTube and the third party which posted the video” (Feiner). This concerns the plaintiff as his child was killed in a 2015 ISIS terrorist attack in France. After this, ISIS “claimed responsibility” for the attack “by issuing a written statement and posting a YouTube video” (Wu). YouTube could have removed this video from the platform as it was clearly associated with the terrorist group, however Gonzalez holds Google “secondarily liable for Nohemi’s death because Google ‘aided and abetted an act of international terrorism’ through YouTube” by failing to remove the video (Wu). Google also uses recommendation algorithms to push videos to users, and the plaintiff claims that “YouTube’s recommendations actually constitute the company’s own speech” (Feiner). This would remove the protection of Section 230 from companies since the recommendation of third-party content would then be considered identical to announcements made by the company itself.

By determining whether online media platforms are liable for posted user content, Gonzalez v. Google has the potential to cause fundamental change across the internet. If Google is held liable for the damages caused by third-party content on its platform, then all modern media would likely shut down or significantly restrict user activity to protect themselves from future lawsuits based on what users post online. This widespread consequence of such a decision brings hesitancy to Supreme Court Justices on making such a significant decision. Since Section 230 has been applied consistently since its implementation, Justice Kavanaugh “pointed to the amici briefs that warned overhauling [Section 230’s] interpretation would have massive economic consequences for many businesses, as well as their workers, consumers, and investors” (Feiner). Gonzalez v. Google brings concern to how companies should monitor the content posted on their platforms, and could fundamentally change how online media operates in the future.

Ethan is a Quantitative Economics and Econometrics major in the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2026.

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/21/supreme-court-justices-in-google-case-hesitate-to-upend-section-230.html

Additional Sources:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/21-1333

Gonzalez v. Google LLC

Posted by Gregory Deyesu.

This article is a transcription of a podcast by the WSJ giving an update on the lawsuit that Google LLC is facing. This case has made its way to the Supreme Court and Google now has the responsibility of defending Section 230. According to John McKinnon, a Tech Policy Reporter of the WSJ, Section 230 “is regarded as a pillar of the online economy” (McKinnon). Section 230 gives internet platforms immunity for all kinds of lawsuits over the content hosted on their platforms. This includes any harm caused by posts, images, and videos. This court case is important because of the implications it could have to other Internet companies. The main question comes down to whether tech companies still need this kind of protection in this day and age.

Section 230 was passed back in 1996, “the dawn of the internet age” (McKinnon). The original lawsuit was brought against google by the family of a student who was killed in the 2015 Terror attacks in Paris. The lawsuit alleges that Youtube, a subsidiary of Google LLC, promoted videos posted by ISIS. Google LLC has continued to state that they are protected by Section 230 and lower courts have agreed. Yet the issue remains that Google promoted this content, not that ISIS posted it. The ‘recommendation’ algorithm is one of the most valuable pieces of software for so many internet companies. This is one of the reasons why this case is so important and why many others have sided with the plaintiffs or with the defendants.

The Supreme Court has not set a date for when they will be ruling on this issue, but all evidence points towards a decision coming out by the time their term ends. Putting the Supreme Court’s decision aside, I believe that whatever the decision is, it will be setting a precedent for other internet companies, while keeping large amount of censorship on the Internet. The Internet is known for it’s free speech and access to information, but making these companies liable for any and all harm that may be caused from posts on their website, these companies are going to be a lot more stringent on who and what they allow on their platform. Ultimately, I believe that recommendation algorithms need to be corrected so that hate speech is not promoted, while at the same time, gross censorship would be unfair.

Gregory is a student at Seton Hall University.

Article Name: Supreme Court to Hear Internet Shield Law Case

Link: https://www.wsj.com/podcasts/google-news-update/supreme-court-to-hear-internet-shield-law-case/f8711c58-5d22-4829-b897-d73326848878

Posted by Jacob Hummel. 

Tesla CEO, Elon Musk, has made headlines again recently. This time for a legal dispute over a 2018 compensation package that would award Musk potentially upwards of $55 billion in Tesla stock. A Tesla stockholder, Richard J. Tornetta, is taking legal action in Delaware Court to invalidate the package. His lawyers argue that the compensation should be voided because it was “dictated by Musk and a product of sham negotiations with the directors who were not independent of him” (Chase). They also argue that the shareholders approved it based on misleading and incomplete information.

The Defense argued that the deal was fairly negotiated by parties whose members were independent and denied Musk’s involvement. At the time of the negotiation, Musk was not a controlling shareholder, because he owned less than a third of the company, limiting the influence he would’ve had on the executives crafting the package. In addition, they argued that it also passed through a shareholder vote, which wasn’t even necessary under Delaware law. Musk himself, in an earlier November trial, denied that he had any involvement with the board or its compensation committee, and stated that he did not dictate the terms of the compensation package.

Defense attorney Evan Chesler argued the package benefited not just Musk, but all shareholders, who in the time of the package’s existence have seen Tesla’s value climb from around $50 billion to over $600 billion. Finally, the defense also claimed that the shareholders were informed of the potential compensation Musk could receive before they voted on the package. This was supposed to be the cases’ final day in court. However, after the hearing on February 21, the court ordered another round of briefing on various legal issues.

Jacob is a freshman at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, majoring in Finance.

Works Cited:
Musk’s Tesla pay package is now worth more than $30 billion – Yahoo Finance. Yahoo! Finance, Yahoo!, 12 Feb. 2023,
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/musks-tesla-pay-package-under-001827198.html.