Posted by Justin Tello.

Fortnite is a game known across the globe for its massive rise in popularity in the gaming world. Many individuals at different age groups have played the game for its enjoyability. Like most games, you can purchase in-game currency to buy cosmetic items to customize your character. Because the game is mainly marketed towards younger age groups, it is of great possibility that kids would purchase the in-game currency without their parents knowing. This is exactly what occurred and landed the creators of Fortnite to pay $275 million to resolve this problem. 

A more detailed description of what Epic Games actually violated reads as follows, “The FTC said in a statement Tuesday that the FortniteLinks to an external site. maker “used dark patterns and other deceptive practices to trick players into making unwanted purchases” and also “made it easy for children to rack up charges without parental consent.”. The use of dark patterns specifically refers to the gently coercive design tactics used by countless websites and apps that critics say are used to manipulate peoples’ digital behaviors. Because of this customers who were affected can claim their settlement fund if eligible. The following people who are eligible reads as follows,  “Users who were charged in-game currency for items they didn’t want between January 2017 and September 2022, parents whose children made charges to their credit cards on Fortnite between January 2017 and November 2018 or users whose accounts were locked sometime between January 2017 and September 2022 after they complained to their credit card company about wrongful charges. Claimants must be 18 years old; for younger users, their parents can submit a claim on their behalf.” Customers have until January 17, 2024 to claim their settlement funds.

In my opinion, I believe Epic Games to be guilty solely for the fact they should be aware that a majority of their users are in a younger age group. Another factor I believe that plays into this is the fact that Epic Games pumps out purchasable content on a daily basis for their users to purchase. Nonetheless I believe parents of those kids who committed this act should be more attentive to what their children do within the games they play.

Justin is a finance major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/19/tech/fortnite-refund-settlement-claim/index.htmlLinks to an external site. 

Posted by Madison Womack.

This article discusses the monopoly that Google holds against other search engines. The U.S. Justice Department is accusing Google of engaging in unlawful practices which has summoned an ongoing antitrust trial with Google. Specifically, Google has been using their financial advantages to establish a position as the default search engine on mobile devices, which hurts competition and accuses Google of anticompetitive practices In response to this, Google is arguing that they offer a superior product and spend their money in the right places, which is to their scientists and investments in research and innovation.

The big question in this article discusses user preferences. The U.S. Justice Department suggests that Google pays billions to phone markers and carriers to guarantee their status as the default search engine. However, Google states that the choice for most users on Windows computers is Google, even with Bing being the only search engine installed when purchased. Professor Olsen, a professor who teaches at Boston College Law School, states in this article, “defaults don’t really matter, people are picking the superior product.” Google’s monopoly of the search engine is leaving the tech industry frustrated, and the outcome of this trial will show how tech giants are held accountable when using unfair practices.

When examining this trial, it is apparent that Google’s actions can be seen from two different perspectives: one that questions their ethics and another that acknowledges their strategic resource investments. Right now, Google is viewed as the “bad guy” in the tech world. Competitors view Google as an industry titan that outspends other companies to secure their position as the #1 search engine. Google has become a huge company that has beaten out competitors of healthy market competition and turned into monopolistic control. When viewing the trial from a competitors perspective, I can see how it seems like Google cannot be defeated. However, Google has been in the same boat as all other search engines. Google’s search engine is appealing to all types of consumers, which makes them the top for a reason. They invest smart, and consistently deliver products and services that earned them where they are today. In my opinion, I can see both points of this trial. Google is being accused of their unfair advantages when it comes to their practices, however, Google used their resources to invest in innovation and research which is how they are able to present a superior product to customers.

Madison is a finance, accounting, law student at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2025.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2023-10-09/google-googl-antitrust-case-is-about-search-engine-monopoly-and-ai Links to an external site.

Posted by Sean Ruple.

