The teen clothing chain, Aeropostale, filed for Chapter 11 protection, claiming online and fast-fashion retailers are the cause. The company expects to emerge within six months as a leaner company. It will close 113 stores in the U.S. and all 41 stores located in Canada.

“Online retailers and fast-fashion retailers such as H&M, Forever 21 and Inditex’s Zara have posed a threat to traditional apparel retailers, but American Eagle Outfitters, Inc. and Abercrombie & Fitch Co. have managed to turn around their businesses by controlling inventories and responding faster to changing fashion trends.”

The company may come out of this with restructured debt, but a long-term solution would require rethinking its brand.

Posted by Michael Larkin.

In a case that has been around for over a decade, Richard Suen will meet in the Nevada Supreme Court for the second time with Las Vegas Sands. This case is about the Las Vegas Sands casino opening up a location in Macau, China. The argument is whether or not Suen had a major role in this transaction to be able to share in the profits that the Sands casino would make.

Macau is the world’s largest gaming market so Sands would be able to share in the profit and attempt to make money. In order to open a location there, Sands would have to have had a license authorized by the Chinese government and business officials. Suen was a Hong Kong businessman who was able to set up these relationships for Sands in order for them to get the license with a payment of $5 million and 2 percent of profits. This is where the case gets tricky as Sands argues that Suen did not have a major influence in setting up these relationships, therefore, the company owes him nothing. Suen argues that if it were not for him, then Sands would have had no chance of getting the Macau license and because of this, he wants money due to the service he did. Suen filed a lawsuit saying that Las Vegas Sands owes him $115 million. Going back to 2008, Suen won $43.8 million dollars and later in 2010, he won another $70 million. Now continuing to the present, Las Vegas Sands is fighting these awards again in the Supreme Court.

Sands’ biggest argument is that there is a lack of evidence in the previous trials. What has been proven, however, is that there were cases where Sands’ executives recognized Suen and the work that he did. It appears that Suen does have the right to receive some payment, but all of it is the real question. Las Vegas Sands was trying to expand their locations to one the biggest gaming area of the world, but because they disregarded someone who helped, they have been facing a long-run issue.

Michael is a finance major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

Posted by Brandon Glover.

The U.S. District Court in Riverside will be the venue of the case between tech giant Apple Inc., and the U.S. Federal Government. The FBI has requested Apple’s help in bypassing the iPhone encryption security of one of the shooters in the San Bernardino incident. The judge who presided over the initial case, ruled in favor of Apple, stating “prosecutors were stretching an old law ‘to produce impermissibly absurd results.’”

Prosecutors argued that the phone belonging to Farook most likely contained evidence from the attack on December 2, 2015; where he and his wife, Tashfeen Malik, murdered 14 people. The two were later shot and killed in a police shootout. The FBI believes the couple was inspired by the Islamic State, and that the unlocking could reveal details about the attack as well as potential collaborators.

The Federal Government has argued that Apple could easily create a software that could bypass the security of the phone, retain its information, and then destroy it shortly thereafter. However, Apple has responded to that claim, stating “that creating software is a form of speech and being forced to do so violates its First Amendment.”

The federal government is currently appealing the ruling, which will most likely reach the Supreme Court.

Brandon is an economics major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2018.

Posted by Vicki Elter.

Experts in security and legal matters claim that if Apple has to create a software tool to help agents hack into an iPhone, many people will likely misuse it. In order to use Apple’s information in court, there will need to be numerous tests and work done by forensic experts. This will create more opportunities for leaks. Although the Justice Department explained that it just wants a tool that can just be used on the San Bernardino phone, hackers and other companies could potentially have access to the Apple’s methods.

There are over 200 other cases that are interested in using Apple’s tool to unlock iPhones. Additionally, other arguments against Apple releasing this tool explain that it could encourage hackers to conduct a reverse engineering. Although the software for the tool would be destroyed after its work is done, government employees could make Apple create it again.

Apple explains that the software would need a huge amount of testing before it is used. To finish the testing, Apple would need to send it to outside experts, which would increase the chance of the tool being stolen. Additionally, defense experts would demand scrutiny of the tool.

