Posted by Dalton Soffer.

Erin Andrews, a sportscaster who has worked for ESPN and currently for FOX, was recently awarded $55 million by a Nashville jury for her civil lawsuit against a Nashville, Tennessee hotel owner and her stalker Michael David Barrett. In 2008 Barrett used a hacksaw to tamper with Andrews’ peephole and secretly video taped her while she was undressed. The video was later released on the internet, and it turned in to a nightmare for Andrews. Her privacy was taken from her and she was publicly humiliated after the video surfaced. Andrews gave an emotional testimony and sent out an emotional post on twitter saying the support she has received throughout the whole process has helped her fight to hold those accountable for whose job it is to protect everyone’s security, safety, and privacy.

Andrews originally sought $75 million in her suit however the court settled for $20 million less than that. The jury found the stalker, Barrett, was 51% at fault and was ordered to pay out $28 million, while the West End Hotel Partners, which owns and operates that Nashville Marriott at Vanderbilt University, was found to be 49 percent at fault and asked to pay out more than $26 million. The West End Hotel Partners has said that Barrett is solely responsible for his criminal actions.

In my opinion, I feel like the settlement amount was fair but I do not feel that it was properly divided between the guilty sides. Barrett was more at fault than 51%, I would say he was more like 75% at fault in this and should be ordered to pay more of the settlement.

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

Posted by Chase Mulligan. 

On October 21, 2016 a coordinated distributed denial-of-service attack (DDoS) was made on internet systems operated by Domain Name Systems (DNS) provider Dyn resulting in massive disruption of internet services across the United States and Europe. Internet services along most of the east coast, west coast, and southern parts of the country were affected. The cyber-attack has been called an “historic attack”; (flashcritic.com) the first robot-based digital assault using the Internet of Things that linked millions of on-line devices in a coordinated operation. This tactic uses a novel approach of manipulating electronic devices connected to the Internet of Things for the attack capitalizing on the weak security of these devices and raising the question of responsibility and liability.

Anonymous and New World Hackers using recently released malicious software (malware) called Mirai, created a robot network for the attack. The significant aspect of the attack is the use of the Mirai botnet code to take control of devices that are used on what is called the Internet of Things. These devices are electronic devices not directly connect to computers but are connected through the internet and include such items as webcams, smart TV’s, routers, security cameras, DVRs, and similar devices. By using these electronic devices the hackers were able to take control of a virtual army of attackers. While the multiple attack across multiple directions is considered sophisticated, the actual use of the electronic devices is considered uncomplicated. Many of the compromised electronic devices are used by homes or small business and often lack security capabilities or contain elementary security that is easily compromised. The hackers had little difficulty installing the Mirai malware and taking control of the devices when needed for the attack.

Security organizations are taking measures to identify the comprised devises and developing ways to combat the Mirai command and control system. However, the cost and potential liability for placing unsecured or poorly security protected electronic devices on the Internet of Things is a looming question. If someone or a company experiences a significant loss of money, compromise of data, or destruction of assets; who is liable? Surely the hackers, but are the companies that market poorly or non-secure smart electronic devices; is the person or concern that uses the devices responsible, jointly or wholly? An area of Cyber-law is now in the making.

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

Posted by Renaldo Nel.

Uber is considering leaving the state of New Jersey if a proposed bill passes. This proposed bill’s main objective is to implement tough regulations regarding commercial insurance.  There is currently an ongoing debate whether there is a gap in the insurance coverage of Uber drivers. Insurance industry experts and New Jersey law makers argue that Uber’s operations are not covered sufficiently. Currently Uber’s commercial coverage, which it buys for its drivers, kicks-in the moment the driver accepts a ride request. Lawmakers want to change this and require that the insurance is in place from the point which the driver logs onto the Uber Application. They argue that there is commercial benefit whilst the driver is waiting for someone to request a ride.

Furthermore, lawmakers assert that the personal insurance cover of the driver often does not cover any incident that occurs if the driver is logged-on to the application. They argue that it is vital that the driver is insured between the time that he logs-on and the time he or she gets a ride request. Uber disagrees.

Uber states that more often than not, personal insurance will pay for any incident that occurs between the time the driver logs-on and waits for a ride. Uber furthermore states that they have insurance in place in the event that the personal coverage of the driver does not pay. If this is true, one would not know at this stage. Uber does however claim that “rides on the platform, beginning to end, from when the driver turns on the app to when they drop a person off is insured. Any claim to the contrary is incorrect” (Mohrer). Christine O’Brien, president of the Insurance Council of New Jersey, states that “It is clear under New Jersey law that people who engage as an UberX driver are not covered by their private passenger auto policy. That is a very clear conclusion.”

I believe the problem here is to find out what the actual truth is. We need to determine whether these drivers are sufficiently covered or not. If not, then extra commercial insurance would most definitely be needed. If Uber claims that they provide insurance for the time frame in controversy, then they should provide proof of this insurance.

