Posted by Kirsten T. Rewekant.

A somewhat recent case, Ellis Vs. Cartoon Network, Inc. shows how old statutes can be in conflict with the new and always updating technology. Ellis uses the Cartoon Network app on his android device to watch popular television shows that Cartoon Network airs. This is a free service, which you could choose to upgrade to pay for exclusive content that the free app does not allow others to see. When signing up for this extended service, you would create a profile with personal information that Cartoon Network would be available to see. Ellis had decided the free version was good enough for him, and therefore, did not give Cartoon Network permission to obtain any personal information.

Cartoon Network uses a service called Bango, which allows them to assign an ID number to everyone who views their content, free service or extended. This service does not know exactly who you are with any personal information, but is essentially learning who you are by linking all the shows you watch to your ID number, and therefore, learning what you like to watch. Through the service, the company is getting an understanding of who you are. Ellis tried to argue this to the court.

The court heard arguments as to whom is considered a consumer or producer. Cartoon Network argued Ellis is not considered a consumer under the definition of the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) because he does not provide any “personal identifiable information.” But Ellis argued, this ID number does show a side of his personality and gives the company his personal information. Finally, the court needed to decide whether Ellis can be considered a subscriber to Cartoon Network, which makes him a consumer under the VPPA. To be a consumer under the VPPA, you do not have to pay for a service, log in, or create a profile.

Overall, the court ruled Ellis as not a subscriber under the VPPA for not signing up for an account, providing no personal information, having no profile, not paying for the service, and he is not considered to have a committed relationship with Cartoon Network to obtain the exclusive content they offer.

Some issues with this ruling includes the fact that if you were to visit Cartoon Network on your web browser, you would not be assigned an ID number, as the app does. Another issue with this case is the very little distinction between downloading the app and being a subscriber to Cartoon Network and how these two do not show a difference in commitment. After this case, there are still questions regarding the VPPA regarding privacy, and therefore, there may need to be some revising.

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

Posted by Jessica Page.

In 2008 and 2009, there was a huge salmonella outbreak traced to peanut butter produced by the Peanut Corporation of America. Nine people died from this incident and 700 were reported ill. The $30 million company was shut down and liquidated after the incident and the CEO, Stewart Parnell, was indicted and prosecuted. In late September, he was sentenced 28 years in prison.

What’s intriguing about this article is the comparison to the GM faulty ignition case. In this particular incident, the defect caused 124 deaths and over 200 injuries. GM has recently settled for $900 million and a three year prosecution agreement. The major difference between the two cases though – indictment of employees. Preet Bharara, one of the best federal prosecutors in Manhattan, explained, “it is unusually difficult to prosecute auto industry executives” and because of the national auto safety laws, there is a call for punishing the corporation as a whole, rather than any one individual.

The main conviction in the salmonella case is the fact that Parnell committed fraud by “knowingly introducing tainted peanut butter paste into interstate commerce.” The fact of the matter is though, there were GM executives who knew about the faulty ignition but failed to report it within the five-day span. The company itself was fined as a corporation for this matter, but there was not specific indictment of GM executives. The real issue at hand is how much harder it is to prosecute auto executives when it comes to cases of product liability. There is currently a bill that many senators are working to pass that would make this process easier and hold executives accountable, if they were knowledgeable of the faulty auto product or provided false statements to consumers, as GM did. This could change future product liability cases within the auto industry and as Senator Blumenthal stated, “one sentence like Parnell’s [within the automotive industry] would change auto safety dramatically and enduringly.”

Jessica is a finance and marketing major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2016.

Posted by Gabriella Campen.

Unfortunately, in this day and age being well-known in Wall Street circles also happens to be synonymous with being well known by the SEC. The SEC has recently charged hedge fund manager Leon Cooperman, 73, of insider trading by using his easy access to executives to gather information, which he used to buy securities from a company called Atlas Pipeline Partners.  Cooperman’s information led him to buy more securities in the firm, right before the stock’s value soared over 30% due to the company’s $682 million dollar sale of a natural gas processing facility.

