Posted by Kevin Lizano.

The Fox News piece chronicles the details of a court deposition presented by the plaintiff’s attorney, a ‘Q and A’ where evidence of Epstein’s criminal culpability might be put on the table for all to see. During the deposition, the well-connected Epstein, a banker with many powerful acquaintances, is met with questions about his associates and his behavior. Yet instead of responsive and thoughtful answers, Epstein is said to have frequently pleaded the Fifth as the phrase goes, he has kept his mouth shut. In keeping with strategic phenomenology, Epstein was also repeatedly not answering questions, obstructing efforts at ‘knowing’ the facts. The plaintiff’s attorney asked questions about Epstein’s relationship with the former US president Bill Clinton, for example, with the explicit hope of getting the banker to talk more openly about the matter. Epstein’s ‘not answering’ drew attention to this challenge and offered ways to recast the image of Epstein Speaking of justice, a fund that is meant to support the victims of sexual abuse obtained money from Epstein because he pleaded guilty to a charge of soliciting prostitution with a minor.

This means that, in precisely the instance in which there might exist an alternative image of Epstein, legally instituted self-protection emerges to its fullest extent to impose itself on the prevailing image of Epstein. Adding to the challenge of disentangling Epstein’s network of associates, this phenomenally infused legal self-protection points to the real difficulty involved in the effort to do justice, and to the inability to do justice, when cases include powerful and wealthy people. Lawyers chase­d justice for Jeffrey Epste­in’s accusers. He avoided de­tails, using his legal rights. Their questions faced barriers and evasions. The de­position showed Epstein’s wide impact and proble­ms holding powerful people re­sponsible. He hid behind laws and se­crecy. This exemplifie­d challenges to privilege­ and authority structures. Epstein made difficult the­ pursuit against elite misconduct.

The story also shows the long shadow that Epstein’s legal fight has cast, and how the search for accountability has lived on past his death. Deposition, a small part of a bigger picture, might seem like a bite-sized narrative of a man crumbling, but it serves as a reminder of the challenges that come with taking on powerful people, especially as Epstein’s story continues to unfurl through the court system and in the court of public opinion. It captures all of the struggle and complications involved in seeking the truth in situations that are shrouded in secrecy, dishonesty and the abuse of power, and all of the struggle involved in seeking justice for Epstein’s victims and making anyone connected to his alleged crimes account for their actions. The latest release contains a deposition of Tony Figueroa, a driver for Epstein and Maxwell and former boyfriend of the one-time massage therapist Virginia Giuffre, who is one of Epstein’s best-known accusers. Giuffre says that she was trafficked and coerced into having sex with Epstein and other wealthy and powerful people by Maxwell and Ghislaine’s ex-husband. During Figueroa’s deposition, he says that Epstein would often ask him to drive girls to the mansion, stating “They looked like … um … 16-, 17-, 18-year-old girls.’ He continued: ‘Each time he pays me $200 for each time right when we drop them off.’

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/epstein-allegedly-invoked-5th-amendment-times-deposition-skirted-questions-clinton

Kevin is a business information technology management major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2026.

Posted by Matthew Albino.

For my Legal Foundations of Business extra credit assignment, I chose an article entitled “Thomson Reuters launches new AI tools for legal professionals” by Eric Revell of Fox Business. This article was published on March 2nd, 2024. This article is about Thomson Reuters, a media and information firm based in Toronto, Canada. It details their release of a new artificial intelligence that helps legal professionals in a variety of ways. Most notably, David Wong, the company’s chief product officer, claims their new product will help legal professionals draft contracts and research complicated legal topics more efficiently. Some of the company’s new AI products include their Ask Practical Law tool and CoCounsel tool, with the company looking to spread their products to global markets.

This article highlights the company’s Practical Law tool, which uses generative artificial intelligence to provide law professionals with answers about legal questions in a timely manner. Wong compares his company’s Practical Law tool to SparkNotes and Wikipedia, stating, “I like to think of it as like a SparkNotes or Wikipedia of the law, but really helping you to do your work as a contrast to Westlaw, which is a deep research system for the details of the law.” This tool is used by a variety of legal professionals across the country, including independent lawyers, lawyers in law firms, and corporate lawyers. Another exciting feature Thomson Reuters has is called Ask Practical Law AI, where law professionals can access summarized content from a database created by 650 lawyers. In addition, the company’s AI-powered CoCounsel tool is also interesting, and this tool uses generative AI to help legal professionals prepare dispositions, draft correspondence, search databases, and summarize documents.