I understand that law makers are only trying to protect the common citizen, however, I also understand Uber’s argument that the proposed law is burdensome. Uber claims that the level of coverage proposed is higher than that of what is expected from taxi operators. Furthermore, Uber states that four states, including Washington D.C., have passed transport network regulation, and that these regulations are not nearly as burdensome as those proposed in New Jersey.

Uber is many people’s livelihood, and I understand their frustration as it can easily be seen as a vendetta against Uber drivers. New Jersey lawmakers should take into consideration what other states have done and see how they can accommodate both parties.

Renaldo is an economics major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

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 Natalie Kenny.

Amazon just received a major success in a lawsuit against them. Amazon was being sued over a book sold on their website. This book was based on New England Patriots star, Rob Gronkowski. Greg McKenna, a middle-aged man, took up the pen-name Lacey Noonan and wrote a book called A Gronking to Remember. This book gained a lot of media attention and was even featured on the show Jimmy Kimmel Live. On the cover of the book, there is a photo of a couple. McKenna used this photo on the cover but did not legally obtain the rights to use the photo.

The couple shown in the photo sued Amazon for selling the book with the illegally obtained photo of the couple. The question of the lawsuit was whether or not third-parties like Amazon should be responsible for what their users distribute using their platform. After hearing the case, an Ohio district court judge said that Amazon is not responsible for what its users distribute using their website. The judge cited the Communications Decency Act, which states that “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” This rule goes the same for Amazon and Barnes & Noble when selling books.

I think that the decision made in this case to side with Amazon was the right decision to be made. Amazon and other book sellers should not have to check every single thing that is sold to make sure that there are not copyright issues. The person who should be getting sued in this particular case should have been Greg McKenna–the one who used the picture without permission. It was wrong of him to use this photo without permission but it should not be Amazon’s responsibility to make sure that whoever is selling products through their platform is doing everything they are supposed to be doing.

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

Posted by Kyle Chapman.

On January 18, 2015, the New England Patriots played the Indianapolis Colts in the AFC Championship. The Patriots would go on to win the game, but a massive legal controversy would follow in the aftermath of the game. Reports arose after the game that the Patriots had used footballs inflated below regulation towards their advantage during the game. Using footballs against regulation is a very consequential action and the National Football League was not happy with the reports one bit. A massive investigation and legal battle between the Patriots and the NFL would ensue.

A few days later, the NFL assigned Manhattan attorney, Ted Wells, to get to the bottom of the situation. The case was receiving heavy media coverage and had the Patriots’ public image in hot water. Nobody from the organization admitted to being aware of the apparent cheating and denied any involvement. The investigation was completed on May 6, 2015 with a 243 page investigative report known as “The Wells Report.”

The Wells Report appeared to have the Patriots caught red-handed. A very important aspect of the report came from scientific analysis provided by Exponent, which claimed that no set of environmental or physical factors could’ve accounted for the air loss shown in the balls. This meant that the air loss were the actions of people, and accused locker-room attendant Jim McNally and equipment assistant John Jastremski as the culprits. There were several text messages between that reference inflation, deflation, and needles. The texts suggest that Patriots quarterback, Tom Brady, was aware of their actions, but the coaching staff was unaware. The investigation concluded that it was “more probable than not,” that the Patriots equipment personnel had broken the rules.

The NFL decided to suspend Tom Brady for four games and give the Patriots a $1 million fine while stripping them of draft picks. Brady pursued an appeal on his suspension and began a long legal battle with the NFL. He felt falsely accused and very harshly punished. After a long battle, on September 3, 2015, a settlement was reached and the suspension was taken away, with a claim that Brady had a lack of fair due process.

I think the situation could’ve been handled much better than it was. For starters, the media had completely scrutinized the scandal and blew it out of proportion. I think it pinned Brady and the Patriots in guilty before proven innocent image, even though there wasn’t much evidence at all that showed their involvement in the scandal. There were also leaks of false evidence early on that made the Patriots appear guilty.

The NFL has been in hot water lately with legal situations and I think this whole case hurt their image.

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

Posted by Tiffany Zapata.

Wells Fargo is the most recent bank to get caught in the act of predatory lending. The bank was accused in court filings of targeting minorities, such as black and Latino borrowers, for more costly home loans in comparison to whites. The acts took place in Cook County, Illinois, with a population of about 5 million. The case was filed in Chicago federal court.

The bank’s strategies encompassed home-loan origination, refinancing, and foreclosure. Their main concentration was equity stripping. Equity stripping is asset based lending which maximizes lender profit and makes it nearly impossible for the borrower to pay it off due to onerous loan terms. Before getting caught, the bank got away with 26,000 loans. The court order called for 300 million dollars in money damages.

Tom Goyda, a spokesman for the San Francisco-based Wells Fargo stated: “It’s disappointing they chose to pursue a lawsuit against Wells Fargo rather than collaborate together to help borrowers and home owners in the county,’’ Goyda said. “We stand behind our record as a fair and responsible lender.”

