Posted by Alexander Gomez.

On September 30th Amazon settled with TikTok and Instagram influencers regarding their involvement in peddling counterfeit goods through the Amazon store. The influencers being Kelly Fitzpatrick and Sabrina Kelly-Kreji will be barred from ever selling products through the Amazon marketplace. Although Amazon refused to disclose the financial aspect of the settlement this situation comes as a constant reminder of the challenges Amazon faces. Since the introduction of the Amazon marketplace which encouraged third party selling; counterfeit products have always been a trouble for the corporation. However, “The marketplace, launched in 2000, is made up of millions of third-party sellers and now accounts for more than half of Amazon’s overall e-commerce sales.”(Palmer) so naturally Amazon has chosen to crack down on counterfeit products.

Amazon in an effect to curb counterfeit merchandise being sold on their platform has elected to chase down these criminals in court. Amazon has even introduced several programs to aid in the crackdown of this practice. They have even rolled out a Counterfeit Crimes Unit which is comprised of several former federal prosecutors. In this aspect we know how serious Amazon carries their marketplace.

Within my own opinion I think it is good that Amazon is cracking down on these counterfeiters. As mentioned before if the marketplace attributes to much of its e commerce sales it is good to take legal action against these criminals. However, Amazon did also mention that most of the defendants for these counterfeiters are in China. In this regard Amazon has a great obstacle to overcome but this is a good first step for Amazon to start the crackdown process.

Alex is a fintech major at Seton Hall University, Stillman School of Business, Class of 2024.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/30/amazon-settles-with-influencers-who-allegedly-ran-counterfeit-scheme.html?&qsearchterm=amazon%20lawsuit

Posted by Robert Benites.

Are you in a certain position of command at your job? Maybe you are a manger or a supervisor.  If you ever had the question, how do I know if something is ethical or not? Or if the company you are apart of is doing something illegal. Who do you tell? The article gives every employee tip on how to report unethical or illegal behavior in the workplace if you are someone in the hierarchy. If you see something in the workplace that is unusual or not supposed to be permitted by your company’s rules you should start by seeing if you boss is involved in making these decisions. By staying internal first, you can see who you can trust within the company.

If you find out that your boss is making the unethical or illegal decisions, then you should still seek help internally. The article suggests that if you find another manager who is on the same level of hierarchy as you; you can talk with this coworker and discuss a plan to approach your boss and discuss what is happening is wrong. If you can’t find a manager or another boss in different department it might be time to recruit any coworkers based off any work experience level.  If all this doesn’t work, it might be time to “blow the whistle”. This term basically means that instead of continuing to try and work internally to stop a problem you should reach out to agencies or authorities. A company you should contact is the SEC as they have rewarded a total of $387 million to 72 whistleblowers in the past 8 years.

The last thing that is discussed in this article is to avoid staying quiet. It is actually very common for people who see something wrong in the workplace to stay quiet because they are scared of the aftermath.  If you stay quiet, there is a good chance you can develop chronic stress on your body and mind and if tampered with enough you can start to feel depressed. I personally enjoyed reading this article as it is very informative, and I believe it is important for all kinds of employees to read this article. I believe it can help everyone out in the long run if they see any unethical or illegal actions happening in the workplace.

Robert is a business management student at Seton Hall University, Stillman School of Business, Class of 2023.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/29/success/executives-values-ethics-conflict/index.html

Posted by Grace Duffy.

The Supreme Court has recently decided to consider the Environmental Protection agency’s (EPA) authority to limit greenhouse gas emissions. West Virginia leads the legal battle against the EPA in defense of coal companies and energy producing states. The Supreme Court will consider if the EPA is “going too far” with their plan to regulate and reduce the greenhouse gas emissions of energy companies. The coal companies and energy producing states are appealing a lower court’s ruling which restored some of the power and authority EPA lost during Trump’s administration.

The lawsuit led by West Virginia argued that Congress did not give the EPA the authority they claim to have. The coal companies and energy producing states said the greenhouse gas restrictions the EPA wants to impose are impossible for a power plant to uphold. Power plants burn coal and natural gas to create energy, so they naturally produce a lot of greenhouse gases. However, the lower court ruled in the EPA’s favor. The Plaintiffs say this ruling gives the EPA power to excessively restrict other sources of greenhouse gases such as factories, hospitals, hotels, and even homes. They state that giving this power to the EPA will have “tremendous costs and consequences for all Americans.”

