Posted by Matthew Gupta.

On Thursday, February 29, Elon Musk opened a lawsuit against OpenAI and CEO Sam Altman, claiming a violation of the founding agreement by prioritizing profit over enhancing mankind. This claim comes about due to OpenAI’s close relationship with Microsoft, which invested $13 billion in the company’s for-profit operations for 49% ownership. According to the lawsuit, “Under its new board, it is not just developing but is actually refining an AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) to maximize profits for Microsoft, rather than for the benefit of humanity.” Elon Musk was a primary financier for OpenAI until 2018 when Musk clashed with the company’s cofounders regarding plans to create a for-profit branch.

This lawsuit shows the growing divide between technology companies investing in AI. On one side is Elon Musk, portrayed in the lawsuit as “a lonely voice in Silicon Valley warning of the technology’s potential dangers.” On the other side, Sam Altman, who was previously fired for failing to clear communication and is currently being investigated by the SEC over his internal communications regarding “whether OpenAI misled investors”. Elon Musk is also facing off against Microsoft in this suit, a company with a large minority stake in OpenAI.

The topic surrounding this lawsuit is the conflict between profit and benefit to humanity in AI. There are many ways in which AI if used and developed solely for the gain of profit in mind, can be detrimental to humanity, as Elon Musk warned the former CEO of Google, Larry Page. However, Altman also argues that AI’s many commercial possibilities should be explored, with these profits being used to further develop AI. Ultimately, the decision of this case could determine whether AI is aimed towards benefiting shareholders or society, and could set the stage for answering the question “How scared should we all be about advances in AI -and how soon?”

https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/elon-musk-sues-openai-sam-altman-for-breach-of-contract-0864979d?page=1

Matthew is a freshman at Seton Hall University studying Finance and Information Technology Management.

Posted by Olivia Glodek.

The US housing market has shown remarkable resilience, with home prices hitting a new all-time high in December. According to the S&P CoreLogic Case-Shiller index, home prices rose by 5.5% nationally compared to the previous year, marking the 11th consecutive month of price increases. The 10-city and 20-city composites also posted significant annual gains, reflecting robust demand for housing across major metropolitan areas.

However, the surge in home prices is accompanied by persistent challenges, particularly an acute shortage of housing inventory. Unable to find homes has contributed to fierce buyer competition and further exacerbated affordability concerns. Despite a recent drop in mortgage rates, the supply of homes for sale remains significantly below pre-pandemic levels, down by 34.3%, according to Realtor.com.

The housing market’s rapid recovery comes amid rising mortgage rates and the Federal Reserve’s aggressive interest rate hike campaign. While buyers have adjusted to higher borrowing costs, sellers who locked in lower mortgage rates before the pandemic are reluctant to sell, further constraining supply. As a result, addressing the housing affordability crisis remains a pressing challenge for policymakers and stakeholders in the real estate industry.

The continued surge in US home prices underscores the housing market’s resilience despite headwinds from rising interest rates and supply constraints. However, the widening gap between supply and demand poses significant challenges for prospective homebuyers, particularly first-time buyers and low- to moderate-income households. Addressing housing affordability requires a multifaceted approach, including increasing housing supply, expanding access to affordable financing options, and implementing policies to promote equitable homeownership opportunities.

As we navigate the complexities of the housing market, policymakers, industry stakeholders, and communities must collaborate on solutions that balance the need for housing affordability with the broader goals of economic growth and stability. By working together to address supply shortages, promote responsible lending practices, and support initiatives that expand access to homeownership, we can create a more inclusive and sustainable housing market for all Americans.

“While we are not experiencing the double-digit gains seen in the previous two years, above-trend growth should be well received considering the rising costs of financing home mortgages,” said Brian Luke, head of commodities, real and digital assets at S&P DJI.

Olivia is a student at Seton Hall University.

Article Link:https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/home-prices-new-all-time-high-december

Posted by Michelle Escobar.