Thomson Reuters is making strides to expand its AI tools globally, too. For example, their CoCounsel tool which just launched in the United States in 2023 is now formally available in Canada and Australia. The company is currently working on it becoming available in Europe and the U.K. as well. While its tools are undoubtedly useful, Thomson Reuters makes sure to let its users know about the limitations of its tools. For example, its CoCounsel tool includes footnotes after the tool “hasn’t been able to successfully retrieve the sought after result.” According to Wong, this helps prevent “AI hallucinations” and fosters customer trust.

Matthew is a mathematical finance major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2027.

Article Link

Posted by Nathaniel Vojt.

Apple is facing a lawsuit over their monopoly over cloud storage for Apple devices. Certain files are restricted to only being stored via Apple’s iCloud platform. Only iCloud can host some data from Apple’s devices including application data and device settings that users need to access when they replace their device. Cloud storage allows users to store and access data remotely.

As a result, iCloud controls the market with an estimated 70% share. iCloud is among Apple’s most      profitable products/services, producing higher margins than its other products because it has been “undisciplined by competition.” Apple has marked up its prices so high that iCloud is generating almost pure profit. This is a testament to Apple’s monopoly power.

According to the complaint this practice has “unlawfully tied” Apple’s mobile devices and iCloud together, the complaint says. Apple does have cloud platform competitors, the complaint said, pointing to technology companies such as Alphabet Inc.’s Google and Microsoft Corp, as well as specialists like Dropbox Inc. However, juggling multiple cloud accounts with different interfaces to store non-restricted data, such as photos, is an “unattractive option” for users, the suit said.

Nathaniel is a student at Seton Hall University, Class of 2026.

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/apple-faces-antitrust-class-action-alleging-icloud-monopolyLinks to an external site.

The case is Gamboa v. Apple Inc., N.D. Cal., No. 5:24-cv-01270, 3/1/24. Link to lawsuit on Bloomberg website: https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/FelixGamboavAppleIncDocketNo524cv01270NDCalMar012024CourtDocket?doc_id=X4LCILN1RHR81IRG50GNOAUM9P2Links to an external site.

Posted by Ansh Vakharia.

My name is Ansh Vakharia I am a freshman at Seton Hall University, and I am majoring in finance. When I was a kid, the news line about Edward Snowden really intrigued me, which is why I decided to read an article about data breaching. In the article “IRS Leaker Sought Job With Aim of Releasing Trump Tax Returns, DOJ Says” by Richard Rubin, it discusses the consequences of Charles Littlejohn, an IRS worker who leaked Donald Trump’s tax returns. Before his deliberate plan, Charles Littlejohn worked for Booz Allen Hamilton, with a primary focus on the consulting firm’s contracts with the Internal Revenue Service. In late 2018, Littlejohn had an articulate plan to leak Trump’s tax returns from an IRS database. Rather than going through the individual records, Littlejohn decided to employ search limits that would include Trump’s tax information without taking a big risk. Although Littlejohn came prepared, he faced issues due to the IRS being able to track large downloads of data. However, he created a loophole in the system by downloading the information from his private website. Henceforth, Trump’s private tax returns were leaked. Littlejohn’s sophisticated ability to maneuver through IRS deception shows his proficiency in completing data breaches.

Littlejohn’s articulate plans would come crashing down as federal prosecutors accused Littlejohn of unauthorized disclosure of tax information. In the 15-page court filing, prosecutors stated, “A free press and public engagement with the media are critical to any healthy democracy, but stealing and leaking private, personal tax information strips individuals of the legal protection of their most sensitive data.” Littlejohn pleaded guilty to the charges, and prosecutors are demanding Littlejohn face up to 5 years in prison. The case shows the importance of maintaining privacy for confidential information and how leaking information puts lives in jeopardy. In addition, it shows how complex data breaching cases are complicated due to prosecutors speculating that other malicious people were involved in the breach. “In a court filing Friday, Justice Department lawyers said Griffin “refuses to accept that Littlejohn acted alone.” Not only does this case show the consequences of Charles Littlejohn, but it also highlights the importance of fortifying security defenses.