Vicki is an accounting and management major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

Posted by Andres Garcia.

Following the explicit shooting in San Bernardino, California, the FBI insisted Apple create a software that would aid them in their process of investigation. The proposed software would be inserted into the iPhone device belonging to one of the suspects in the mass shooting. The FBI asked Apple, Inc. after they could not guess the shooter’s password.

Apple, Inc. opposed the request and did not want to search their servers for the correct password. However, on Tuesday February 16, 2016, the court ruled that Apple must assist the FBI by handing out such private and confidential information. The decision enraged Apple CEO, Tim Cook, he stated that the verdict would invade the privacy of Apple customers.

I would definitely agree with Apple CEO, Tim Cook; the government ruling will greatly affect many personal lives. The decision may be unethical. I believe the government was in favor of the FBI. The court only looked at how the decision will positively affect the FBI at the moment. However, there can be harsher repercussion for individuals in our society. By granting the FBI permission to search someone’s data and information, the US government is essentially attacking a person’s privacy and security. The decision will sooner than later lead to more hackers infiltrating our personal devices.

Andres is an accounting major at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University, Class of 2019.

Posted by Abul Hasnat Juned.

Apple Inc. and the U.S. government are headed to court because the government is trying to force Apple to hack into the iPhone of the dead San Bernardino attacker, Syed Rizwan Farook. The reason why the government’s wants to access Farook’s phone is that it may contain evidence regarding the San Bernardino shooting in which he killed 14 people.

Investigators are trying to find out what happened and also if there were any other collaborators from ISIS. Last month, Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym ordered Apple to create software to help the FBI disable security features on the phone. Also, the magistrate judge ordered Apple to make software that erases all the information from the phone if a password is wrongly entered more than ten times. If Apple creates such software, the FBI would be able to electronically run possible combinations to open the phone without losing data.

On the other hand, Apple risks losing business if they help the government in unlocking phones, because it would undermine the privacy of its customers. Apple wants to show that they are true to their customers. By taking a stand, they might bring in more consumers. There is also another risk for the Apple Company in unlocking the phone because phones could possibly be accessible to hackers and other countries. Companies, such as, Facebook, Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft are offering their support for Apple and using it as a market strategy to gain respect from the public.

Cindy Cohn, executive director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said, “It’s too much for the government to conscript a company into writing code that undermines the security of the products they sell.” While the government says that Apple has helped them to extract data from such phones at least 70 times for law enforcement, Apple says the government is trying to force them to create a software that does not exist. Apple is arguing that the government is violating the company’s constitutional rights by threatening the privacy of its customers. Apple is taking a stand not only for their customers’ privacy, but also for the company’s profit because if they help the government to access the phone, their business profits would rapidly drop.

Abul is an accounting major at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University, Class of 2019.

Posted by Joseph Papandrea.

All different opinions are being thrown around in this case between Apple and the Federal Government. Syed Farook’s phone is what the Federal Government wants to access, due to his previous activity. Farrook killed 14 people during the San Bernardino attack. His relations to ISIS is why the government wants to access his phone. The judge decided to side with Apple in not letting the Fed’s access Farrok’s phone. Apple’s argument not to unlock this phone is because it affects everyone who owns iPhones. “Apple’s lawyers argue that the government’s demands would ultimately make iPhones less safe”(Riley). Apple being able to unlock this phone would make it less safe because phones could fall into the wrong hands. Apple in the past has helped the law enforcement in a drug dealer case. In this case it is much more serious and dangerous for society. Judge James Orenstein says there is no way he can force Apple to hack and access the phone.

The Federal Government holding this phone and stressing about this case does not make sense. There has to be a way the government can hack into the phone themselves, but do not want to reveal that power. If they are able to do that without the help of Apple that could also put a lot of people in danger.

Both Apple and the Federal Government are making a lot of things difficult. Apple was faced with a big decision about whether they were going to help access Farrok’s phone. If Apple accesses the phone, it can help the government in many ways. Their view on it though is that it affects every iPhone owner. Apple’s power to access one phone will give the government access all. A lot of people would side with Apple for fear of their own privacy, but others will argue and say that it will benefit the government because there can be evidence leading to ISIS. Apple decision is probably what is best for the company. Apple wants to stay loyal to its customers and do not want to lose income. People knowing that Apple is able to unlock a phone so easy is where customers lose trust with the company.

