Posted by Da’Naysia Aarons.

In an article called “Forced Arbitration,” Gordon Gibb, describes how citizens in the United States are taken advantage of by popular rich companies, such as, Time Warner Cable, T-Mobile, Wells Fargo and several others. Many consumers who buy products from these companies do not realize that they are facing forced arbitration.

Companies forced arbitration through a contractual clause that waives any rights to purse a dispute through courts. For example, a consumer decides to purchase a phone from T-Mobile. Before the consumer can buy the product he or she has to sign a document. In many cases, the force arbitration clause occurs in fine print at the bottom of the page, so many consumers are not aware of what they are signing. If the consumer does not sign the contract, they are not able to purchase their item. However, if the consumer signs the contract they receive their item.

If the consumer decides that he or she wants to sue the company, because something went wrong with the product, that consumer will never get their day in court because he or she signed the contract giving over that right. In the article, an appellate attorney, Deepak Gupta, states, “[Forced arbitration] is really an exit clause from the civil justice system and people aren’t aware that they’re even entering into these contracts.”

Force arbitration has become a popular issue in the United States. Several people are now starting to challenge its use. It is not right on how the government and companies are taking advantage of these consumers.

Da’Naysia is an international business major at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

Posted by Bridget Uribe.

During the month of March of 2014, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) charged three executives: Chairman Steven Davis, Executive Director Stephen DiCarmine, and Chief Financial Officer Joel Sanders of Dewey & LeBoeuf, the international law firm, with facilitating a $150 million fraudulent bond offerings. The SEC alleged that the three charged turned to accounting fraud when the firm needed money during the economic recession and steep costs from a recent merger.  They were afraid that their declining revenues might cause the bank lenders to cut off access to the firm’s credit lines. Thus, leading Dewey & LeBoeuf’s financial professionals came up with ways to artificially inflate income and distort financial performance.

The fraud didn’t stop there. Dewey & LeBoeuf then resorted to the bond markets to raise significant amounts of cash through a private offering that seized on fake financial numbers. Dewey & LeBoeuf since have officially went out of business, and the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office charged criminal charges against Davis, DiCarmine, and Sanders. According to the SEC’s complaint, the roots of the fraud dated back to late 2008 when senior financial officers began to come up with fake revenues by manipulating various entries in Dewey & LeBoeuf’s internal accounting system. The firm’s profitability was inflated by approximately $36 million (15%) at the end of the 2008 financial results. “The improper accounting also reversed millions of dollars of uncollectible disbursements, mischaracterized millions of dollars of credit card debt owed by the firm as bogus disbursements owed by clients, and inaccurately accounted for significant lease obligations held by the firm”(SEC Press Release).

Fast forward to the present, a New York judge declared a mistrial Monday bringing an end to the trial for the biggest law firm failure in U.S. history! The decision comes on the 22nd day of deliberations by a 12-member jury, which acquitted the ex-law firm leaders on several dozen counts of falsifying business records. The jury couldn’t reach a verdict on grand larceny and remained deadlocked on more than 90 counts charges facing Steven Davis, Joel Sanders, and Stephen DiCarmine. The three could have faced up to 25 years in prison if convicted of grand larceny, the most serious of the roughly 50 counts each brought against them. The defendants also faced related civil charges brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission and a private lawsuit brought by former Dewey investors who say, “They were duped into buying debt in a 2010 bond offering.” Both of those proceedings had been on hold pending the outcome of the criminal trial. Some highlights of the trial are: prosecutors had likened Mr. Davis to a drug kingpin, overseeing a criminal enterprise. Also, the defense side thought prosecutors didn’t present enough evidence to prove their case, thus choosing not to call any witnesses. Instead, the lawyers relied on the cross-examination of government witnesses to try to distance their clients from the actions taking place in the accounting department. At times, such questioning also prompted praise for the defendants from those on the stand. Where does this lead us now? How the Department of Justice completely lost the case or can a retrial give a favorable outcome in the future? It’s too early to tell, but what I do know is that the long deliberations and mistrial will raise questions about whether the case was too complex.

Bridget is a graduate forensic accounting student at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University, Class of 2016.

Posted by Ismail Surakat.

This is a case between Southern District of Georgia and Vania Lee Allen, a native of Jamaica, who committed a fraud and falsely impersonating a United Sates FBI special agent in connection with an international lottery fraud arrangement based in Jamaica. According to the indictment, 30-year-old Vania Lee Allen was charged for conspiracy to commit wire fraud and also, impersonating United States employee. Allen and her co-conspirator from Jamaica illegitimately enriched themselves through fraudulent lottery plan, targeting elderly residents of Evans, Georgia.

According to this case, Allen traveled from Jamaica to United States in May 2015 and presented herself as an FBI special agent in order to convince her victim. Though, before getting to this stage, Allen had made some movement such as informing the victim by phone that they had won money in a lottery game and instructed them to make some certain payments to her co-conspirator in Jamaica for them to collect their lump sum winnings. She also discussed with a co-conspirator in Jamaica on how to impersonate an FBI using a fake law enforcement badge with the “FBI” logo and the words, “Federal Bureau of Investigation.” Upon arrival at the victim’s place, Allen presented as an FBI special agent and asked the victim to speak on-line with her co-conspirator in Jamaica. All of this was made to look real; no doubt elderly citizens can fall victim to this type of  fraudulent act.

The case was investigated by the U.S. Postal Inspection Service and the Columbia County Georgia Sherriff’s Office, and is being prosecuted as well by Trial Attorney Clint Narver of the Civil Division’s Consumer Protection Branch and Assistant U.S.  Attorney Troy Clark of the Southern District of Georgia.

