Posted by Alexa Pennino.

This Fox News article covers the backlash that PwC received or how they decided to announce and handle their application process. PwC stands for PricewaterhouseCoopers which is one of the largest accounting firms in the world. They are known for their valuable and trustworthy services in the business world. This article goes into detail about the controversy surrounding the company as they released their invitation for college students to begin applying for jobs at this company. As the company tries to seek out excelling college students that would be a great match for their company, they encourage “any array of racial backgrounds to apply but leaves out Caucasian people and East Asians” (Fox Business).

It is clear that the company is favoring specific races over the others. According to PwC, their application process is “grounded in data and accountability, supports measurable progress and helps create an environment where everyone feels valued and empowered” (Fox Business). When this was released, Fox Business questioned them, and for a while they did not reply because clearly what they said raises a lot of questions. It is admirable that PwC wants to create more accessible opportunities for those of different races, but what does not quite make sense is how they fail to mention Caucasians and East Asians. After the Black Lives Matter riots that happened back in 2020, race based programs became very safe places for those who work at large corporations. These programs are the diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. Although these programs have been set in motion to help people, they are being questioned because now companies overcompensate for people who are of color, and they treat them differently than Caucasian or East Asian people.

As an accounting major, I am nervous to begin my career in an industry like this. Hearing about this only raises concerns because as they’re trying to do something that might benefit a certain group of people, they are also hurting another. Not only am I an accounting major, but I am also Mexican. If I were in this position right now, I would not want any handouts from anyone. I believe that companies should not ask your race or ethnicity, therefore everyone has a fair chance. Personally, I would not want any extra help from anyone to get a job. If I am going to get a job, I want it to be on my own merit and because I genuinely deserve it. Even though this process gives more people more opportunities, it also takes them away from other people. This article is extremely informative as it brings awareness to a massive issue in the business industry.

Alexa is an accounting major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2028.

Posted by Damian Pan.

Apple has reached a settlement agreement to pay $95 million in response to a lawsuit alleging that its Siri voice assistant recorded private conversations without consent from its users. The lawsuit accused Apple of secretly gathering audio data through Siri, which was shared with third parties such as advertisers. Users were reportedly targeted with ads related to private topics, like medical treatments, conversations, and products they had mentioned. An Apple spokesperson told FOX Business, “Siri has been engineered to protect user privacy from the beginning. Siri data has never been used to build marketing profiles and it has never been sold to anyone for any purpose”. Despite denying any wrongdoing, Apple settled to avoid protracted litigation, asserting that it always strives to protect user privacy and does not use the data for marketing purposes.

The lawsuit covers Siri users from September 17, 2014, to December 31, 2024, and claims that Apple used users’ private conversations for third-party gain. Users affected may receive up to $20 per device, however Apple argues that this settlement is in both parties’ best interest. Apple maintained that no data was sold to third parties or used for marketing purposes. However, the settlement barely affects Apple as their revenue was $93 billion last year. This case highlights the growing concerns over the security of voice assistants and their users.

While this settlement seems like a resolution to the lawsuit, the larger issue of data privacy in technology is still a concern. The lawsuit is part of the many distresses that have arisen over how companies like Apple and Google handle user data. Apple’s settlement with the plaintiffs is relatively small compared to its earnings, however it sends a message about the responsibility these corporations have when it comes to user privacy. As a consumer, this case addresses the need for stronger regulations and clearer protection for individuals’ data.

Damian is a business administration major at Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2028.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/apple-pay-95-million-siri-spying-lawsuitLinks to an external site.

Posted by Sophia Miceli.

Chegg is an online learning platform that helps students with homework and tutoring and provides textbook rentals. Chegg is provided through Google, the most popular search engine in the world. On Monday, February 24th, Chegg filed suit in federal district court against Google. Chegg is claiming that AI summaries from Google search results are diminishing the platform’s revenue and success. Chegg “depends on referrals from Google’s monopoly search engine,” and as a result, a large portion of Chegg’s revenue stems from their original content. So, Google’s Open AI ChatGPT machines using Chegg’s content are causing Chegg to lose money as it is cutting into Chegg’s growth.

Chegg is currently worth less than $200 million and on Monday, the stock was trading only just above $1 per share. There is a reported 24% decline in this company with a $6.1 million net loss on the $143.5 million in fourth-quarter revenue. This is a lot less than what analysts expected for this company to have in revenue. Google abuses monopoly power by using other platforms’ content for the AI machine results without paying for the costs of the other platforms. Chegg is stating that this reduces financial incentives to continue to publish their original content as their content is being used without them gaining the revenue they deserve.