Fortnite is a game that is extremely popularized all over the world. Fortnite has been around for seven years and in those years, it has become one of the most enjoyable game for people on different span of ages. Though the game targets adults, it is specifically advertised for younger children. The beginning of the article mentions, “… it is of great possibility the in-game currency without their parents knowing”. Personally, I am a babysitter of three younger boys and the mother has come to the point where she’s had to hide the controllers and forbid the game of Fortnite to be played on their console. It goes without saying that the game can create deceptive tactics and develop addictive behaviors.

Epic Games, otherwise, the company who owns Fortnite evidently “used dark patterns and other deceptive practices to trick players into making unwanted purchases”. This is reason for why children have been given easier access to rack up charges without parental consent – the kids I babysit were doing this too frequently (weather it was for the same reason or not, it happens too often with this game). The use of dark patterns lures people to these “coercive design tactics” and manipulate digital behaviors. People eligible for this FTC settlement (Fortnite is being sued for their deceptive marketing strategies) are people who fall under this category and were charged for items they didn’t want between the years of 2017 to 2022; parents whose children made purchases without consent including uses who were locked after complaining to their credit card company on wrongful charges.

I, personally, must agree that Fortnite is at fault. Kids can be so easily lured to deceptive tactics all over widespread media. Needless to say, parents must pay closer attention to what their children are doing on games like Fortnite where purchasing skins or accessories is easily accessible. I believe the United States has something that protects children from deceptive marketing, the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, otherwise known as COPPA. COPPA requires websites and online services to receive parental consent before collecting any personal information from children (specifically kids who fall under the age of 13). I know that the FTC acts against companies like Fortnite that indulge in deceptive marketing that target children and encourage purchases without parental consent. This being an FTC settlement deems necessary as Fortnite violated the Federal Trade Commission act that is set in place to protect children. I believe that this is a step in the right direction, and I hope that they benefit from their missteps.

Michelle is a social work major at Seton Hall University, Class of 2026.

Works Cited:
https://blogbusinesslaw.com/fortnite-players-can-now-apply-for-a-portion-of-its-245-million-ftc-settlement

https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/19/tech/fortnite-refund-settlement-claim/index.html

Posted by Zach Vinson.

This article in summary talks about a moving company in California called “Meathead Movers” which is facing a lawsuit from the Equal employment opportunity commission on charges of age discrimination in labor markets.  This company faced these complications as they were boasting about how their employees are all very young and able-bodied student athletes. Meatheads moving pride themselves on having a work staff made up of very hard workers who move heavy objects to a truck and to run back and grab more.  Not only do they value high production and capabilities but on their social media they only portray young, attractive, and very fit men.  The EEOC highlighted this marketing technique as ageist and deterring the 

These standards sparked controversy as critics claimed they were displaying prejudice to the older working population as they were making assumptions based off physical appearance rather than talent during the hiring process.  In response to these allegations, Meathead movers stated that they do not discriminate on age, and they are in fact “100% open to hiring anyone at any age if they can do the job”.  The problem that arises, and why the demographic of their staff is on average younger, is because a majority of the work they do aligns with the interests of men around the college age.  On the other hand, adults typically do not want to be constantly running around and exerting energy and therefore less older adults tend to even apply.

In summary, topics such as age discrimination may be a very grey area, as there is no clear definition and answers may result based on certain intricacies of each scenario.  In all, my name is Zach Vinson, I am currently in my junior year at Seton Hall University in the Stillman School of Business, and I am studying business management.  With my accumulated knowledge thus far, my educated opinion is that I believe that how Meathead Moving is currently operating is ethically justified. With labor intensive jobs such as a moving company it consists of very physically demanding work and being young is beneficial as you are constantly moving stuff which may suggest that a more agile body increases production.  While this company does tend to hire mainly younger employees, as previously stated, they are not specific to only these individuals. Just because what the job entails may just so happen to cater towards the younger crowd, this does not mean they are completely against hiring older workers as well.

Zach is a management student at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2025.

https://nypost.com/2023/12/09/news/meathead-movers-sued-by-feds-for-age-discrimination/

Posted by Justin Tello.