The Clean Air Act is also involved in this case. The Clean Air Act states that the EPA must find the “best system of emissions reduction” for the current pollution sources and that they must work with states to come up with a pollution control plan. Biden’s Administration did not want the Supreme Court to consider this appeal. The Supreme Court’s decision may make it tougher for Biden’s Administration to impose stricter greenhouse gas emission regulations. These stricter regulations on greenhouse gases would help the U.S. solve the issue of climate change by moving electricity production away from fossil fuels and toward renewable energy. The Supreme Court is expected to hear the case this spring with a decision possibly made by June.

Grace is majoring in accounting at Seton Hall University, Stillman School of Business, Class of 2023.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-agrees-consider-epa-s-authority-limit-greenhouse-gasses-n1282751

Posted by Angel Pagan.

A San Fransico court ordered that Tesla has to pay 137 million to an ex-worker due to the racist work environment. The worker was Owen Diaz and he was hired through a Staffing Agency in 2015. He reported that many of his coworkers would degrade him and say “Go back to Africa” to other black coworkers. They also left racist graffiti in bathrooms and other work evironments. The case was only allowed to move forward because Diaz did not sign one of Tesla’s arbitration agreements. 

In my opinion I think Tesla is definitely in the wrong for not putting a stop to any of this. A coporation needs to make their work environment safe and welcoming for their workers. This news not only makes Tesla look bad, but also Elon Musk. Also, this is not the first time Tesla has had to settle disputes like this, but usually they are behind closed doors due to these arbitration agreements. People also belive that these agreements can hide serious stuff like sexual harrassment and other racial injustices at the work place through quiet settlements. 

Tesla’s board also advised shareholders to vote against reporting the impacts of mandatory arbitration agreements. Instead of Tesla constantly dealing with these settlements they should focus on cleaning up their workplace. They should either enforce better rules about this kind of behavior in the workplace or hire better human beings. 

Angel is a student at Seton Hall University.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/05/tesla-must-pay-137-million-to-ex-worker-over-hostile-work-environment-racism.html

Posted by John Schwimmer.

Republican Govern Ron DeSantis vows to sue the Biden Administration over mask and vaccine mandates. DeSantis claims that the president does not have the power to issue any rule that violates the procurement law. DeSantis has fought the mask and vaccination mandates since the beginning of Covid-19. He said that he is going to call lawmakers together to make laws to stop private business in Florida enforcing mask and vaccine mandates. He even filed the case in Tampa Florida and has Biden, as well as other white house officials as defendants. 

The federal mask mandate for federal contractors is to go into effect on December 7. It has also been announced that all private business will mandate the vaccine or weekly testing. The Biden Administration hopes the mandates will work to put an end to the almost 800,000 American deaths. Republicans have argued these mandates nationwide. The Republican state attorneys general sent a letter to the Biden Administration saying the mandate is unjust and is on “shaky legal ground”. The Republican party seems to support DeSantis’s claims and pursuit in the court system. 

The question then is if DeSantis has legal ground to stand on. He claims that Biden does not have the power to make a mandate like this. The Republican State Attorneys General office claims that there is no statue that allows the president to make a mandate like this on both public and private business. DeSantis has made moves for legal action against the whole administration and other officials. In my own opinion I do not think that this case will stand, I do not believe that DeSantis has legal ground. I believe it is within a Presidents power to make a mandate that is federal wide.

John is an accounting major at Seton Hall University, Stillman School of Business, Class of 2024.

https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/10/28/1050131916/desantis-florida-vaccine-mandate-lawsuit

Posted by Vanessa Van Bodegon.

As a college student myself, student debt is something that haunts me in my sleep. The constant worry in the back of my head leaves me wondering if I will make enough money post-graduation to pay my debt in a sufficient period of time.

After reading an article in the ABA Journal titled, “Federal judge tosses decision erasing law grad’s student debt, says issues should be decided at trial”, by Debra Cassens Weiss, I see that Kevin Rosenberg, must not have had this worry. Rosenberg was a law student who graduated from Yeshiva University in 2004. Upon completion of law school, he began to work in a firm for less than three months, before getting fired and becoming practically jobless, apart from working jobs here and there.

Because of his poor financial decisions and the economic recession in 2008, Rosenberg’s debt continued to increase, and he made no effort to pay it off. Instead of lowering his cost of living to pay off his debt, he decided to move to places with higher rent. At a point, his debt increased from its original $116,465 to an astonishing $220,000, with only $3,000 paid off.