Wells Fargo is also currently involved in a lawsuit with the federal government due to its mortgage lending. This is not the first time courts have seen these sorts of acts from banks. Miami and Los Angeles filed similar suits alleging banks were “red-lining” minorities to block loans and for not informing investors on the status of the mortgages that were sold.

Wells Fargo ended up wining the lawsuit brought by the City of Miami in July. The City claimed Wells Fargo sold predatory mortgages in neighborhoods immersed with minorities before the “housing bubble burst.” The judge decided the City was not qualified to file these claims under the Fair Housing Act. The decision is being appealed.

Tiffany is a business administration major with a concentration in international business at Montclair State Univsersity, Class of 2016.

Several states have statutes that make it a crime to refuse to take a breathalyzer if suspected of driving under the influence. Some states, like New Jersey, make refusal a civil offense. The High Court is reviewing statutes in North Dakota and Minnesota that make it a crime for people suspected of drunken driving to refuse to take alcohol tests. Drivers prosecuted under those laws claim they violate the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures.

The justices questioned lawyers representing the states as to why police cannot be required to get a telephonic warrant every time they want a driver to take an alcohol test. “Justice Stephen Breyer pointed to statistics showing that it takes an average of only five minutes to get a warrant over the phone in Wyoming and 15 minutes to get one in Montana.”  However, this may not be correct.

“Kathryn Keena, a county prosecutor representing Minnesota, suggested some rural areas may have only one judge on call, making it too burdensome to seek a warrant every time. She said even if a warrant were procured, a driver could still refuse to take the test and face lesser charges for obstruction of a warrant than for violating drunken driving test laws.”

Telephonic warrants have also been the rule in New Jersey since 2009. Recently, the New Jersey Supreme Court reversed itself, reverting back to the federal standard requiring police to obtain a warrant after establishing they have probable cause. Under the more stringent standard of using telephonic warrants, police were complaining it took to long to reach a judge. Police also used consent forms they carried, causing an outcry from the defense bar that such a practice may lead to further abuses. Justice Anthony Kennedy said the states are asking for “an extraordinary exception” to the warrant rule by making it a crime for drivers to assert their constitutional rights.

The problem for the states is that without the threat of a refusal penalty, the only proof available at trial as to whether someone was intoxicated while driving is the observations made by police. Observations, however, cannot prove blood alcohol level.

Posted by Patrick Osadebe. 

On September 17, 2014, a federal judge sentenced Timothy Cromer, a former Detroit public library official, to 10 years in prison for bribery and conspiracy to commit bribery. He was charged for accepting more than $1.4 million in bribes from contractors of the library.

Timothy Cromer, 46, was the chief administrative and technology officer for the Detroit library from 2006 to 2103. Cromer helped James Henley set up a company called “Core Consulting and Professional Services.” Cromer then made it possible for the company to win the bid to provide information technology in the library.

Cromer also collected kickbacks from another individual who was charged in the indictment. All of these crimes took place between 2008 and 2011. Hearn and Henley both plead guilty to the charges and are currently awaiting sentencing on October 28, 2014.

Patrick is a finance major at Montclair State University, Class of 2016.

Bank of America (“BofA”) recently settled with the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency for deceptive credit-card practices.  BofA is ordered to pay $727 million in refunds to customers and $45 million in penalties.

The allegations were BofA induced customers to purchase certain add-ons, such as identity-theft protection, debt cancellation, credit monitoring and credit reporting services.  Some services were superfluous since they were already mandatory under federal law. Others were never received by the customer.

The allegations included BofA defrauded 1.4 million customers through “deceptive marketing” practices, and about 1.9 million customers were illegally charged for credit monitoring and credit reporting services that were not provided.

Richard Cordray, Director of Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, stated, “Bank of America both deceived consumers and unfairly billed consumers for services not performed.  We will not tolerate such practices and will continue to be vigilant in our pursuit of companies who wrong consumers in this market.”

In class, students learn about bribery of public officials and its criminal penalties. Bribery can also be an ethics violation. Generally, public officials are prohibited from accepting gifts in relation to their official duties. Both federal and state governments have fashioned rules regarding acceptance of gifts and these rules can extend to family members.

In Section III of the New Jersey Uniform Ethics Code, for example, it states that no state officer or employee “shall accept any gift, favor, service or other thing of value related in any way to the State official’s public duties.” The same holds true for federal judges. Under the Regulations of the Judicial Conference of the United States under Title III of the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 Concerning Gifts, judges “shall not accept a gift from anyone who is seeking official action from or doing business with the court . . . .”

But there are exceptions to the rules and each one has to be carefully construed. Some, like the New Jersey Uniform Ethics Code, will permit certain “gifts or benefits of trivial or nominal value” as long as the gift “does not create an impression of a conflict of interest or a violation of the public trust.” Other codes may provide a dollar-limit. For example, the “Regulations” for federal judges above provide that gifts having “an aggregate market value of $50 or less per occasion” are permitted “provided that the aggregate market value of individual gifts accepted from any one person . . . shall not exceed $100 in a calendar year.”

Common sense is the foundation of these rules. If the gift has the appearance of impropriety, it is better to graciously decline it.