This case is very similar to Edward Snowden’s leaking NDA files; however, I do believe Littlejohn’s case is quite worse due to Snowden’s case involving the general public. I don’t have an opinion on Snowden since I don’t know his true intentions. However, I believe Little John deserves to be prosecuted due to his violation of the 4th Amendment. The deliberate plan to leak someone’s private tax returns raises ethical and security concerns not only for Trump but also for US citizens. The case highlights a connection with the media and the general public: reporting on such events can cause public trust in the government to decline and public enlightenment on how important cybersecurity jobs are. In the future, I do believe they will be the most pivotal jobs to ensure citizen privacy and security. In conclusion, the verdict of Charles Littlejohn seems ethical based on his deliberate attempt to evade IRS security loopholes and his pleading, which was guilty.

Ansh is a finance major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2027.

Link https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/irs-leaker-sought-job-with-aim-of-releasing-trump-tax-returns-doj-says-93944811

Posted by Ethan Storck.

Nearly every single day we see news articles and stories focusing on “Artificial Intelligence” (or “AI”), and how AI is the future of so many different industries. This includes everything from medicine, law, banking, cybersecurity and so much more.  However, with the growth of AI comes new and expanding issues for us to deal with as we include that new technology in our daily lives. One of those issues is the use and regulation of “data-scraping.” “Data-scraping” or what is also known as “web-scraping” is where companies such as Open AI, Google, data aggregators, and others use algorithms to pull large amounts of data from the web (which can often be millions of webpages) for purposes of machine learning in developing AI tools. The data that is scraped then becomes part of those AI tools, whether to write songs, sell products, help with research, or in endless other ways. Gary DrenikLinks to an external site. discusses this in his December 18, 2023 article in Forbes, “Data Privacy And Ownership To Remain Key Concerns In Web Scraping Industry Next Year,” where he discusses data-scraping through an interview with Denas Grybauskas, Head of Legal at OxylabsLinks to an external site., a leading web intelligence collection platform.

Data-scraping presents several different kinds of legal issues, including intellectual property ownership, privacy, and other concerns, which are now the subject of several lawsuits – and these cases may just be the beginning in a battle over this new frontier. As discussed in the Drenik’s article, these current disputes generally come down to two issues.  The first focuses on the intellectual property rights and “fair use” of data in the public domain. Since data-scraping algorithms often pull information that is available on the internet, which any of us can access through a Google or Bing search, the issue becomes whether that scraping creates any ownership issues. The information pulled would have been created by possibly millions of individual contributors and, as discussed in Drenik’s article, those creators did not necessarily create it with the intent of allowing scrapers and others to now profit from that information. A key issue comes down to whether scrapers and the companies who use from that information should be able to profit from it and if the content creators are entitled to any of that profit.

The second major issue focuses on privacy concerns relating to the scraping of personal information. For example, individual contributors are also putting their pictures, voice, opinions, information about their families, and other personal information online. Should aggregators get permission to use that information? How would that even work? Then there is the question of whether contributors who put their personal information on public websites should have any protection in the first place.  After all, if someone puts their information on the web where anyone can access it, isn’t that their choice and didn’t they give up any protection? Should they not have assumed that anyone could use, retweet, or copy that information whenever they want? Where is the line? Where is the ethical line? What if someone puts the information of another person, who didn’t agree to their information being public, online and it gets scraped and used?

These are the types of issues that companies who use AI will need to deal with.  Recent lawsuits with Open AI and Google are focused on some of these issues, but they may be only the beginning.  The bigger issue is where should the line be. How much should the government regulate businesses who scrape the data?  What about the companies that use the data, will they all be subject to lawsuits if they get it wrong?  What about where someone did not consent to their information being made public? Or where companies seek information that was intended to be private? 