Rosenberg decided to take his issue to court, where the judge overturned the decision because Rosenberg did not provide enough evidence to prove that his debt is unpayable. The judge felt that Rosenberg put himself in his predicament, and that is nobody’s problem other than his own… which I would have to agree with. The judge stated that Rosenberg had not submitted enough evidence to satisfy the Brunner test, which is a three-part test that, “considers whether the debtor can maintain a minimal standard of living if forced to repay the loans, whether an inability to maintain the minimal standard is likely to persist for a significant portion of the repayment period, and whether the debtor had made a good faith effort to repay the loans” (Weiss par 8).

Although Rosenberg did have setbacks, such as injuries that required surgeries and the economic recession, his piled-up debt is the result of his own poor decisions. As stated previously, I can only hope I do not make the same mistakes a Rosenberg when trying to pay my own student debt in the future.

Vanessa is a finance major at Seton Hall University, class of 2024.

Article link: https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/federal-judge-tosses-decision-erasing-law-grads-student-debt-says-issues-should-be-decided-at-trial           

Posted by Jack Lynch.

Social media companies such as Facebook, Snapchat, and Twitter, rely heavily on their advertising revenue. This revenue is earned by companies paying these social media apps to advertise their products on their platforms. As many of us know, social media companies rely on targeted advertising to increase their revenue. This means that apps such as Facebook have access to your phone in order to analyze what you are searching for and advertise products that you are more likely to have an interest in and possibly buy. However, there have been some recent privacy concerns around the world regarding targeted advertising and legality of the access that companies have to our information. As a result of this concern Apple began modifying its privacy policies in April 2021. The new privacy policy allows iPhone users to choose whether or not they consent to advertisers using their information. Many people have declined this option, and it is having some serious consequences for social media companies.

Since many iPhone users have declined the option to give advertisers access to their personal data, companies such as Facebook, Snap, and Google are losing the advertising revenue that they rely on. Facebook has taken the worst hit because most of the site’s traffic comes from mobile users, and their revenue relies heavily on advertising. This fear of losing revenue is shown when the author explains, “Ahead of Facebook Inc’s (FB.O) financial results on Monday, the social media giant is expected to be hurt more than others in big tech by Apple Inc’s (AAPL.O) iPhone privacy changes, investors fear, after Snap Inc (SNAP.N) missed revenue targets last week” (Balu, Dang 2021). Facebook and other companies are furious with Apple because they knew that making these privacy adjustments would decrease the number of ads and therefore hurt the revenue of social media giants. These companies are making the argument that Apple’s privacy policy is hurting small businesses by restricting their ability to advertise on iOS devices.

In my personal opinion, I believe that Apple has every right to adapt their privacy policies. Apple customers asked for better privacy standards and for stronger protection of their personal information, and Apple delivered on their desires by strengthening the privacy policies. While I support small businesses and the idea that larger corporations should do their part in helping smaller companies, I think that Apple increasing privacy is a good thing in this day and age. Companies such as Facebook are angry that they are going to be losing revenue, but they have failed to consider the benefits of increased privacy. This event has shown to the world that companies such as Facebook have become too dependent on advertising on Apple devices. However, Apple’s intent behind these changes is the true question that needs to be asked. Are they really worried about the privacy of their customers or were they trying to boost their revenue by increasing the use of their own advertising system? Apple has the right to change their own policies, but they could have considered the effect that those changes have on other companies, especially small businesses.

Jack is an accounting major at Seton Hall University, Stillman School of Business, Class of 2024.

Article Link: https://www.reuters.com/technology/facebook-ad-revenue-seen-feeling-brunt-apple-privacy-changes-2021-10-25/

Posted by Rebecca Stefan.

Recently, investigators discovered the humans remains of Brain Laundrie who is a person of interest in the death of his financee Gabby Petito. Brain Laundries belongings were also found near the human remains such as his backpack and notebook. The article states, “Investigators earlier this week had found what appeared to be human remains and a backpack and notebook that belonged to Mr. Laundrie in the Carlton Reserve near Myakkahatchee Creek Environmental Park in North Port, Fla.” Dental records had confirmed that the body was in fact Brain Laundrie. 

Gabby Petito and Brain Laundrie were on a cross country road trip together in a van. Gabby was reported missing by her family about a week after Brain returned back home from the trip without her. Gabby’s family had last spoken to her in August when she was with Brain. The article states that “Her body was later found in a remote part of the Bridger-Teton National Forest in Wyoming.” It was confirmed that Gabby was killed by being strangled. Brain’s family also had reported him missing and there has been a nationwide manhunt for him. 