Wages for U.S. auto workers have declined by roughly 17%, since 2010. In response, the United Auto Workers association is fighting for higher wages, changes in pensions, and an increase in job security. The UAW is claiming that “corporate greed is keeping workers from earning fair wages” as CEOs from the 3 major companies (Ford, Stellantis, and General Motors) have taken home $1 billion collectively, since 2010. Just last year, CEOs; Mary Barra (GM), Jim Farley (Ford), and Carlos Tavares (Stellantis) took home massive yearly salaries reaching up to $34.1 million dollars. Wages for the auto industry have been depleted, as the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that since 2003, the average hourly rate for auto workers has declined by about 30%. A few factors impacting a scale back in wages has been the rise of non-unionized car production in the US, as well as the UAW agreeing to lower wages for new hires at the Detroit Three plants in 2007.

Workers are getting tired of drops in salary, while CEOs remain unscathed from pains in the industry. Additionally, General Motors and Ford have tried to undo concessions agreed to during the Great Recession. One of the benefits, being pensions, as any workers hired after 2008 will not receive one. Pensions can be costly for a company, as a study found that companies save 13.5% on long-term employee payroll costs when defined pension benefits are frozen. Additionally, the article claims that “Since 2005, GM has cut its retirement obligations by almost 70%, according to Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Steve Man, Ford has trimmed its pension liabilities by almost half in that same time frame” (Greenwald 1). This proves that company’s and CEO’s may be more inclined to cut company costs and liabilities, instead of support workers in a laborious field for the long term. This will certainly impact employee retention rates, as workers feel expendable and will be less likely to work for a company long term. Meanwhile, during union negotiations, wages have been the focal point, as the UAW has asked for a 40% jump in raises, with a minimum of 30%. In response, Ford has claimed that a 23% raise is as high as it can go, with GM and Stellantis reluctant to offer anything above 20%. This topic has a lot to do with ethicality, as the auto industry is failing to raise employee wages and provide concessions for workers, while still using massive funds to pay CEO’s, high-level management positions, and for vacant battery plants. This can relate to workers’ rights in the court of law, as employees have been given little compensation for a loss of pensions and prolonged decreases in salary.

To make matters worse, 65 plants have been closed or spun off by GM, Ford, and Stellantis in the past 20 years. Additionally, the auto industry is transitioning to EVs, as the union wants more job security in the future. This makes the job market for auto workers even more scarce, possibly giving companies even more leverage to put off wages and employee concessions. On the other hand, vehicle manufacturing workers still make more than the average private sector worker, and UAW members are also paid higher than non-unionized workers in the sector. CEO Barra has claimed that company labor costs are already 22% higher than Tesla’s, and fulfilling the asks of the UAW would only give them more of a competitive disadvantage. This leads us to wonder if only a few companies are sacrificing employee wages to limit liabilities, or if the entire industry is a problem?

Sean is a student at Seton Hall University.

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-practice/detroit-carmakers-paid-1-billion-to-ceos-as-auto-wages-slumped?context=search&index=37

Posted by Matthew Susi.

I chose the following current events article from Fox Business: United Airlines to seat window passengers first to cut down on boarding time. The reason I chose this article is because I am a frequent United passenger and always hate the boarding process. United Airlines is working on implementing a new boarding process that allows those who are part of the economy club, with window seats to board before those with middle and aisle seats.

The idea of this is to save a whopping 2 minutes total of boarding time, per flight. “The seating plan, called WILMA, which stands for window-middle-aisle, will save up to two minutes on the boarding process for each flight, the memo said. The change will affect all domestic and some international flights.” The best part is, they are implementing this policy today, October 26th. United Airlines had previously used this window-first boarding process before 2017, but it had to condense passengers with middle and aisle seats into Group 4 when introducing its carry-on restricted Basic Economy product.

First-class, business-class, and pre-boarding passengers, including those with disabilities, unaccompanied minors, active-duty military, and families with children under 2 years old, will not be affected by this change. United Airlines is introducing this change as a response to the boarding process now taking an extra two minutes compared to the pre-pandemic period. They have conducted tests at different locations to ensure that the new method effectively decreases boarding time. Even though it is only saving 2 minutes, that makes you get to your vacation spot 2 minutes faster which passengers will love!

Matthew is a finance major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2025.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/united-airlines-seat-window-passengers-first-cut-down-boarding-timeLinks to an external site.

Posted by Claire O’Neil.