When looking at the implications of data-scraping, it’s clear we’re navigating a complex terrain where innovation and personal rights intersect. While I agree that there are concerns where individual content creators did not create that content with the intent of someone else profiting from it, as covered in Drenik’s article, and that there should be some limitations on how scraped information can be used, the contributors did make that information public and there are consequences to that. Once information is in the public domain, trying to figure out ownership and what someone intended may not be realistic.  However, that should not include information behind password-protected websites and other areas where there are efforts to ensure such information is private, or at least not available to everyone. I also agree that we should explore at the idea of disclaimers on websites, such as those notifying contributors that information on their website is “public” and therefore can be used by third parties, including any personal information they post. Websites can also decide whether they want to limit public access of content absent invited users, so that it is not public. But for anything that remains in the public domain, it is a much harder issue. We will need to find the right balance between what is “public,” what is not, and if anything is used that is not intended to be public, how to decide on damages and penalties, especially for very sensitive information.

Ultimately, this year and in the years to come, we will see more and more discussion about the scope of data-scraping and what the rules should be, including possible responses from agencies and decisions in AI lawsuits that could impact many different industries. We will need to find a balanced approach that will not only foster innovation but also ensure that content creators are acknowledged and protected where appropriate in this fast-evolving digital landscape.

Ethan Storck is a psychology major and business/marketing minor at Seton Hall University, Class of 2026.

Article: https://www.forbes.com/sites/garydrenik/2023/12/18/data-privacy-and-ownership-to-remain-key-concerns-in-web-scraping-industry-next-year/?sh=61418d4b2c05Links to an external site.

Posted by Julia Salomon.

This article highlights the details regarding the New York business lawsuit against former U.S President, Donald Trump. This all started when Letitia James, a New York Attorney General accused Donald Trump, his two sons, The Trump Organization, and its top employees for fraudulently inflating Trump’s assets in order to boost his net worth in addition to gaining financial benefits (Breuninger). Trump and his teams’ unethical actions have now resulted in extreme consequences that could have certainly been avoided if behaviors remained ethical. In response to the allegations, Trump’s lawyers accused the prosecutor of making these claims due to a political bias. The article further states, “Trump has frequently raged against his many legal battles as “witch hunts,” claiming they are part of a Biden administration-backed conspiracy to tank his political ambitions” (Breuninger). This claim was not enough to prove innocence as Manhattan Supreme Court Judge, Arthur Engoron found Trump’s financial statements overvaluing his assets totaling between $812 million and $2.2 billion.

As a result, Engoron fined Trump $354,868,768 in disgorgement. He also ordered Trump to pay a total of $98.6 million in prejudgment interest at an annual rate of 9%. Trump was banned from running any kind of business in New York for three years. Additionally, Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr. were charged with paying over $4 million each and banned from leading any New York corporations or legal entities for two years. In addition, Engoron permanently banned Co-defendants and specific members of the Trump Organization from controlling the finances of any New York business (Breuninger). In total, Trump was ordered to pay about $454 million in penalties. As Trump’s company is known for having a large clientele and producing business in New York, Trump made it clear that the decision for banning his business would be a long-term mistake and made a warning that these choices would negatively impact and drive business out of New York. In the article, it was mentioned that Trump’s attorney made many statements about how there was no true crime committed. In the article it states, “…refusal to admit error” led the judge to conclude “that they will engage in it going forward unless judicially restrained” (Breuninger). It is easy to infer that not taking ownership and responsibility may have led the judge to make as many orders as he did.

Through reading this article, Letitia James made a point that stuck to me. She states, “There simply cannot be different rules for different people.” In my opinion, this quote is powerful because it highlights the importance of holding others accountable no matter if they are in the public eye or who they may be. She further states, “Everyday Americans cannot lie to a bank to get a mortgage to buy a home, and if they did, our government would throw the book at them.” I never considered that those in the public spotlight may sometimes catch a break when it comes to breaking laws and the consequences that follow. With that, I believe that for this specific case, it may have been hard to find people who were not politically motivated either in favor or against Trump throughout this entire case.

Although on a noticeably big and public sale, this article highlights the many issues and unethical practices that occur within businesses around the world. It makes me wonder how many fraudulent activities committed go unnoticed and not caught. Although this will not be the first or last time an individual in the public eye gets caught for acting unethically and breaking laws within business, hopefully this case will make others think deeply about their unjust actions prior to proceeding with them. Is it ever worth the risk of getting caught?

Julia is a dual marketing and management major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2026.