After the suspicious buy, the SEC filed a federal lawsuit in Philadelphia, and accused Cooperman of abusing his access to executive information, “By doing so, he allegedly undermined the public confidence in the securities markets and took advantage of other investors who did not have this information,” said SEC Enforcement director Andrew Ceresney.  Along with barring Cooperman from any positions as a director or officer in the future, the SEC is seeking restitution of profits as well as money penalties from Cooperman and his firm, Omega Advisors.

However, Cooperman’s attorneys, Ted Wells and Dan Kramer have released a statement claiming that these allegations are “entirely baseless” and that “Mr. Cooperman acted appropriately at all times and did nothing wrong. We intend to vigorously defend against the charges and will not allow the SEC to tarnish the legacy Mr. Cooperman has built over the course of a legendary career spanning five decades.”  Cooperman is firing back and defending his career and reputation, to which the SEC is saying that they “will continue to pursue relentlessly those who engage in insider trading, regardless of their status or resources.”  This comes as a lesson that no matter who you are or how much power you have on Wall Street, you are still not exempt from following the law.

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

Posted by Michael de Andrade.

A threat to European nations, Facebook is being seen as a social media giant who are stripping Europeans from their freedom. Facebook is being accused of “collecting digital information about people who are not its users,” by the Belgian Court’s. Many of the “Continent’s data watchdogs,” including the European Court of Justice, have been giving Facebook and other American technology companies a difficult time for the way they “gain access to, manage and use people’s digital information” because to these European “watchdogs,” Facebook is violating Europe’s strict data protection rules that preserves individual’s privacy to the same power as the “fundamental rights, such as freedom of expression.

The hearing was held in Brussels, Belgium on Monday, November 9th, where Facebook was denied the ability to “collect and store online information from people in Belgium who do not have an account with the social network” stating that Facebook did not have “individuals’ consent to gather the information.” With this decision, the Belgian Court took further action by stating that if Facebook fails to comply with the court’s decision, they’ll receive a “daily fine worth up to $270,000.” Facebook didn’t settle and in response they stated that they have used “cookies for more than five years without facing privacy complaints,” and that they are going to appeal the decision to the Belgian Court of Appeal. As the wait continues, Facebook is being further investigated by five European privacy regulators, which are from Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands and Spain, to see whether or not the “company’s new privacy conditions run afoul of their countries’ domestic data protection rules.”

In the end, Facebook is trying to combat these accusations by stating that only the Irish data protection authority has jurisdiction over its new privacy conditions because Facebook’s international headquarters are in Dublin. The position grew vastly in the last month after the European Court of Justice “gave national authorities greater powers over how companies like Facebook and Google store online data.” Facebook will continue to fight for what they believe are their rights, despite the judges’ ruling that the United States do not offer sufficient protection for Europeans if their data was misused by companies or by government agencies. The issue is still recently new and there are many situations yet to be settled.

Michael is a sports management major at the Stillman School of Business, Class of 2018.

Posted by Wing Sze Yu.

In this article, Facebook intends to appeal a data privacy ruling in Belgium. This privacy ruling forces social media to stop collecting digital information from people who are not its users. There is a tough line about how American technology companies, such as Facebook, gain access to, manage and use people’s information on their website even for the European Court of Justice, as well as the European Union’s highest court. In Monday’s ruling, a court in Brussels states that Facebook has no right to collect person information in Belgium who do not have an account with the social network.

Prior to the data privacy rule, Facebook had collect data from people’s online activities, both Facebook users and non Facebook users through digital cookies. Facebook responds that it had been using digital cookies to collect information without facing complaints, so it would appeal the ruling. Yet, Facebook promised to stop collecting online information from people in Belgium who do not have a social media account.

Wing is an accounting major at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University.

Posted by Mariafernanda Ayin.

Best Buy is considered one of the biggest electronic selling corporations, but not even the biggest companies can avoid problems. Best Buy has been selling products like TVs, computers, and appliances such as washing machines that have had recalls.  These recalls have been one of the biggest headlines in the past couple of months in the electronics industry.