“Why Maine’s ‘yellow flag’ gun law so clearly isn’t enough” written by Christian Heyne, Chief Policy & Programs Officer, highlights why gun laws just simply aren’t enough to protect us against mass shootings. Recently, in Lewiston, Maine, another mass shooting has occurred resulting in the loss of eighteen lives. Other countries do not seem to experience mass shootings like the United States does. However, under our constitution “the right to bear arms” still holds strong. The media seems to want to highlight that the shooter had a mental illness and that was the cause of the shooting. However, the article suggests that by scapegoating mental illness it is “irresponsibly promoting the myth that links mental illness with dangerous perpetuates stigmas that create even more barriers to mental health care.”

According to the article, “extreme risk laws are a proven and effective way to prevent gun suicides and mass shootings.” A “yellow flag law” was implemented in Maine with the intention of preventing gun violence by stopping those with a history of mental illness from obtaining firearms. However, this law lacks the public health perspective necessary to have an impact because it only permits law enforcement to file a petition. This does not include family and friends. The yellow flag law in Maine really functions in direct opposition to extreme risk laws. The article states that extreme risk laws “work by empowering law enforcement, families or other professionals to ask a court to temporarily prohibit an individual’s access to firearms if that person shows they are at risk of harming themselves or others.”

These rules, which prevent not only mass shootings but also gun suicides, which account for three out of every five gun deaths in the United States each year, are now only present in 21 states plus the District of Columbia. “The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, signed into law last year by President Joe Biden, will invest $750 million over five years to educate the public so that extreme risk laws can be used as effectively and efficiently as possible.” In my opinion, this article highlights our constitutional law of “the right to bear arms” while also explaining the relevance of state gun laws. The United States seems to endure mass shootings far too frequently, and our laws are at fault for not protecting our people better. In my opinion, there needs to be a way to ensure that guns do not get into the hands of people who cannot use them in the appropriate ways. We also need to put the appropriate people in positions to make these decisions and laws that will actually make a difference instead of continuing with the seemingly never-ending cycle of gun violence in America.

Claire is a communications major at Seton Hall University, Class of 2025.

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/lewiston-maine-shooting-yellow-flag-laws-rcna122376Links to an external site.

Posted by Matias Molina.

Novo Nordisk, a pharmaceutical corporation, is suing Wells Pharmacy and Brooksville Pharmaceuticals, two pharmacies. These pharmacies, according to Novo Nordisk, are selling “adulterated and misbranded injectable compounded drugs” that purport to include semaglutide. The active component of well-known weight-loss medications such as Wegovy and Ozempic is semaglutide. Novo Nordisk is concerned that patients may be at danger from these compounded medications, and they have noted reports of side effects that some patients have experienced.

According to Novo Nordisk employee Jason Brett, their testing of these compounded medications revealed some concerning results. In one sample, there was 33% of something that shouldn’t have been there, which could put patients at risk. Dr. Christopher McGowan discusses a poorly regulated segment of the medical industry in which pharmaceutical compounds are manufactured in a manner distinct from that of FDA-approved versions. He claims that people may be at risk from this. By suing these pharmacies, Novo Nordisk is attempting to prevent them from selling these compounded medications. Additionally, they want to prevent Wells Pharmacy from misrepresenting the FDA approval status of their medication, among other things. In contrast to Novo Nordisk, Brooksville Pharmaceuticals claims their product is both safe and efficient. They contend that, like themselves, state-licensed compounding pharmacies are vital to the supply of essential pharmaceuticals to Americans.

This case, in my opinion, shows how challenging it is to ensure that compounded medications are both safe and effective. People may select these options without realizing they could be dangerous, particularly in cases when there is a significant demand for medications that aid in weight loss. The legal action taken by Novo Nordisk emphasizes the necessity of stringent regulations to protect the public’s health and ensure the reliability of medicines that have been licensed.

Matias is a sports management major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2026.

Link: https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/novo-nordisk-takes-legal-action-against-pharmacies-sellig-weight-loss-drugs-that-are-not-fda-approved

Posted by Kathleen T. Meagher.