Fortnite is a game known across the globe for its massive rise in popularity in the gaming world. Many individuals at different age groups have played the game for its enjoyability. Like most games, you can purchase in-game currency to buy cosmetic items to customize your character. Because the game is mainly marketed towards younger age groups, it is of great possibility that kids would purchase the in-game currency without their parents knowing. This is exactly what occurred and landed the creators of Fortnite to pay $275 million to resolve this problem. 

A more detailed description of what Epic Games actually violated reads as follows, “The FTC said in a statement Tuesday that the FortniteLinks to an external site. maker “used dark patterns and other deceptive practices to trick players into making unwanted purchases” and also “made it easy for children to rack up charges without parental consent.”. The use of dark patterns specifically refers to the gently coercive design tactics used by countless websites and apps that critics say are used to manipulate peoples’ digital behaviors. Because of this customers who were affected can claim their settlement fund if eligible. The following people who are eligible reads as follows,  “Users who were charged in-game currency for items they didn’t want between January 2017 and September 2022, parents whose children made charges to their credit cards on Fortnite between January 2017 and November 2018 or users whose accounts were locked sometime between January 2017 and September 2022 after they complained to their credit card company about wrongful charges. Claimants must be 18 years old; for younger users, their parents can submit a claim on their behalf.” Customers have until January 17, 2024 to claim their settlement funds.

In my opinion, I believe Epic Games to be guilty solely for the fact they should be aware that a majority of their users are in a younger age group. Another factor I believe that plays into this is the fact that Epic Games pumps out purchasable content on a daily basis for their users to purchase. Nonetheless I believe parents of those kids who committed this act should be more attentive to what their children do within the games they play.

Justin is a finance major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/19/tech/fortnite-refund-settlement-claim/index.htmlLinks to an external site. 

Posted by Madison Womack.

This article discusses the monopoly that Google holds against other search engines. The U.S. Justice Department is accusing Google of engaging in unlawful practices which has summoned an ongoing antitrust trial with Google. Specifically, Google has been using their financial advantages to establish a position as the default search engine on mobile devices, which hurts competition and accuses Google of anticompetitive practices In response to this, Google is arguing that they offer a superior product and spend their money in the right places, which is to their scientists and investments in research and innovation.

The big question in this article discusses user preferences. The U.S. Justice Department suggests that Google pays billions to phone markers and carriers to guarantee their status as the default search engine. However, Google states that the choice for most users on Windows computers is Google, even with Bing being the only search engine installed when purchased. Professor Olsen, a professor who teaches at Boston College Law School, states in this article, “defaults don’t really matter, people are picking the superior product.” Google’s monopoly of the search engine is leaving the tech industry frustrated, and the outcome of this trial will show how tech giants are held accountable when using unfair practices.

When examining this trial, it is apparent that Google’s actions can be seen from two different perspectives: one that questions their ethics and another that acknowledges their strategic resource investments. Right now, Google is viewed as the “bad guy” in the tech world. Competitors view Google as an industry titan that outspends other companies to secure their position as the #1 search engine. Google has become a huge company that has beaten out competitors of healthy market competition and turned into monopolistic control. When viewing the trial from a competitors perspective, I can see how it seems like Google cannot be defeated. However, Google has been in the same boat as all other search engines. Google’s search engine is appealing to all types of consumers, which makes them the top for a reason. They invest smart, and consistently deliver products and services that earned them where they are today. In my opinion, I can see both points of this trial. Google is being accused of their unfair advantages when it comes to their practices, however, Google used their resources to invest in innovation and research which is how they are able to present a superior product to customers.

Madison is a finance, accounting, law student at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2025.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2023-10-09/google-googl-antitrust-case-is-about-search-engine-monopoly-and-ai Links to an external site.

Posted by Sean Ruple.