In conclusion, both Apple and the Federal Government are stuck between what is morally right. Apple is doing what is best for the company, because if the technology falls into the wrong hands it will bring the company down. I believe the Federal Government must have someone who can find a way to access this phone., because they have the technology already and are looking for a means to protect that secret. They can listen in on anything. In my opinion Apple is not wrong for not wanting to unlock the phone, because they are only protecting the company.

Joseph is a sports management major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

Posted by Bridget Uribe.

During the month of March of 2014, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) charged three executives: Chairman Steven Davis, Executive Director Stephen DiCarmine, and Chief Financial Officer Joel Sanders of Dewey & LeBoeuf, the international law firm, with facilitating a $150 million fraudulent bond offerings. The SEC alleged that the three charged turned to accounting fraud when the firm needed money during the economic recession and steep costs from a recent merger.  They were afraid that their declining revenues might cause the bank lenders to cut off access to the firm’s credit lines. Thus, leading Dewey & LeBoeuf’s financial professionals came up with ways to artificially inflate income and distort financial performance.

The fraud didn’t stop there. Dewey & LeBoeuf then resorted to the bond markets to raise significant amounts of cash through a private offering that seized on fake financial numbers. Dewey & LeBoeuf since have officially went out of business, and the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office charged criminal charges against Davis, DiCarmine, and Sanders. According to the SEC’s complaint, the roots of the fraud dated back to late 2008 when senior financial officers began to come up with fake revenues by manipulating various entries in Dewey & LeBoeuf’s internal accounting system. The firm’s profitability was inflated by approximately $36 million (15%) at the end of the 2008 financial results. “The improper accounting also reversed millions of dollars of uncollectible disbursements, mischaracterized millions of dollars of credit card debt owed by the firm as bogus disbursements owed by clients, and inaccurately accounted for significant lease obligations held by the firm”(SEC Press Release).

Fast forward to the present, a New York judge declared a mistrial Monday bringing an end to the trial for the biggest law firm failure in U.S. history! The decision comes on the 22nd day of deliberations by a 12-member jury, which acquitted the ex-law firm leaders on several dozen counts of falsifying business records. The jury couldn’t reach a verdict on grand larceny and remained deadlocked on more than 90 counts charges facing Steven Davis, Joel Sanders, and Stephen DiCarmine. The three could have faced up to 25 years in prison if convicted of grand larceny, the most serious of the roughly 50 counts each brought against them. The defendants also faced related civil charges brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission and a private lawsuit brought by former Dewey investors who say, “They were duped into buying debt in a 2010 bond offering.” Both of those proceedings had been on hold pending the outcome of the criminal trial. Some highlights of the trial are: prosecutors had likened Mr. Davis to a drug kingpin, overseeing a criminal enterprise. Also, the defense side thought prosecutors didn’t present enough evidence to prove their case, thus choosing not to call any witnesses. Instead, the lawyers relied on the cross-examination of government witnesses to try to distance their clients from the actions taking place in the accounting department. At times, such questioning also prompted praise for the defendants from those on the stand. Where does this lead us now? How the Department of Justice completely lost the case or can a retrial give a favorable outcome in the future? It’s too early to tell, but what I do know is that the long deliberations and mistrial will raise questions about whether the case was too complex.

Bridget is a graduate forensic accounting student at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University, Class of 2016.

Posted by Melissa Nomani.

Lawsuits filed against Lumber Liquidators claim that homeowners who put certain laminate flooring into their home are being exposed to high levels of formaldehyde. This puts them at risk and also lowers the value of their property. As of this July, the number of lawsuits filed against the company has gone up from only a mere ten in June. Many lawsuits began being filed after a 60 Minutes episode that aired on March 1, 2015, exposing the high levels of formaldehyde in laminated flooring made in China. Formaldehyde is a known carcinogen and has been linked to cancer and respiratory problems. A study done by 60 Minutes showed that 30 out of 31 of the tested flooring samples (all of the sample were Lumber Liquidators products).