“In mid-may 2023, the CEO of ChatGPT or OpenAI, Sam Altman, openly stated to Congress that the time has come to have regulators “start setting limits on powerful AI systems”. Due to the “significant harm to the world” these powerful AI systems can pose to human kind, both Altman and lawmakers alike have agreed that having the use of the government’s assistance and oversight will be “critical to mitigating the risks”. Due to AI’s immense rise to popularity and saturation within the social media market, “ the use of generative AI has exploded”. In the article, AI, specifically generative, AI, is considered to be a “Big Bang Disruptor”. This most simply defines it as “a new technology, from the moment of release, offers users and experience that is both better and cheaper than those with which it competes”. According to the Burbage used in this article, this rising rate of usage within an open AI systems can be both interpreted as positive and negative. Both authors define these systems as remarkable, limitless, and excitement-inducing. However, they go on to mention that the seemingly limitlessness of these programs provide potential issues like privacy, bias, and even national security, even going so far as to say that it is “reasonable for lawmakers to take notice” of this.

Both authors, Blair Levin and Larry Downes, highlight that the U.S. Congress is attempting to spearhead the regulation of AI. An example of this can be seen in the article when Chuck Schumer “calling for preemptive legislation to establish regulatory ‘guardrails’” on AI products and services is mentioned. Some of these guard, rails and tail, focusing on government, reporting, user transparency, and “aligning these systems with American values, and ensuring that AI developers deliver on their promise to create a better world”. Both Levin and Downes go on to foreshadow that the vagueness of this proposal lacks promise. Personally, pending on the ethics of every AI developer, this can go one of countless ways. I believe that solely having AI developers be considered the judge and jury for such a globally used and widespread product, cannot possibly be a sound choice. Alongside the U.S. Congress’s attempt at regulating AI, the Biden Administration believes that they are also in competition to implement a White House blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights. Similar to the “guard rails” of Congress, the White House’s “AI Bill of Rights” has a call to action for developers to ensure the neutrality of the systems in order to prevent privacy violations. In addition to this, the department of commerce, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) has “ opened an inquiry about the usefulness of audits and certifications for AI systems” well also requesting comments on dozens of questions regarding “accountability for AI systems, including Weather, when, how, and by whom new application should be assessed, certified, or audited, and what kind of criteria” should be included in that conversation. Both Levin and Downes mention that in addition, the federal trade commission has made claims that their agency already has jurisdiction over AI. I am in a grants when the federal trade commission chair, Lina Khan, states that AI could lead to the exacerbation of pre-existing issues in technology like “collusion, monopolization, mergers, price, discrimination, and unfair methods of competition”. In addition to this, risks of turbo charging fraud, committed intentionally or otherwise by AI, become elevated. Engaging the assistance of the United States courts, European Commission, or Congress, in the regulation of multiple avenues utilizing artificial intelligence pose questions for business owners. This inevitably becomes a larger question of the government’s involvement in regulating the operations of one’s businesses both in the U.S. and globally.

Although upsides can be hypothesized for AI’s relation to businesses, the line becomes muddied regarding what areas AI is cleared to have involvement in after the above mentioned laws are put into action. Some limit it to be solely in the health and medical fields, whereas it has been used in recent times in the hiring processes for certain fields. The issues that AI potentially poses for businesses include “misinformation, copyright, and trademark abuse” according to both Levin and Downes. According to the authors, the implementation of joint government actions to regulate AI is futile as they believe that law advances incrementally while technology evolves exponentially. I cannot say that I agree with this statement entirely as it is not entirely true. The reasoning for why technology has been allowed to evolve exponentially is due to the lack of regulation and implemented rules.”

Kathleen is a marketing major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2025.

Harvard Business Review Article Link:

“https://hbr.org/2023/05/who-is-going-to-regulate-ai Links to an external site.” “Government Policy And Regulation Links to an external site.‘Who Is Going to Regulate AI?’ by Blair Levin Links to an external site. and Larry Downes Links to an external site.”

Posted by Markus Hand.

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review a case involving the National Rifle Association (NRA) and its claims that a former New York state official, Maria Vullo, unconstitutionally pressured insurance companies like Chubb Ltd. and Lloyd’s of London to cease doing business with the gun lobby. The case also names former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo as a defendant. The NRA alleges that the actions of these officials amounted to “blacklisting” and violated their free speech rights. This case will have significant implications for the extent to which government officials can use their positions to undermine the activities of advocacy groups. The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments and make a ruling by the end of June.