Chegg is engaging with Goldman Sachs to consider strategic options of “getting acquired and going private.” The lawsuit states that Google’s actions violate sections one and two of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890. Google intends to defend itself against Chegg’s suit by stating that its intentions are to provide an excellent user experience and that its AI feature sends traffic to many sites. While I do think the technology of artificial intelligence is very impressive and beneficial, I do not think it should take over everything, steal other platforms’ original content, and run them out of business. This suit will determine the answers to the future of AI usage and fair compensation.

Sophia is an accounting major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2028.

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/02/24/chegg-sues-google-for-hurting-traffic-as-it-considers-alternatives.html

Posted by John Martini.

On February 27, 2025, KPMG won a ruling in the Arizona Supreme Court granting them a license to operate a law firm within the state of Arizona. The decision was granted with the condition that KPMG doesn’t sell legal services to any of the firm’s audit clients. The firm is also prohibited from providing legal advice to clients outside of Arizona and will be reliant on co-counseling and referral relationships in order to service its clients outside of the state.

Within Arizona, KPMG will be able to wholly own a law firm subsidiary, making it the first Big Four firm to operate any such subsidiary, as it has previously been against both the law and business norms in most states for a law firm to be operated in a traditional corporate structure and owned by outside parties, who historically have been effectively barred from owning percentages of firms. However, outside the U.S., in countries such as the UK and Australia, Big Four firms have been engaged in providing legal services for some time.

KPMG Law will likely be focused on complementing its existing accounting and consulting services, as well as more economically complementing its in-house legal needs. It is perhaps because of this potential business synergy that KPMG’s Vice Chair for Tax, Rema Sefari, has said, “KPMG Law US is uniquely positioned to transform the delivery of legal services.”

My personal opinion is that this move paves the path for the legalization and normalization of outside ownership of law firms and the eventual death of perhaps our nation’s most prestigious profession. Though I did for some time believe that non-law firms would eventually find their way into the industry, I also previously believed it would be private equity firms spearheading this tragedy. While I personally have never had any aspiration to enter the legal profession, I now pity anyone who must enter it in these dark times. I do expect that if these events result in the trend which I fear, this country will soon see a significant cheapening of legal services, as well as their eventual outsourcing to developing economies, and with this, a corresponding drop in quality, as well as this nation’s capacity for intelligent lawmaking and legal interpretation.

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

Link: https://chatgpt.com/c/67c35dc1-0aa8-800d-b418-dfc3a8e9d4ca

Posted by Marley Havercome.

A union of families and advocates sued New Jersey, claiming that the public school system is racially and socioeconomically segregated due to the so-called “Home Rule” statute which ties school enrollment to municipal boundaries. Judge Robert T. Loughy a Judge in the state of New Jersey’s Superior Court had a mixed ruling that brought to light the persistent racial imbalances in various districts but rejected claims of statewide segregation, while also holding the state accountable for failing to address the issue. In an article written by Catherine Carrera she says, “New Jersey ranks among the most segregated for Black and Latino students, with data showing many attend school with 90-99% non-white enrollment” (Carrera 1). As of October 26, 2023, that was the deadline that the plaintiffs had to appeal, negotiate, or pursue a trial. The case highlighted the ongoing challenges in addressing school segregation, with traces of political resistance and a push for systemic change.

The issue in the case was whether the New Jersey’s public school system was made around the “Home Rule” Statute, and perpetuates unconstitutional racial and socioeconomic segregation, violated the state’s constitutional ban on school segregation.

The Plaintiffs failed to prove statewide socioeconomic and racial segregation in New Jersey schools, but the court acknowledged the “persistent racial imbalance” in several districts and rejected the state’s argument that it should not be held responsible for addressing segregation.

New Jersey’s state constitution, “explicitly bans school segregation and requires the state to provide a thorough and efficient education for all students”

The court got its decision from New Jersey’s state constitution. It has also come from and referenced earlier New Jersey Supreme Court rulings, such as Robinson v. Cahill and Abbott v. Burke, which laid out the state’s obligation to address educational inequities. Federal cases like Brown v. Board of Education were also used to address these problems and have the court focused on constitutional principles and precedents to help develop its decision.

Marley is an economics and finance dual major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2027.

Link: https://www.chalkbeat.org/newark/2023/10/13/23915907/new-jersey-school-segregation-lawsuit-latino-action-network-naacp/ Links to an external site.

Posted by Melissa Guerbi.

DoorDash, a food delivery platform that is used worldwide, has agreed to pay nearly $17 million in a settlement after it was found to have used customer tips to subsidize delivery workers’ wages instead of paying them directly. According to New York Attorney General Letitia James, “Between May 2017 and September 2019, DoorDash used a guaranteed pay model that allowed Dashers to see how much they would be paid before accepting a delivery, but the company included customer tips to supplement the base pay it had promised workers, rather than pay the full tip amount”. This practice misled both delivery workers and customers, who believed their tips were fully going to the workers.