According to a study conducted by 60 Minutes, 30 of 31 flooring samples from Lumber Liquidators did not meet formaldehyde emissions standards. It is estimated that thousands of people have Lumber Liquidators flooring in their homes. Some lawsuits claim that homeowners have suffered from respiratory problems after installing the laminate flooring.

Another issue that has risen is that Lumber Liquidators is being accused of false advertising and selling products comprised of particles that come from endangered habitats and trees. The US Department of Justice is investigating the company for their alleged use of wood. The wood was illegally cut down from Russia–this directly violates the Lacey Act. The Lacey Act does not allow for the importation of products made from woods that are illegally logged.

Furthermore, this past May, Lumber Liquidators CEO, Robert Lynch, resigned. During this month the company also announced that it would be suspending the sale of flooring from China. The company offered homeowners free  indoor air quality screening, if they had purchased laminate flooring from China.

The number of lawsuits against Lumber Liquidators continues to grow.

Melissa is a finance major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2018.

Posted by Daphine Llosa.

The current legal issue relates to conspiracy and breach. A conspiracy is an agreement by two or more parties to commit a crime to do something unlawful or harmful. A breach is an act of breaking or failing to observe a law or agreement. On Tuesday, November 17, 2015, Crystal Banuelos pleaded guilty of a conspiracy to attain personal information and commit cards theft from Michaels Companies Incorporated’s customers. Michaels is an arts and crafts, custom framing, home décor and seasonal products store. Prior to this case, there was another prosecution where Eduard Arakelyan (age of 24) and Arman Vardanyan (age of 26) were charged for being involved in a breach. This breach was discovered in 2011 where devices were installed on point-of-sale terminals so they may obtain Michaels’ customers’ personal information as well as bank account numbers. Both individuals pleaded guilty three years ago for stealing from 952 debit cards; they were sentenced for five years of prison.

Crystal Banuelos, the 28 year old California woman, had participated in a conspiracy to acquire 94,000 credit and debit card numbers. It took Banuelos around four months to admit to her charges and plead guilty in the federal court in Camden, New Jersey. CNBC mentioned that the prosecutors found that the individuals involved in the conspiracy had replaced close to 90 of the point-of-sale terminals in 80 different Michaels stores in “19 states with counterfeit devices that were equipped with wireless technology.” They used these counterfeit devices to acquire customers’ personal identification number information as well as any additional information that they may have found useful for their theft. Crystal Banuelos, along with others, had managed to create an exact imitation of these debit cards using the stolen information they gathered when they applied the counterfeit devices. They were able to obtain and collect more than $420,000 by withdrawing from automated teller machines. Two of the defendants, Angel Angulo and Crystal Banuelos, had 179 of these imitated cards in New Jersey. Some of the banks that were affected include: Bank of America Corp, JPMorgan Chase & Co, Wells Fargo & Co, etc. It has been announced that Crystal Banuelo’s sentence is scheduled to be on February 23, 2016.

Daphne is a graduate accounting with a certification in forensic accounting at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University, Class of 2016.

Posted by Michael Larkin.

When one checks into a hotel, one would expect to have their information stored in a company’s database, but one would not expect that database to get compromised. Wyndham Worldwide Corporation was using a property management system that stored customer’s names, addresses, and credit card number. On three separate occasions in 2008 and 2009, Wyndham was hacked and this information was pulled off of over 600,000 accounts. Damage was approximately $10.6 million and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) brought Wyndham to trial.

Even though Wyndham was the company that got hacked, it was the customers who got hurt and that is why the FTC filed against Wyndham. The FTC argued that the hacks were caused due the very limited security that the management system used. It was found that the credit card numbers could easily be read, passwords were easy to guess, and a firewall was not deployed along with various other issues. Wyndham argued that the FTC had no right to file a suit against them and that the unfairness and deception claims were not sufficiently validated. It was founded that Wyndham didn’t provide a fair system for its customers and the court required the company to change in order to protect its customers. Mainly, Wyndham needs a more comprehensive security program in order to protect account information and also conduct annual information security audits and maintain a safeguard for its servers.