The dispute revolves around Vullo’s investigation of the NRA’s “Carry Guard” insurance program, which covers losses associated with the use of personal firearms, including criminal defense costs. The NRA claims that Vullo extended her targeting to other insurance products endorsed by the NRA and threatened insurance companies with investigations and penalties if they didn’t distance themselves from the gun rights organization. The NRA cites guideline letters and a press release in which Vullo urged insurers to consider the reputational risk of dealing with the NRA, particularly following the 2018 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida.

Vullo’s lawyers argue that she did not violate the First Amendment and was merely expressing her views regarding a national tragedy and encouraging regulated entities to evaluate their relationships with gun-promotion organizations. This case raises important questions about the limits of government officials’ authority in influencing the actions of private entities related to advocacy groups, and the Supreme Court’s decision will impact how such cases are handled in the future.

Markus is a sports management major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2024.

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/nra-gets-supreme-court-review-on-new-york-blacklisting-claimLinks to an external site.

Posted by Christine Han.

This recently published article, “Bankman-Fried’s Pre-Trial Antics Haunt Him Before Sentencing,” was written by Matthew Bultman, who takes a deep dive into the topic at hand. Sam Bankman-Fried has recently spent his time behind bars as he waited for conviction of defrauding FTX customers. Former federal prosecutors believe that Bankman-Fried will receive over 20 years in prison since this is a “high-profile white-collar case” like that of Elizabeth Holmes (who defrauded Theranos Inc. investors). Others suggest that, on the high end, 31-year-old Bankman-Fried can be subject to life in prison. In some cases, the judge could be more lenient, but, apparently, Bankman-Fried “did himself no favors by rankling the judge, both before and during the trial.”

According to District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, Bankman-Fried has “‘shown a willingness and a desire to risk crossing the line in an effort to get right up to it, no matter where the line is.’” In the past, prosecutors had raised concerns about Bankman-Fried’s use of encrypted messaging to contact FTX’s US general counsel, which was flagged as an attempt at witness tampering. Bankman-Fried has continuously denied the accusation of defrauding FTX customers by depicting himself as inexperienced with running a business. Along with these actions, he has also lied on the witness stand.

I believe that, given the amount of money that was involved in this defrauding scheme, Bankman-Fried’s sentencing could be much longer. In fact, as the article mentioned, it is possible for the judge to reduce his sentencing, but it is evident that Bankman-Fried is not on his best behavior. In fact, the article mentions how prosecutors have compared this case to that of Bernie Madoff, “who in 2009 was sentenced to 150 years in prison for running a Ponzi scheme that lost billions of dollars.” In my opinion, if a sentence this long has occurred before for a case similar to Bankman-Fried, it is very possible for him to receive life in prison.

Christine is a mathmatetical finance and IT management double major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2026.

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/securities-law/bankman-frieds-pre-trial-antics-haunt-him-before-sentencing-1Links to an external site.

Posted by David Gabriel.

The article discusses the growing number of lawsuits aiming to disqualify Donald Trump from running for the presidency again in 2024 due to his alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. These cases primarily revolve around Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which bars individuals who engaged in insurrection from holding public office. The legal battles pose several untested questions, such as whether courts can enforce disqualification, whether this measure applies to a president’s conduct, and whether the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack constitutes an “insurrection” and if Trump was involved in it.

Lawyers and judges involved in these cases anticipate that the US Supreme Court may ultimately need to resolve this issue. With state election officials finalizing ballots in early 2024, the Supreme Court might be forced to address this matter quickly. The cases have raised concerns about potential chaos, with some states allowing Trump on their ballots and others excluding him. The outcome of these legal battles remains uncertain, but they highlight the complexities of various election laws and court procedures in different states.

As of now, more cases are being filed across the country, and some have already been dismissed due to procedural defects. Trump and his campaign have had to prepare for these legal challenges well in advance of the upcoming elections, as the lawsuits continue to unfold in multiple states.

David is a sports management major at the Stillman School of Business, Class of 2026.

Article Link: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-11-05/trump-2024-election-ballot-challenges-could-go-to-supreme-court Links to an external site.