Wages for U.S. auto workers have declined by roughly 17%, since 2010. In response, the United Auto Workers association is fighting for higher wages, changes in pensions, and an increase in job security. The UAW is claiming that “corporate greed is keeping workers from earning fair wages” as CEOs from the 3 major companies (Ford, Stellantis, and General Motors) have taken home $1 billion collectively, since 2010. Just last year, CEOs; Mary Barra (GM), Jim Farley (Ford), and Carlos Tavares (Stellantis) took home massive yearly salaries reaching up to $34.1 million dollars. Wages for the auto industry have been depleted, as the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that since 2003, the average hourly rate for auto workers has declined by about 30%. A few factors impacting a scale back in wages has been the rise of non-unionized car production in the US, as well as the UAW agreeing to lower wages for new hires at the Detroit Three plants in 2007.

Workers are getting tired of drops in salary, while CEOs remain unscathed from pains in the industry. Additionally, General Motors and Ford have tried to undo concessions agreed to during the Great Recession. One of the benefits, being pensions, as any workers hired after 2008 will not receive one. Pensions can be costly for a company, as a study found that companies save 13.5% on long-term employee payroll costs when defined pension benefits are frozen. Additionally, the article claims that “Since 2005, GM has cut its retirement obligations by almost 70%, according to Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Steve Man, Ford has trimmed its pension liabilities by almost half in that same time frame” (Greenwald 1). This proves that company’s and CEO’s may be more inclined to cut company costs and liabilities, instead of support workers in a laborious field for the long term. This will certainly impact employee retention rates, as workers feel expendable and will be less likely to work for a company long term. Meanwhile, during union negotiations, wages have been the focal point, as the UAW has asked for a 40% jump in raises, with a minimum of 30%. In response, Ford has claimed that a 23% raise is as high as it can go, with GM and Stellantis reluctant to offer anything above 20%. This topic has a lot to do with ethicality, as the auto industry is failing to raise employee wages and provide concessions for workers, while still using massive funds to pay CEO’s, high-level management positions, and for vacant battery plants. This can relate to workers’ rights in the court of law, as employees have been given little compensation for a loss of pensions and prolonged decreases in salary.

To make matters worse, 65 plants have been closed or spun off by GM, Ford, and Stellantis in the past 20 years. Additionally, the auto industry is transitioning to EVs, as the union wants more job security in the future. This makes the job market for auto workers even more scarce, possibly giving companies even more leverage to put off wages and employee concessions. On the other hand, vehicle manufacturing workers still make more than the average private sector worker, and UAW members are also paid higher than non-unionized workers in the sector. CEO Barra has claimed that company labor costs are already 22% higher than Tesla’s, and fulfilling the asks of the UAW would only give them more of a competitive disadvantage. This leads us to wonder if only a few companies are sacrificing employee wages to limit liabilities, or if the entire industry is a problem?

Sean is a student at Seton Hall University.

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-practice/detroit-carmakers-paid-1-billion-to-ceos-as-auto-wages-slumped?context=search&index=37

Posted by Matthew Susi.

I chose the following current events article from Fox Business: United Airlines to seat window passengers first to cut down on boarding time. The reason I chose this article is because I am a frequent United passenger and always hate the boarding process. United Airlines is working on implementing a new boarding process that allows those who are part of the economy club, with window seats to board before those with middle and aisle seats.

The idea of this is to save a whopping 2 minutes total of boarding time, per flight. “The seating plan, called WILMA, which stands for window-middle-aisle, will save up to two minutes on the boarding process for each flight, the memo said. The change will affect all domestic and some international flights.” The best part is, they are implementing this policy today, October 26th. United Airlines had previously used this window-first boarding process before 2017, but it had to condense passengers with middle and aisle seats into Group 4 when introducing its carry-on restricted Basic Economy product.

First-class, business-class, and pre-boarding passengers, including those with disabilities, unaccompanied minors, active-duty military, and families with children under 2 years old, will not be affected by this change. United Airlines is introducing this change as a response to the boarding process now taking an extra two minutes compared to the pre-pandemic period. They have conducted tests at different locations to ensure that the new method effectively decreases boarding time. Even though it is only saving 2 minutes, that makes you get to your vacation spot 2 minutes faster which passengers will love!

Matthew is a finance major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2025.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/united-airlines-seat-window-passengers-first-cut-down-boarding-timeLinks to an external site.

