Posted by Marley Havercome.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Melissa Guerbi.

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Lynette Grajales.

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Dylan Espineli.

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Nina Davis.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Olivia Beauvois.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citations:

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

Posted by Kevin Lizano.

The Fox News piece chronicles the details of a court deposition presented by the plaintiff’s attorney, a ‘Q and A’ where evidence of Epstein’s criminal culpability might be put on the table for all to see. During the deposition, the well-connected Epstein, a banker with many powerful acquaintances, is met with questions about his associates and his behavior. Yet instead of responsive and thoughtful answers, Epstein is said to have frequently pleaded the Fifth as the phrase goes, he has kept his mouth shut. In keeping with strategic phenomenology, Epstein was also repeatedly not answering questions, obstructing efforts at ‘knowing’ the facts. The plaintiff’s attorney asked questions about Epstein’s relationship with the former US president Bill Clinton, for example, with the explicit hope of getting the banker to talk more openly about the matter. Epstein’s ‘not answering’ drew attention to this challenge and offered ways to recast the image of Epstein Speaking of justice, a fund that is meant to support the victims of sexual abuse obtained money from Epstein because he pleaded guilty to a charge of soliciting prostitution with a minor.

This means that, in precisely the instance in which there might exist an alternative image of Epstein, legally instituted self-protection emerges to its fullest extent to impose itself on the prevailing image of Epstein. Adding to the challenge of disentangling Epstein’s network of associates, this phenomenally infused legal self-protection points to the real difficulty involved in the effort to do justice, and to the inability to do justice, when cases include powerful and wealthy people. Lawyers chase­d justice for Jeffrey Epste­in’s accusers. He avoided de­tails, using his legal rights. Their questions faced barriers and evasions. The de­position showed Epstein’s wide impact and proble­ms holding powerful people re­sponsible. He hid behind laws and se­crecy. This exemplifie­d challenges to privilege­ and authority structures. Epstein made difficult the­ pursuit against elite misconduct.

The story also shows the long shadow that Epstein’s legal fight has cast, and how the search for accountability has lived on past his death. Deposition, a small part of a bigger picture, might seem like a bite-sized narrative of a man crumbling, but it serves as a reminder of the challenges that come with taking on powerful people, especially as Epstein’s story continues to unfurl through the court system and in the court of public opinion. It captures all of the struggle and complications involved in seeking the truth in situations that are shrouded in secrecy, dishonesty and the abuse of power, and all of the struggle involved in seeking justice for Epstein’s victims and making anyone connected to his alleged crimes account for their actions. The latest release contains a deposition of Tony Figueroa, a driver for Epstein and Maxwell and former boyfriend of the one-time massage therapist Virginia Giuffre, who is one of Epstein’s best-known accusers. Giuffre says that she was trafficked and coerced into having sex with Epstein and other wealthy and powerful people by Maxwell and Ghislaine’s ex-husband. During Figueroa’s deposition, he says that Epstein would often ask him to drive girls to the mansion, stating “They looked like … um … 16-, 17-, 18-year-old girls.’ He continued: ‘Each time he pays me $200 for each time right when we drop them off.’

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/epstein-allegedly-invoked-5th-amendment-times-deposition-skirted-questions-clinton

Kevin is a business information technology management major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2026.

Posted by Matthew Albino.

For my Legal Foundations of Business extra credit assignment, I chose an article entitled “Thomson Reuters launches new AI tools for legal professionals” by Eric Revell of Fox Business. This article was published on March 2nd, 2024. This article is about Thomson Reuters, a media and information firm based in Toronto, Canada. It details their release of a new artificial intelligence that helps legal professionals in a variety of ways. Most notably, David Wong, the company’s chief product officer, claims their new product will help legal professionals draft contracts and research complicated legal topics more efficiently. Some of the company’s new AI products include their Ask Practical Law tool and CoCounsel tool, with the company looking to spread their products to global markets.

This article highlights the company’s Practical Law tool, which uses generative artificial intelligence to provide law professionals with answers about legal questions in a timely manner. Wong compares his company’s Practical Law tool to SparkNotes and Wikipedia, stating, “I like to think of it as like a SparkNotes or Wikipedia of the law, but really helping you to do your work as a contrast to Westlaw, which is a deep research system for the details of the law.” This tool is used by a variety of legal professionals across the country, including independent lawyers, lawyers in law firms, and corporate lawyers. Another exciting feature Thomson Reuters has is called Ask Practical Law AI, where law professionals can access summarized content from a database created by 650 lawyers. In addition, the company’s AI-powered CoCounsel tool is also interesting, and this tool uses generative AI to help legal professionals prepare dispositions, draft correspondence, search databases, and summarize documents.