This case was a matter of protection and privacy for the company’s customers. A customer is providing personal information in order to engage in business so Wyndham has a duty to protect that information. Having a higher security will ensure that hackers will not be able to breach the system and steal information. The FTC won the trial, and in doing so, made sure that a company had a high security to protect the customers.

Michael is a finance major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

Sources:

FTC v. Wyndham Worldwide Corp.

Verdict From: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2015/12/wyndham-settles-ftc-charges-it-unfairly-placed-consumers-payment

Posted by Victoria Gencarelli.

Product liability is a prevailing issue and concern for companies and businesses who are marketing and selling their products. It is a company’s duty to take the liability for manufacturing and selling a product that is defective or damaged. By creating and issuing a defective product to the public, it increases the risk for dangers, damages, or harmful occurrences to take place with the use of the product. If in the case that a product is defective and capable of any danger, it is the company’s responsibility to issue a warning or a recall on the product. In this way they can they attempt to protect themselves from any legal issues and also protect the general public from encountering danger while using their products.

POM Wonderful is a company who produces fruit juices and fruit extracts, but is most commonly known for the produce of pomegranate juice. The Coca-Cola Company introduced a new “pomegranate blueberry” juice product, but POM wonderful believed the product to be false advertising to consumers. The juice was actually a blend together of apple and grape juices and only consisted of 0.2% pomegranate juice in it and also included the phrase “from concentrate with added ingredients and other flavors” in small typing. POM Wonderful presented this to the court in compliance with the Lanham Act because they believed that the name of the juice and the false advertising of the Coca-Cola Company’s “pomegranate blueberry” juice was misleading and contributing to a loss of sales for POM Wonderful.

In California federal district court, they deliberated the case and had not found POM successful in proving that the Coca-Cola Company was misleading their consumers into thinking that their “Enhanced Pomegranate Blueberry Flavored 100% Juice Blend” did not actually contain a high percentage of pomegranate juice. When the case reached the highest court, they disregarded POM Wonderful’s claim against the Coca-Cola Company and stating that Coca-Cola was not violating the FDA guidelines on product labeling. The POM Wonderful Company did lose out on millions of dollars in revenue and sales, but it was not seen as unfair competition and the jury ended the case in favor of the Coca-Cola Company. All in all, an issue such as this one has an overall impact on the food industry to be careful when labeling, marketing, and advertising their products to the public. It is always important to keep product liability in mind when generating products and selling them in order to avoid any potential problems in the long run.

Victoria is an accounting and finance major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

Fox News’ Harris Faulkner, co-anchor of the daytime show Outnumbered, sued Hasbro toy company for $5 million. Hasbro sold a toy hamster named the “Harris Faulkner Hamster Doll” as part of their “Littlest Pet Shop” product line.

In the complaint, Faulkner alleges unfair competition under the Lanham Act and common law violation of right to publicity. She claimed she is “distressed” that her name would be associated with a toy that indicates it could be a potential “choking hazard” to children, and that portraying her as a rodent is demeaning and insulting.

She further claimed that since as a journalist she cannot be connected with a commercial product, “Hasbro’s use of her name in association with the Harris Faulkner Hamster Doll creates the false impression that Faulkner would impugn her own professional ethics by agreeing to have a commercial product named after her.”

Posted by Nick Mitwasi.

Throughout the years, there has been numerous lawsuits towards Johnson & Johnson for their use of talcum power in their products, specifically baby powder, for women have been suing the company on claims that it is the link to their ovarian cancer. In this year alone, the company was forced to give up $55 million in May to a woman in St. Louis, Missouri and $72 million to another family also in St. Louis. In addition, just a couple of days ago, a woman was awarded $70 million in California against Johnson & Johnson. Yet, in all of these cases J&J has continued to defend that their product is completely safe.

Johnson & Johnson’s Baby Powder has dominated the market in the past, and thus is the main reason as to why it is going to defend its products in the mist of all these lawsuits they are being slammed with. In the first case in which Johnson & Johnson was involved, they were sued by Diane Berg for gross negligence and fraud; she was a frequent user of the product and never was informed that long term use of the product can cause cancer. After she sued, the company offered an “out of court settlement of $1.3 million” (Huffington Post); however, she declined and simply wanted to inform the public through her suing the company that this is something people must be informed about.