Federal Law states that it is illegal to sell and distribute products to consumers that have been publicly recalled. Best Buy, allegedly knowing that they were selling recalled products, told the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission that they had created measures to stop the risk of selling recalled products, however they continue to do so. Therefore, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission decided to penalize Best Buy because the company was not able to effectively create procedures to be able to identify, separate, and avoid selling recall products. In addition, Best Buy failed to block the product code which caused them to get erroneous information that indicated that the recall product was not in inventory.

Best Buy is being blamed for selling over 16 different products and a total of 600 recall items from September 2010 through October 2015—400 of the items being Canon cameras. Some of the items sold had a risk of skin irritation, and even catching on fire, which could have caused enormous harm to the customers. Best Buy is a company that has shown a clear lack of ethics by knowingly selling and distributing recall products just to make a profit, not caring about the well-being of their customers. This unethical act caused Best Buy to settle and pay $3.8 million of civil penalty in thirty days and in addition the company needed to create a compliance program to show that they are strictly following the laws and regulations of the Consumer Product Safety Act.

After the settlement was made, Best Buy sent a spokesperson to publicly address the situation, making an announcement after the settlement, “we regret that any products within the scope of a recall were not removed entirely from our shelves and online channels. While the number of items accidentally sold was small, even one was too many. We have taken steps, in cooperation with the CPSC, to help prevent these issues from recurring.” (Kieler).

This whole dilemma that Best Buy has been through has put them in the eye of the public, and could of possibly affected their sales. However, they still remain one of the biggest companies in the electronic business, and most likely will surpass this situation.

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

The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.  Abercrombie allegedly denied a muslim woman a job at a Tulsa, Oklahoma store during an interview.  She was wearing a headscarf, which Abercrombie determined violated its “look policy.”  The “look policy” at the time was classic East Coast collegiate style.

The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Abercrombie ruling the muslim woman never indicated she needed a religious accommodation as required under federal law.  The EEOC argued Abercrombie was on notice that an accommodation was warranted because the woman was wearing the headscarf at the interview.

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a business operating with less than 15 employees (religious institutions exempted) must provide an accommodation for an employee’s religious observances, unless doing so is an undue burden for the company.  Examples of undue burdens could include, but are not limited to, costing the company more than ordinary administrative costs; workplace efficiency diminished in other areas of the business; infringing upon another employee’s job rights or benefits; impairing workplace safety; adding burdens on co-workers by forcing them to carry on the accommodated employee’s share of potentially hazardous or burdensome work; or conflicts with another law or regulation.

The High Court will decide the case next year.

Posted by Michael de Andrade.

A threat to European nations, Facebook is being seen as a social media giant who are stripping Europeans from their freedom. Facebook is being accused of “collecting digital information about people who are not its users,” by the Belgian Court’s. Many of the “Continent’s data watchdogs,” including the European Court of Justice, have been giving Facebook and other American technology companies a difficult time for the way they “gain access to, manage and use people’s digital information” because to these European “watchdogs,” Facebook is violating Europe’s strict data protection rules that preserves individual’s privacy to the same power as the “fundamental rights, such as freedom of expression.

The hearing was held in Brussels, Belgium on Monday, November 9th, where Facebook was denied the ability to “collect and store online information from people in Belgium who do not have an account with the social network” stating that Facebook did not have “individuals’ consent to gather the information.” With this decision, the Belgian Court took further action by stating that if Facebook fails to comply with the court’s decision, they’ll receive a “daily fine worth up to $270,000.” Facebook didn’t settle and in response they stated that they have used “cookies for more than five years without facing privacy complaints,” and that they are going to appeal the decision to the Belgian Court of Appeal. As the wait continues, Facebook is being further investigated by five European privacy regulators, which are from Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands and Spain, to see whether or not the “company’s new privacy conditions run afoul of their countries’ domestic data protection rules.”

In the end, Facebook is trying to combat these accusations by stating that only the Irish data protection authority has jurisdiction over its new privacy conditions because Facebook’s international headquarters are in Dublin. The position grew vastly in the last month after the European Court of Justice “gave national authorities greater powers over how companies like Facebook and Google store online data.” Facebook will continue to fight for what they believe are their rights, despite the judges’ ruling that the United States do not offer sufficient protection for Europeans if their data was misused by companies or by government agencies. The issue is still recently new and there are many situations yet to be settled.