Thomson Reuters is making strides to expand its AI tools globally, too. For example, their CoCounsel tool which just launched in the United States in 2023 is now formally available in Canada and Australia. The company is currently working on it becoming available in Europe and the U.K. as well. While its tools are undoubtedly useful, Thomson Reuters makes sure to let its users know about the limitations of its tools. For example, its CoCounsel tool includes footnotes after the tool “hasn’t been able to successfully retrieve the sought after result.” According to Wong, this helps prevent “AI hallucinations” and fosters customer trust.

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

Article Link

Posted by Nathaniel Vojt.

Apple is facing a lawsuit over their monopoly over cloud storage for Apple devices. Certain files are restricted to only being stored via Apple’s iCloud platform. Only iCloud can host some data from Apple’s devices including application data and device settings that users need to access when they replace their device. Cloud storage allows users to store and access data remotely.

As a result, iCloud controls the market with an estimated 70% share. iCloud is among Apple’s most      profitable products/services, producing higher margins than its other products because it has been “undisciplined by competition.” Apple has marked up its prices so high that iCloud is generating almost pure profit. This is a testament to Apple’s monopoly power.

According to the complaint this practice has “unlawfully tied” Apple’s mobile devices and iCloud together, the complaint says. Apple does have cloud platform competitors, the complaint said, pointing to technology companies such as Alphabet Inc.’s Google and Microsoft Corp, as well as specialists like Dropbox Inc. However, juggling multiple cloud accounts with different interfaces to store non-restricted data, such as photos, is an “unattractive option” for users, the suit said.

Nathaniel is a student at Seton Hall University, Class of 2026.

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/apple-faces-antitrust-class-action-alleging-icloud-monopolyLinks to an external site.

The case is Gamboa v. Apple Inc., N.D. Cal., No. 5:24-cv-01270, 3/1/24. Link to lawsuit on Bloomberg website: https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/FelixGamboavAppleIncDocketNo524cv01270NDCalMar012024CourtDocket?doc_id=X4LCILN1RHR81IRG50GNOAUM9P2Links to an external site.

Posted by Ansh Vakharia.

My name is Ansh Vakharia I am a freshman at Seton Hall University, and I am majoring in finance. When I was a kid, the news line about Edward Snowden really intrigued me, which is why I decided to read an article about data breaching. In the article “IRS Leaker Sought Job With Aim of Releasing Trump Tax Returns, DOJ Says” by Richard Rubin, it discusses the consequences of Charles Littlejohn, an IRS worker who leaked Donald Trump’s tax returns. Before his deliberate plan, Charles Littlejohn worked for Booz Allen Hamilton, with a primary focus on the consulting firm’s contracts with the Internal Revenue Service. In late 2018, Littlejohn had an articulate plan to leak Trump’s tax returns from an IRS database. Rather than going through the individual records, Littlejohn decided to employ search limits that would include Trump’s tax information without taking a big risk. Although Littlejohn came prepared, he faced issues due to the IRS being able to track large downloads of data. However, he created a loophole in the system by downloading the information from his private website. Henceforth, Trump’s private tax returns were leaked. Littlejohn’s sophisticated ability to maneuver through IRS deception shows his proficiency in completing data breaches.

Littlejohn’s articulate plans would come crashing down as federal prosecutors accused Littlejohn of unauthorized disclosure of tax information. In the 15-page court filing, prosecutors stated, “A free press and public engagement with the media are critical to any healthy democracy, but stealing and leaking private, personal tax information strips individuals of the legal protection of their most sensitive data.” Littlejohn pleaded guilty to the charges, and prosecutors are demanding Littlejohn face up to 5 years in prison. The case shows the importance of maintaining privacy for confidential information and how leaking information puts lives in jeopardy. In addition, it shows how complex data breaching cases are complicated due to prosecutors speculating that other malicious people were involved in the breach. “In a court filing Friday, Justice Department lawyers said Griffin “refuses to accept that Littlejohn acted alone.” Not only does this case show the consequences of Charles Littlejohn, but it also highlights the importance of fortifying security defenses.

This case is very similar to Edward Snowden’s leaking NDA files; however, I do believe Littlejohn’s case is quite worse due to Snowden’s case involving the general public. I don’t have an opinion on Snowden since I don’t know his true intentions. However, I believe Little John deserves to be prosecuted due to his violation of the 4th Amendment. The deliberate plan to leak someone’s private tax returns raises ethical and security concerns not only for Trump but also for US citizens. The case highlights a connection with the media and the general public: reporting on such events can cause public trust in the government to decline and public enlightenment on how important cybersecurity jobs are. In the future, I do believe they will be the most pivotal jobs to ensure citizen privacy and security. In conclusion, the verdict of Charles Littlejohn seems ethical based on his deliberate attempt to evade IRS security loopholes and his pleading, which was guilty.

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

Link https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/irs-leaker-sought-job-with-aim-of-releasing-trump-tax-returns-doj-says-93944811