The main problem, though, with all these lawsuits is that there is no scientific evidence that the product does indeed cause cancer; it is the fact that Johnson & Johnson are not informing their customers that there is a possibility that their product will do harm. This has been damaging the company’s reputation as more and more lawsuits are being filed to different law firms about the same situation. This is still an ongoing situation and time will only tell to see how Johnson & Johnson reacts to the overflow of negativity towards one of their mainstay products.

Nick is a student at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

Sources:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3882192/Cancer-patient-contracted-disease-using-Johnson-Johnson-talcum-powder-wins-70million-payout-company.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/toby-nwazor/the-talcum-powder-lawsuit_1_b_10609474.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-baby-powder-cancer-lawsuits/

Posted by Sydney J. Kpundeh.

The famous over the counter drug Tylenol was at the center of a case that was brought before a Pennsylvania federal district court in early November. The case involved a lady who had taken Extra Strength Tylenol for many years to treat various conditions. In Mid-August of 2010, she underwent lumbar laminectomy surgery and afterwards she was instructed by her doctor to take Regular Strength Tylenol in conjunction with Lorcet, a prescription drug containing acetaminophen, but not to exceed 4 grams of acetaminophen in a 24-hour period. For approximately two weeks, she used the Regular Strength Tylenol, as instructed, until the bottle ran out, after which she began using Extra Strength Tylenol. At some point, she stopped taking the Lorcet due to its side effects. On August 29, she unfortunately was diagnosed with acute liver failure and died two days later.

After her passing, her sister filed a products liability lawsuit, “including claims for defective design and negligent failure to warn against McNeil, which manufactures the drug, and Johnson & Johnson, McNeil’s parent company.” Her sister insisted that the defendants knew that Tylenol could cause liver damage when taken at or just above the recommended dose. Also, she claimed defendants were liable for the her sister’s death because they had failed to warn her of the “risks of injury and/or death.” The defendants moved for summary judgment on the ground that the sister had not offered sufficient evidence to support her failure to warn claim.

Under the Alabama Extended Manufacturer’s Liability Doctrine, there are two factors that must be shown to find the scope of a manufacturer’s legal duty. The first is that there is some potential danger and the second is that there is a possibility of a different design to avert that danger. In this case, sufficient evidence was presented to show that the manufacturers knew or should have known that Extra Strength Tylenol could cause liver damage. The facts also showed that the manufacturers were working to find a substitute. Finally, the evidence also showed that the plaintiff’s sister died of acetaminophen-induced liver failure after taking Extra Strength Tylenol as directed.

Sydney is a political science major with a minor in legal studies at Seton Hall University, Class of 2016.

Posted by Mary Bonatakis.

As the Volkswagen case unwinds it is causing many debates. Volkswagen is currently being charged with selling 11 million diesel vehicles equipped with software to cheat test put in place to limit the emission of gasses that are harmful to our earth. After this information was released over 350 lawsuits have been filed against Volkswagen. With a case this large the first major debate is where this trial should take place. It has been decided that these cases should all be heard in the same location.

The venue of the hearing is a very important part of the case. Many lawyers have different suggestions as to where this case should be heard. Charles S. Zimmerman a lawyer in Minneapolis believes the case should be heard in Detroit because it is considered “Motor City”, Benjamin Galdston, a San Diego lawyer believes the case should take place in Los Angeles because many other Volkswagen lawsuits have taken place there, while Warren Burns, a lawyer in Dallas believes the case should be held in Alexandria Virginia because the carmaker’s United States headquarters is nearby. The final decision as to where the case should take place is still undecided.

Once the location is chosen the judge will appoint the lawyers to represent the plaintiffs. This approach has been used many times in the past in big cases such as in automotive or drug cases. This approach concerns legal scholars because one group of lawyers can dominate the case and the lawyers will benefit more from the case then the clients. “One recent study found that about two dozen firms played leading roles in 10 or more major lawsuits. Five of those firms spearheaded 20 or more” (Meier). Firms like this are considered “repeat players” and have been earning the most money from their fees. Many people believe having firms like these take on the cases will create an unfavorable environment for plaintiffs.