Link – https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/16/trump-fraud-trial-judge-engoron-verdict-ny-ag-business-case.html?&qsearchterm=business%20lawLinks to an external site.

Posted by Gavin Reed.

In recent news, it was reported that twitter had failed to pay millions of dollars in bonuses to their employees. The senior director of Twitter, Mark Schobinger was of the first to report this after Twitters breach of their contract with him in June. The suit was caused by the failure of twitter to pay employees 50% of their previous target bonuses. The rebuttal from the newly renamed “x” stated that they only made an oral promise and that they could not be held accountable for fulfilling their end of the deal. Despite these efforts, the eventual ruling of the case was that “California law governed the case and that Twitter’s contrary arguments all fail.” 

This is an example of the importance of knowing the details and laws that you are protected under your contract. Schobinger was able to force twitter/x to give him his bonus all because he is protected under the business laws practiced in California. In the article it states that if the case was handled in Texas the outcome likely would’ve favored twitter, however they were handled in California. In the business field it is important to understand how different laws can vary from state to state. Often large companies and corporations have multiple locations throughout the entire country, and sometimes the world, so it is important to know what laws you must abide by when conducting business in different places.  

In conclusion, laws regarding business are the only thing that prevent large, wealthy companies from getting away with whatever they want. These companies are extremely powerful and the only way to balance out power is for the government to be able to monitor different aspects of what the companies are allowed to do. In this case, Schobinger would never have gotten his money back without the help of the Government. Rooting back to the previous point that knowing your rights and the laws you are protected under is extremely important.  

Gavin is a businesss administraion major at the Stillman School of Business, Class of 2027.

Works Cited 

NBCUniversal News Group. (2023, December 23). Twitter violated contract by failing to pay millions in bonuses, judge rules. NBCNews.com. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/twitter-violated-contract-pay-millions-bonuses-us-judge-rules-rcna131034Links to an external site. 

Posted by Brianna Favatella.

Stanford University dropout Elizabeth Holmes rose to fame as a celebrity entrepreneur, only to witness the downfall of her company when its technology was exposed as fraudulent. Once hailed for her innovative blood-testing startup Theranos Inc., which reached a valuation of $9 billion, Holmes now faces the consequences of her actions. Sentenced to over 11 years in prison by U.S. District Judge Edward Davila in San Jose, California, Holmes received a punishment much closer to the 15-year term sought by prosecutors than the home detention or 18 months in prison requested by her defense. Despite acknowledging her mistakes and expressing remorse for her shortcomings, Holmes failed to admit to any criminal wrongdoing, lamenting, “I am devastated by my failings. Looking back, there are so many things I’d do differently if I had the chance. I tried to realize my dream too quickly” (Rosenblatt). Nonetheless, Judge Davila characterized her actions as a scheme built on “misrepresentations, hubris, and plain lies” (Rosenblatt).

After a lengthy trial that captured national attention, Holmes was convicted on four counts of wire fraud and conspiracy for knowingly misleading venture capitalists and investors about Theranos’s blood-testing devices. While the government sought $800 million to compensate defrauded investors, Davila calculated that the financial damage from Holmes’s deceit amounted to $121 million. According to her lawyers, Holmes is practically insolvent, as her financial obligations far exceed her resources, with $450,000 owed in loans for a civil settlement and over $30 million in liabilities for legal fees.

During her sentencing, Holmes’s lawyers successfully argued against considering charges she was acquitted of, including patient fraud. Prosecutors pushed for a longer sentence, citing her reckless disregard for the risks Theranos posed to patients and the need to deter similar behavior in the startup sector, where the “fake it til you make it” mentality is particularly prevalent (Rosenblatt). Yet, Holmes’s lawyers sought leniency, portraying her as a hardworking CEO rather than the cheat depicted by the media.

From my perspective, Holmes’s sentencing to over 11 years in prison appears warranted and necessary in light of the egregious nature of her actions and the far-reaching consequences they inflicted. By deliberately misleading investors, patients, and the general public regarding the capabilities of Theranos’s technology, she perpetrated massive financial fraud while endangering the lives and well-being of countless individuals who relied on accurate medical testing. Holmes not only exaggerated the capabilities of her blood-testing technology but actively suppressed concerns raised by employees and experts regarding its accuracy and reliability. However, instead of addressing these valid concerns, she chose to perpetuate the facade of success, forging partnerships with reputable companies and institutions to lend credibility to her unscrupulous claims. As a result of Holmes’s deceitful behavior, patients who received inaccurate test results based on Theranos’s faulty technology may have undergone unnecessary treatments or failed to receive vital medical interventions. This breach of trust not only jeopardized individual health outcomes but also eroded public confidence in the healthcare industry as a whole.