Michael is a sports management major at the Stillman School of Business, Class of 2018.

Posted by Philip Lacki.

Trump’s tax plan will make it simpler to pay the government. After graduation, I plan on moving to Atlanta, GA and work for Delta Air Lines. Why am I getting into my future? Well because, U.S. companies pay the highest corporate taxes in the world, and as an aviation geek and enthusiast, U.S. Airlines pay some of the highest tax rates in the United States. U.S Airlines pay 38% in taxes, the highest in the industry. These numbers are ridiculous; only alcohol and tobacco companies pay these fees.

Delta Amsterdam, which is a foreign subsidiary based in the Netherlands of course, has a corporate tax rate of 25%. Delta has a large presence and hub at Schiphol Airport in Amsterdam and has brought some parts of its operations into the Netherlands. Donald Trump’s tax plan will help companies such as Delta come back into the United States and compete fairly.

Trump’s 15% tax rate will allow many U.S. based companies to be more competitive, provide more jobs, and operate more efficiently. Rates this high should be against the law and they need to be brought down. This post applies to business law because it applies to the laws of corporations and in this case, these companies aren’t being treated in a lawful way.

Philip is a public relations major at Seton Hall University with a minor in business administration at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2017.

The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.  Abercrombie allegedly denied a muslim woman a job at a Tulsa, Oklahoma store during an interview.  She was wearing a headscarf, which Abercrombie determined violated its “look policy.”  The “look policy” at the time was classic East Coast collegiate style.

The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Abercrombie ruling the muslim woman never indicated she needed a religious accommodation as required under federal law.  The EEOC argued Abercrombie was on notice that an accommodation was warranted because the woman was wearing the headscarf at the interview.

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a business operating with less than 15 employees (religious institutions exempted) must provide an accommodation for an employee’s religious observances, unless doing so is an undue burden for the company.  Examples of undue burdens could include, but are not limited to, costing the company more than ordinary administrative costs; workplace efficiency diminished in other areas of the business; infringing upon another employee’s job rights or benefits; impairing workplace safety; adding burdens on co-workers by forcing them to carry on the accommodated employee’s share of potentially hazardous or burdensome work; or conflicts with another law or regulation.

The High Court will decide the case next year.

Posted by Sara Firnstein.

Everybody knows that General Motors, or “GM,” has had its fair share of issues throughout the years. Many recalls have been raised based on multiple different issues. In 2014, GM came out and recalled over 3.4 million cars because of an ignition switch issue on top of the already 2.6 million small cars they recalled four months earlier to fix the same issue. GM said that they needed to change the keys to these cars. The major issue that prompted this recall is that the switch could rotate out of “run” if the key has excess weight on it. This could lead to the car shutting off the engine and then the power steering with become disabled, leaving the driver without any control. This recall had an effect on cars ranging from 2000 to 2014.

The most surprising facts about this recall is that after the first recall of 2.6 million small cars, GM has only repaired seven percent of the vehicles. This leaves ninety-three percent of the recalled cars not fixed yet, and another 3.4 million cars just recalled, which obviously haven’t been fixed yet either. Also, the effect of the first recall has caused a minimum of 54 crashes and 13 deaths, but lawyers who are suing GM say that there have been at least 60 deaths. The deaths from this issue are the most surprising, but also “GM has acknowledged knowing about the problem for more than a decade, yet the cars weren’t recalled until this year” (CBS News, 2014).

An issue that arose from these ignition switch recalls are the massive amount of lawsuits filed against GM. This has led to many different court cases and GM has tried to avoid lawsuits that deal with cars that were made by the old, pre-bankruptcy GM.  Recently in July, the “U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a bankruptcy judge’s ruling this week that had protected GM from those lawsuits because of the company’s 2009 bankruptcy restructuring” (Bomey, 2016). Because of this ruling, it may expose the new GM to liabilities for a defect that killed a minimum of 124 people and injured over 275 more in the small cars that were made by the old GM before bankruptcy. This ruling gives life to hundreds of cases where the victims decided to take their chances in court and refused to settle. Attorney Robert Hilliard says that he is happy for his clients because for years “the victims of the GM ignition switch have had their claims languishing in bankruptcy court and now these folks will have their day in court” (Bomey, 2016). These victims aren’t going to back down and GM has to continue to deal with the old GM car lawsuits along with the new GM car ignition switch lawsuits. GM is not out of the clear just yet, as they have to deal with these lawsuits that can now proceed based off of the court’s most recent ruling.