Volkswagen released that they have put aside 7.3 billion dollars to handle the scandal. This money will not only be used to handle these cases, but also actions from regulators and the state attorneys general. In the law suits filed the common argument is that Volkswagen lied to them with false information about the cars performance. The plaintiffs are asking to be reimbursed for the premium prices of the car and to take the cars back. With this much money at stake it is driving lawyers to want to be involved in this case.

Large cases like this are very hard to handle. With over 7 billion dollars on the line lawyers have more room to take use the case to their advantage and make a large profit off their clients. In a Johnson & Johnson case in 2013 involving a flawed artificial hip, any client who chose not to hire their own lawyer and use one appointed by the court were forced to forfeit 29% of their reward to payout the lawyer appointed to them. The payout was approximately 50,000 dollars. Past cases like the Johnson & Johnson case are leading scholars to question the motive behind lawyers to get involved in this case. Everyone involved in this case is working towards making it as fair as possible. Once everything is taken into account with input from scholars the final decisions of the location of the case and the lawyers representing the clients will be chosen, until then the debate and fight to be a part of this case will continue.

Mary is an accounting and information technology major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2018.

Research proposal posted by Brian Kane.

In the digital age, the rights and laws regarding privacy are being contested now more than ever. Today personal privacy, both digital and physical, is being discussed. One of the earliest examples of privacy laws in the United States is the 4^th amendment. Under this amendment gives “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” (Fourth Amendment, U.S. Constitution). This and other laws, including the Federal Wiretap Law of 1968, are designed to protect the individual against unlawful searches of personal property by an unfair government. The individual right to privacy is held sacred in this country.

However, the laws of privacy protection are not absolute. Communications and interactions in general areas, such as online chatrooms, and digital communication used for work. Surveillance monitoring by employers has been contested by employees in courts in multiple cases. In City of Ontario, California v. Quon, for example, a search was justified because there were “reasonable grounds” and done “for a non-investigatory work-related purpose” (Ontario v. Quon).

Some argue that the privacy laws are for the best interests of individuals. Individuals and consumers are protected when the monitoring parties have clearly defined limits and barriers. When the government requires search warrants and the corporations are required to obtain consent, the best interests of those being monitored are kept in mind. The constant surveillance by powerful entities removes the right for individuals to act freely and live their own lifestyle. Gratuitous monitoring dehumanizes the employee and implies guilt without any evidence.

Privacy law is not completely virtuous, however. Like all laws, some may seek to exploit privacy law and use it to shield unproductive, immoral, and unethical behavior. When employees use corporate email accounts for personal business, they often claim a right to privacy when investigation begins. Many act recklessly online in this digital age, assuming that the right to privacy is absolute and unbreakable. There are instances where there is legitimate reasons to investigate an individual. When there is probable cause, public good supersedes individual privacy.

The issue of privacy and surveillance laws raises many ethical questions. The rights of individuals and the definition of individualism is put into question when anyone is monitored by a third party. There is concern for the maintenance of human dignity, as some see these searches dehumanizing and distressing on private lives. Pope Leo XIII spoke out against increased surveillance, saying that it intruded and lead to control over individuals. In Catholicism, the holy sacrament of confession revolves around the private recounting of sins and transgressions. When discussing privacy, the matter common good is raised. Aquinas believes that law is created for the common good, “made by him who has the care of the community and promulgated” (2 Bix).

Privacy and Surveillance Law is a widely contested issue in the catholic faith and general ethics. It has its advantages and disadvantages, as any other issue in law, but it will continue to be contested as new innovations shape the information age.

Works Cited

Bix, Brian H. “Secrecy and the Nature of Law.” October 2013. University of Pennsylvania School, Center for Ethics and the Rule of Law. Web. 3/3/2016. Avaliable: https://www.law.upenn.edu/live/files/2418-bixsecrecy-and-the-nature-of-law-full

City of Ontario v. Quon. 560 U.S. 746. Accessed 3/3/2016.