Brianna is a marketing major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2027.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-18/holmes-sentence-over-theranos-may-set-silicon-valley-exampleLinks to an external site.

Posted by Khalil Crumes.

The nation’s tax revenue suffers a significant blow due to millionaire and billionaire tax evasion, totaling over $150 billion annually, as per IRS Chief Danny Werfel. This evasion aggravates government shortages and challenges the fairness of the tax system. The IRS, encouraged by recent Congressional funding, has initiated an extensive crackdown on wealthy individuals, partnerships, and large companies to address this issue. Werfel points out the necessity of ensuring every taxpayer contributes their fair share, emphasizing the substantial gap between owed and paid taxes among the affluent, where said, “When I look at what we call our tax gap… millionaires and billionaires… are $150 billion of our tax gap.”

The IRS’s enforcement efforts were disadvantaged in previous years due to inadequate funding, resulting in diminished staff, technology, and resources, particularly for audits of complex tax returns. Audits of high-income taxpayers plummeted by over 80% in the last decade, despite a 50% surge in the number of million-dollar earners. Werfel highlights the urgent need for investments to restore the IRS’s capacity to fairly assess taxes owed by all taxpayers, regardless of complexity, “For complex filings, it became increasingly difficult for us to determine what the balance deal was.”

Despite the IRS’s successes in recovering unpaid taxes from millionaires, some Republicans criticize the agency’s expanded enforcement, fearing undue burden on small businesses and disputing its revenue-raising potential. However, the Treasury Department anticipates a substantial increase in tax revenue through enhanced IRS enforcement, projecting an additional $561 billion between 2024 and 2034. The IRS continues to innovate its enforcement strategies, employing AI to identify high-risk returns efficiently while minimizing audits for compliant taxpayers. In explaining why, they state, “What AI does is it allows us to put on night vision goggles. What those night vision goggles allow us to do is be more precise in figuring out where a high-risk [return] is and what a low risk is, and that benefits everyone.”

Khalil is majoring in accounting and criminal justice at Seton Hall University, Class of 2027.

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/22/tax-evasion-by-wealthiest-americans-tops-150-billion-a-year-irs.html

Posted by Anastasha Yee.

Elon Musk is most notably known for being the CEO of Tesla Inc., although he also created OpenAI in 2015 as well as other companies. Due to his many duties in his various areas of work, he realized that OpenAI had drifted philosophically further than he had intended which ultimately led him to leave the company. The reason for leaving the company was due to the fact that Mr. Musk has always had a concern about the risks of AI. Mr. Musk cites that OpenAI has been in a “breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and claims of unfair business practices, among other grievances”. Therefore when the CEO of Tesla Inc. discovered that his former company had prioritized their financial needs before the needs of their customers, Mr. Musk launched a lawsuit. In addition, larger companies such as Microsoft have invested in OpenAI and have been reaping the rewards of the company.

A reason that OpenAI redirected its company philosophy after Mr. Musk left the company was because the new board members had no prior experience or knowledge in AI or technology but in finance or politics. The goal of the lawsuit is to allow the work of OpenAI to be shared with the public for free and to stop other companies from earning financial benefits from a domain that was initially created for the world. Since Mr. Musk no longer has a stake in the company, he is suing from the standing point of a donor of the company. He also claims that the proceeds earned through court would be given to charity.

In this specific event, putting prior bias aside I believe that Mr. Musk is doing the right thing for the public. There are dangers to using AI in a negative format. To withhold such power from the public would not only be dangerous for the people working in the company but also for those wealthy enough to afford the program. There is a possibility that an uprising would occur. This would widen the gap between the classes and with the addition of AI would lead to dangerous matters.

Anastasha is a criminal justice major at Seton Hall University, Class of 2026.

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/musk-sues-openai-altman-for-breaching-firms-founding-missionLinks to an external site.