Posted by Claire O’Neil.

“Why Maine’s ‘yellow flag’ gun law so clearly isn’t enough” written by Christian Heyne, Chief Policy & Programs Officer, highlights why gun laws just simply aren’t enough to protect us against mass shootings. Recently, in Lewiston, Maine, another mass shooting has occurred resulting in the loss of eighteen lives. Other countries do not seem to experience mass shootings like the United States does. However, under our constitution “the right to bear arms” still holds strong. The media seems to want to highlight that the shooter had a mental illness and that was the cause of the shooting. However, the article suggests that by scapegoating mental illness it is “irresponsibly promoting the myth that links mental illness with dangerous perpetuates stigmas that create even more barriers to mental health care.”

According to the article, “extreme risk laws are a proven and effective way to prevent gun suicides and mass shootings.” A “yellow flag law” was implemented in Maine with the intention of preventing gun violence by stopping those with a history of mental illness from obtaining firearms. However, this law lacks the public health perspective necessary to have an impact because it only permits law enforcement to file a petition. This does not include family and friends. The yellow flag law in Maine really functions in direct opposition to extreme risk laws. The article states that extreme risk laws “work by empowering law enforcement, families or other professionals to ask a court to temporarily prohibit an individual’s access to firearms if that person shows they are at risk of harming themselves or others.”

These rules, which prevent not only mass shootings but also gun suicides, which account for three out of every five gun deaths in the United States each year, are now only present in 21 states plus the District of Columbia. “The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, signed into law last year by President Joe Biden, will invest $750 million over five years to educate the public so that extreme risk laws can be used as effectively and efficiently as possible.” In my opinion, this article highlights our constitutional law of “the right to bear arms” while also explaining the relevance of state gun laws. The United States seems to endure mass shootings far too frequently, and our laws are at fault for not protecting our people better. In my opinion, there needs to be a way to ensure that guns do not get into the hands of people who cannot use them in the appropriate ways. We also need to put the appropriate people in positions to make these decisions and laws that will actually make a difference instead of continuing with the seemingly never-ending cycle of gun violence in America.

Claire is a communications major at Seton Hall University, Class of 2025.

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/lewiston-maine-shooting-yellow-flag-laws-rcna122376Links to an external site.

Posted by Matias Molina.

Novo Nordisk, a pharmaceutical corporation, is suing Wells Pharmacy and Brooksville Pharmaceuticals, two pharmacies. These pharmacies, according to Novo Nordisk, are selling “adulterated and misbranded injectable compounded drugs” that purport to include semaglutide. The active component of well-known weight-loss medications such as Wegovy and Ozempic is semaglutide. Novo Nordisk is concerned that patients may be at danger from these compounded medications, and they have noted reports of side effects that some patients have experienced.

According to Novo Nordisk employee Jason Brett, their testing of these compounded medications revealed some concerning results. In one sample, there was 33% of something that shouldn’t have been there, which could put patients at risk. Dr. Christopher McGowan discusses a poorly regulated segment of the medical industry in which pharmaceutical compounds are manufactured in a manner distinct from that of FDA-approved versions. He claims that people may be at risk from this. By suing these pharmacies, Novo Nordisk is attempting to prevent them from selling these compounded medications. Additionally, they want to prevent Wells Pharmacy from misrepresenting the FDA approval status of their medication, among other things. In contrast to Novo Nordisk, Brooksville Pharmaceuticals claims their product is both safe and efficient. They contend that, like themselves, state-licensed compounding pharmacies are vital to the supply of essential pharmaceuticals to Americans.

This case, in my opinion, shows how challenging it is to ensure that compounded medications are both safe and effective. People may select these options without realizing they could be dangerous, particularly in cases when there is a significant demand for medications that aid in weight loss. The legal action taken by Novo Nordisk emphasizes the necessity of stringent regulations to protect the public’s health and ensure the reliability of medicines that have been licensed.

Matias is a sports management major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2026.

Link: https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/novo-nordisk-takes-legal-action-against-pharmacies-sellig-weight-loss-drugs-that-are-not-fda-approved