Sara is a criminal justice major with a minor in legal studies at the College of Arts and Sciences and the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

Works Cited:

GM recalls 3.4 million more cars for ignition defect. (2014, June 16). Retrieved September 26, 2016, from http://www.cbsnews.com/news/gm-recalls-3-16-million-cars-for-ignition-problems/.

Bomey, N. (2016, July 14). Court: Ignition-switch lawsuits against GM can proceed. Retrieved September 26, 2016, from http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2016/07/13/general-motors-bankruptcy-ignition-switch-lawsuit/87029916/.

Posted by Natalie Kenny.

The parent company that makes Old Spice, Proctor & Gamble, is being sued by Rodney Colley of Alexandria, Virginia because of a defect in the deodorant. The plaintiff shared photos of himself with burns under his arms which he claims are from Old Spice deodorant. The plaintiff says he suffered “severe rashes, burning, and discomfort” after he used the product and he had to stop using it. In the photo, the rashes look severe.

Procter & Gamble, the parent company that owns Old Spice said that the people who experience rashes and irritation from using the deodorant are in the minority and only make up a small fraction of the company’s overall users. After news broke of this lawsuit, several other individuals came forward with stories about how the Old Spice deodorant gave them rashes and scabbing. The five million dollar lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Ohio and is awaiting trial.

In my opinion, it is not okay for this deodorant to be giving people severe rashes. Even though Proctor & Gamble stated that only a small percentage of users get burns or rashes from the product that is simply not good enough. Consumers should not have to be concerned whether or not they will have a severe reaction to a product that they use every day.

I think that Proctor & Gamble should have to pay for the medical bills of the people who got severe reactions from this product as well as punitive damages to stop them from doing this and to get other companies to make sure their products are safe before selling them to the public.

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

Grand juries function to investigate criminal wrongdoing and screen out charges that do not warrant prosecution. Secrecy in the proceedings is paramount to carry out its duty. Therefore, litigants in a civil action cannot request that grand jury proceedings be disclosed, unless there must be a particularized need for the disclosure. That need must outweigh the public interest in its secrecy.

But why should these proceedings remain secret when court proceedings are generally conducted in public? The United States Supreme Court has said there are five reasons why grand jury proceedings should remain secret:

(1) To prevent the escape of those whose indictment may be contemplated; (2) to insure the utmost freedom to the grand jury in its deliberations, and to prevent persons subject to indictment or their friends from importuning the grand jurors; (3) to prevent subornation of perjury or tampering with the witnesses who may testify before grand jury and later appear at the trial of those indicted by it; (4) to encourage free and untrammeled disclosures by persons who have information with respect to the commission of crimes; (5) to protect innocent accused who is exonerated from disclosure of the fact that he has been under investigation, and from the expense of standing trial where there was no probability of guilt.

United States v. Proctor & Gamble, 356 U.S. 677, 681 n. 6, 78 S. Ct. 983, 986 n. 6, 2 L. Ed. 2d 1077, 1081 n. 6 (1958)).

One of the concerns is keeping witness names secret for fear that exposure could have a chilling effect on future witness cooperation in grand jury proceedings. Another concern is damage to the reputation to those investigated if they are not indicted by the grand jury or if the indictment is subsequently dismissed by a judge for legal or factual defects in it.

Particularized need requires the party requesting the grand jury information to show its relevance to the case and without it the party would suffer prejudice or an injustice. Courts may require the party seeking the information to exhaust all other means provided by the discovery process first. And if granted, the court may opt to review the material in camera to make sure the party’s need outweighs the public policy for grand jury secrecy.