As part of the settlement, $16.75 million will be given to affected Dashers who worked in New York during that period. Eligible workers will receive information on how to file claims, while DoorDash will also cover up to $1 million in administrative costs related to the settlement. Additionally, the company is required to uphold an open and honest payment system that guarantees that workers receive the full amount of their tips. James emphasized the importance of fair wages, stating, “This settlement returns millions to the pockets of hardworking Dashers and ensures transparency in DoorDash’s payment practices going forward.”

This case highlights the challenges gig workers face in ensuring fair compensation. Many food delivery platforms rely on pay structures that can sometimes hide how much workers are actually earning. Customers who tipped generously likely felt let down after hearing that their tips were used towards DoorDash’s labor costs rather than directly benefiting the worker, as they intended to do. This agreement is a step in the right direction, ensuring that big companies remain accountable and workers receive the full pay they deserve for the amount of work they do. Unfortunately, DoorDash is not the first company to suffer because of its tipping and payment policies. With the growing gig economy, stronger regulations are needed to prevent similar practices and protect workers’ earnings. The ruling acts as a warning to gig economy companies, and highlights the importance of revision of any unclear or unfair policies.

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

Link: https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/doordash-pay-new-york-delivery-workers-nearly-17-million-using-tips-subsidize-wages

Posted by Lynette Grajales.

In recent developments, President Donald Trump has expressed his intention to engage in discussions with China to ensure the continued operation of the popular social media app TikTok in the United States despite past concerns over its Chinese ownership. While the Biden administration has pushed for a potential ban or forced sale of TikTok due to national security concerns, Trump has suggested a different approach—negotiating with China to ensure the app’s future while bringing it under some form of U.S. control. He stated, “There’s a lot of people interested in TikTok, and I think we have a chance of doing something good.”

The article explains that Trump’s proposed plan involves allowing TikTok to continue operating in the U.S. under a joint ownership model, where the U.S. would hold a 50% stake in the company. This move is intended to address ongoing concerns that the Chinese government could access American user data through TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance. Trump argued that keeping TikTok alive while placing it under American oversight would be a win-win, saying, “With our approval, it is worth hundreds of billions of dollars—maybe trillions.” The potential restructuring of TikTok’s ownership raises several questions, including how such a deal would comply with U.S. foreign investment regulations and whether China would even agree to such terms.

TikTok’s uncertain future in the U.S. has been an ongoing legal and business issue, with multiple administrations considering various solutions. The company has repeatedly stated that it operates independently from the Chinese government and has taken measures to store American user data in the U.S. through its partnership with Oracle. However, lawmakers remain concerned about data security risks. The discussions surrounding TikTok challenge the idea of foreign-owned tech companies operating in the U.S. and the government’s role in regulating them.

Lynette is a political science major at Seton Hall University, Class of 2027.

Link:https://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/trump-announces-plans-speak-china-keep-tiktok-alive

Posted by Dylan Espineli.

In Southeast Asia, billionaire Kuok Meng Wei is leading a rise in demand for data storage due to the growth of artificial intelligence (AI). A recent Forbes story reports that Kuok Meng Wei, the grandson of business magnate Robert Kuok, is leading K2 Strategic’s $10 billion data center project. He is growing operations in Malaysia, Indonesia, and Thailand with the goal of tenfolding K2’s capacity by 2030 in order to take advantage of the AI revolution. “AI workloads are driving the demand for data centers exponentially,” according to Forbes. This quick growth demonstrates how business law, technology, and infrastructure development are intertwined.

Data sovereignty, or how different countries control the management and storage of digital data, is one of the many important legal issues surrounding this investment. Due to land and electricity constraints, Singapore, a longtime data center hub, implemented limits in 2019, making Southeast Asia a hotspot for cloud computing. As a result, K2 and other companies jumped at the chance to construct data centers in Malaysia, a nearby country where it is anticipated that over $23 billion will be invested in cloud computing. This is an important business law case study because of the legal challenges of operating in several jurisdictions, protecting land rights, and abiding by data protection regulations. In keeping with environmental laws and corporate social responsibility, Kuok Meng Wei’s proposal also incorporates sustainability initiatives, such turning 1,000 acres of plantation land into solar farms.

The increasing number of data centers also highlights more general issues with competition legislation and monopolistic control. Regulators may examine market dominance and fair competition in light of the region’s fast expansion like Amazon, Google, and Microsoft. Meng Wei’s quick rise demonstrates how company executives must negotiate intricate regulatory environments in order to pursue expansion. Business law will continue to influence how organizations scale their operations while maintaining compliance with international rules as technology develops. In addition to being a technological trend, the AI-driven demand for data centers is also a legal and economic change that will shape the next ten years of digital infrastructure.

Dylan is a finance and technology major, Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2027.