The widespread attention on Gabby Petitos case and death has caused debate as advocates and others are saying that missing people of color do not often receive this much of attention. The National Crime Information Center statistics say that there was more than 40,000 missing women in the U.S. at the end of 2020. Statistics also say that “Nearly 21,000 of these missing women were white, which includes both Hispanic and non-Hispanic white women. Close to 14,000 missing women were Black, 927 were Asian and 578 were Native American.” However, these statistics do not represent all of the missing person cases because local law-enforcement officials aren’t required to submit missing persons reports for people above the age of 21 to the NCIC database.

Rebecca is a business administration major at Seton Hall University, Stillman School of Business, Class of 2024.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/fbi-confirms-brian-laundries-remains-found-in-florida-wildlife-reserve-11634854963

Posted by Michael Dembiec.

Donald Trump has been under fire for many things over the course of his presidency, and even after his term ended. One major thing that has happened recently is having his twitter account banned around the time of the start of the Afganistan issues. He was extremely upset because he claimed that while his account had been banned, Twitter was allowing for members of the Taliban to own their own twitter accounts.

This has led Trump, in his frustration, to begin the process of launching his very own social media platform called True Social. Trump can be seen very frustrated within this article, as a quote from him states,  “Everyone asks me why doesn’t someone stand up to Big Tech? Well, we will be soon!”. While he did announce the platform, there are many secrets sourronding when it will launch, what it entails, and much more. He has been extremely frustrated due to his “unfair banning” from the twitter social media platform. The article claims that this new social network platform has gained an extreme popularity amongst the conservative media field. In the article they go on to explain the ampunt of funding behind the project, expected sales, and they even stated that it will be able to compete directly with other popular platforms, such as facebook, instagram, and even twitter. There are many people who disagree with Trump starting his own social network platform, and believe he is disrespectful and incompetant.

In my personal opinion, I believe that Donald Trump is in fact vulgar and rude sometimes, but I also believe that nobody should be silenced in voicing their opinions. This is America and we do have freedom of speech. Whether some disagree with his opinions, or even the manner in which he speaks, at the end of the day he should not be banned from Twitter. Even so, the fact that Taliban members are able to use the platform, but Trump cannot is a little ridiculous in my opinion. So yes, I believe that in creating his own platform, it will allow republicans and conservatives to voice their opinions freely. In all honesty it is a truly good thing and only time will tell if my statements and opinions are valid or can be fact-checked.

Michael is a student at Seton Hall University.

Link: https://www.wsj.com/articles/trumps-social-media-platform-joins-crowded-conservative-media-field-11635010334?mod=Searchresults_pos5&page=1

Posted by Jillian Greene.

A hot topic recently has been that Facebook creator, Mark Zuckerberg, is getting exposed for privacy and security issues. Originally starting in October of 2018 during the Cambridge issue, this theory of Facebook abusing their privacy policy and invading its users has been investigated for several years. Finally, attorney General Karl Racine has decided to file a motion adding Zuckerberg as a defendant on the case. He had found more evidence that Zuckerberg knew more about this invasion of privacy that prosecutors had believed. Facebook argues that since this was originally filed three years ago, the claims are not relevant. However, Racine stated, “It’s clear Mr. Zuckerberg knowingly and actively participated in each decision that led to Cambridge Analytica’s mass collection of Facebook user data and Facebook’s misrepresentations to users about how secure their data was.” This helps strengthen his accusation for Zuckerberg lying and acting unethically.

This step made by Racine was so important because it had been the first time a US regulator has added the creator in a complaint. Racine explained to the press how this case shows that even the highest CEOs of companies need to act correctly and if not, will get punished for their actions. He wants to prove how everyone, no matter your status, is objected to the law.

When it comes to this case, I completely agree with the Attorney General. Laws are made to be followed by everyone. They are created to represent society as a whole and when people think they are entitled to break these laws, they should be punished. In the past, CEOs have gotten away with plenty of misconduct due to their high status. I believe adding Zuckerberg as a respondent is a step forward in cresting fairness among all. What Facebook was doing with its users was not okay. By using Facebook and sharing private information, users show trust, and these creators are taking advantage of that. This also makes you think, if Facebook is doing this, what other social media platforms are as well? We store important information in these types of resources such as credit card information, addresses, pictures, etc. The idea that this information is not protected now makes all users feel uncomfortable and invaded. All in all, Zuckerberg needed to be reprimanded for privacy and security fraud as an example to all that laws apply to everyone.

Jillian is an undeclared major at Seton Hall University, Class of 2024.

Link: https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebooks-zuckerberg-named-in-suit-by-washington-d-c-attorney-general-11634741260