Article Link: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathanburgos/2025/02/26/grandson-of-malaysian-billionaire-robert-kuok-builds-data-centers-as-demand-soars-amid-ai-boom/ Links to an external site.

Posted by Nina Davis.

TikTok a multimillionaire corporation which is known for its large social media presences and widespread audience is struggling to uphold their case to continue in the United States. Concerns over whether or not this app is safe for US citizens data have been raised for a couple of years now and have now brought the supreme court to judge whether or not the app should stay. In the CNN article “Takeaways from the Supreme Court’s TikTok decision and what it may mean for the First Amendment” It discusses how the ban of TikTok would not only harm creators and businesses but also ignore the first amendment of freedom of speech.

In the article it discusses how banning TikTok would disregard the first amendment, taking away US citizens’ rights to freedom of speech. People have conspiracies that the government wants to do this because TikTok is one of the main sources as to where people get their information from. Moreover, many people are influenced by post that could potentially cause problems for the government or anyone inside the government. In the article it states ““Make no mistake, by allowing the ban to go into effect, the Supreme Court has weakened the First Amendment and markedly expanded the government’s power to restrict speech in the name of national security,”. The article trys to convey that many believe that if this TikTok ban were to go into effect it would show that the first amendment does not really apply and take away freedom from citizens in the US.

However, the article goes on to discuss how the supreme court is not trying to rid our speaking freedoms but more trying to cut ties with foreign advisory’s. Though the Supreme Court says this many believe this is just a cover up for trying to take away US citizens freedom of speech. The article discusses how our first amendment could be effected by this action and could affect the way people think about the US in regards to laws and amendments. If we don’t have to abide by certain amendments who says that the government has to abide to the others, making people feel at a loss of control over their rights.

Overall, this article goes into depth about the Supreme Court ruling and how it could potentially effect the US citizens.

Nina is a business major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/17/politics/supreme-court-tiktok-ban-takeaways/index.html

Posted by Olivia Beauvois.

When examining the article, both the Gonzalez v. Google LLC and Twitter v. Taamneh cases highlight the more extreme instances of risk factors involving social media. The case Gonzalez v. Google LLC was brought to the court by the family of Nohemi Gonzalez, who was unfortunately killed in the November 2015 ISIS terrorist attack in Paris at only 23 years old. The lawsuit promotes important discussion revolving around the negative side of social media, stating that Google, which partners with YouTube, is allowing members of terrorist groups to use YouTube as a platform to help recruit other group members. With the help of YouTube, these terrorist groups could post violent and gruesome content and spread these videos by using the platform to suggest their extremist material to other users. They do this by using the viewer algorithms to consider the audience interested in their own content, attempting to recruit these new prospects.

When the case reached the Ninth Circuit of Appeals, a panel of judges revoked the law of Section 230, which “protects platforms’ algorithmic recommendations.” Judges assert that although Section 230 may be more expansive than Congress intended, the legislative branch, not the court, has the authority to clarify it. Additionally, the plaintiff’s debated against the idea that the Ninth Circuit made a mistake in letting go of their case because YouTube is providing notifications for the content and wasn’t simply acting as a provider for terrorist groups in the process of recruitment. Furthermore, even if YouTube and Google were to be protected by Section 230, these notifications that YouTube was sending out go against the anti-terrorism act by being able to help and provide ISIS with new recruitment members.

Likewise, similar concepts were involved in the Twitter v. Taamneh case regarding the same anti-terrorism act. Although they don’t focus in on the Section 230 law, the claim states that Twitter was allegedly hosting terrorists’ content and helping with their online recruitment as well. However, when the Twitter v. Taamneh case came to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the lawsuit was stopped short when stating, “all content posted by terror groups on social media platforms.” This phrase made the claim not efficient enough to advance with an “aiding and abetting” statement under the Anti-Terrorism Act.

However, on the other hand, the Gonzalez v. Google case led Google to argue against the claims of violating the Anti-Terrorism Act, stating that the case should be dismissed because of Section 230. Although these algorithm recommendations are outside of their control, Google and YouTube dictate that they will continue to take steps to condemn terrorism and reduce the number of videos being posted by these groups.

In my opinion, given these certain circumstances, I believe that Section 230 should be looked at more critically. It should never be permitted for terrorist organizations to utilize a well-known social media site to advertise their own operations. Additionally, I believe that YouTube and Twitter should take greater measures to remove videos that violate their own policies rather than allowing them to aid organizations like ISIS in their recruitment efforts.

Olivia is a business major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2028.

Citations:

Revell, Eric. “Supreme Court to Hear Arguments on Google and Twitter’s Liability for Terrorists’ Online Postings.” Fox Business, Fox Business, 20 Feb. 2023, www.foxbusiness.com/markets/supreme-court-hear-arguments-google-twitters-liability-terrorists-online-postings Links to an external site..