If Allen is eventually convicted, she faces up to 20 years in prison for the wire fraud, five years for the conspiracy count, as well as, up to three years for the false impersonation count.

Ismail Surakat is a pre business major at Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

Posted by Katie Kontos.

Years ago a YouTube video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7dLU6fk9QY) entitled Look Up went viral that urged the public to put down their phones and other technology to pay attention to the world around them. The most moving line says, “So look up from your phone, shut down the display take in your surroundings make the most of today.”

Well DeToya Moody, a 30 year old woman from Georgia, has proved in her court case against Allison Escott that it is possible to benefit from keeping your phone in front of your face. Moody claims that she never saw the orange ladder of a bucket truck prior to smacking her head on it one sunny afternoon. The ladder had been raised across a public sidewalk and surrounded by orange cones the first three times Moody passed it. Seeming to be a completely safe path to walk, the woman made it from her car to the store, back to her car, and then to the ATM without a problem. However, upon walking back to her car from the ATM, Moody, staring intently at her cell phone, did not see that the worker operating the truck had lowered the ladder and proceeded to walk directly into it. The physician who examined her after the incident diagnosed her with a mild head concussion, post-traumatic headaches, and an indentation on her head from the contact.

Moody and her lawyer attempted to settle out of court with the company owner of the truck and the worker operating the truck during the accident, but with the company offering to settle for $5,000 after being asked $75,000, it went to trial. So, after going to court the DeKalb County jury determined that Moody would be awarded $161,000. This is a great example of why many cases are settled by mediation or arbitration, because there is no way of knowing what a jury will decide when a suit is brought to court. The award could have been $175,000 but the jury deemed that the accident was eight percent Moody’s fault so they gave her 92% of the award.

Again, this is a perfect example of why most cases never go to trial. In court, Moody’s lawyer only asked the jury for $155,000 but they decided that the compensatory damages should be more than that.

After the trial “Robert Finlayson II of Mozley, Finlayson & Loggins, who defended the company that was using the truck said via email that he would contest the verdict.‘We were disappointed with the verdict, and we do plan to challenge it at the trial level and on appeal,’ said Finlayson, who described the case as well tried on both sides.”

I think that the monetary value awarded to Moody should, as it did, cover any medical expenses, but the plaintiff was right when he noted that the defense against Moody, that she wasn’t paying attention, was “the common sense argument,” and therefore, awarding her $161,000 is outrageous. This woman was clearly not paying attention and there is video evidence “showing the woman engrossed in her cellphone as she struck the ladder and collapsed onto the concrete.”

All in all, this trial just goes to prove that you never know what will happen when you take a case to court, and while it probably rarely works out this way, sometimes having your eyes glued to your phone helps you win $161,000.

Katie is a social and behavioral science major, minor in business and psychology, at Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

Posted by France Jennica Osmann.

As the holidays are approaching, Cyber Monday is the main day of the year where families are out for great deals for Christmas shopping online. A recent article in the San Jose Mercury News stated:

Cyber Monday is not the only day to find good deals online during the holiday season. If you miss an online special, don’t sweat: Chances are that you’ll be able to get a reasonable deal later in the holiday season or even after Christmas. Be aware of sales tax and any other fees. Depending on whether the merchant has an in-state ‘presence,’ it may or may not add sales tax — Amazon does, along with all merchants that have brick-and-mortar stores in California. California residents are supposed to declare any tax-free online purchases on their state tax returns and pay the sales tax, though I’m not sure how many people actually comply with that law.

For those who decided that they would shop on Cyber Monday, they should also be cautious of scams throughout the holidays. And don’t forget to protect yourself when shopping offline. “Credit card scams and hacks are on the rise so, again, check your recent activity frequently during the holiday season report any suspicious activity.”  The author of the article stated, “I was reminded of this the other day when my bank called to tell me that my Visa card was used to buy gas and groceries in Georgia. I haven’t been to Georgia since I got that card, so it probably resulted from a merchant being hacked.”

Finally, as you try to minimize the risk of online shopping scams, don’t forget that all shopping has risks. Personally, I’m just as worried about pickpockets in malls and fender benders in parking lots as I am about online scams.

France is a business management major at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

Posted by Sabrina Gilliam Formey.

Health care fraud may be more extensive than fraud in other industries because deception branches from an assorted group of players; those players being insurance companies, pharmacists, providers, suppliers, health care vendors, health care provider employees, physicians, specialists, and patients.  To compound the problem, some of those players are not only acting independently, but also participating in fraudulent activities within a network, or organized crime rings, and or with computer hackers who are unjustly profiting from committing health care fraud.  As a brief example, insurance billing claims that a facility submitted for a number of Alzheimer’s patients receiving “group therapy”, when they were actually placed in a room to watch the movie “Forrest Gump”, doesn’t scratch the surface on how persistent health care fraud has been; and how it continues to morph into new dimensions, that are discovered months and sometimes years after millions of dollars have been dispersed for fraudulent claims.

Lack of public awareness about health care fraud fosters a criminal subculture of operators that swindle unjust profits for their own personal gain.  Those fraudulent activities, not only create health and safety risks, but also drive up costs for healthcare.  These costs are later transferred to patients resulting in higher costs for care: higher employer sponsored or group premiums, higher deductibles, and higher co-pays.  Additionally, there are “double jeopardy” costs that further become a burden for citizens to bear through state and federal tax increases levied to close deficit gaps for government healthcare programs.

Common Channels for Health Care Fraud

1. Billing for services not rendered.

2. Billing for a non-covered service as a covered service.

3. Misrepresenting dates of service (billing one treatment date as separate dates).

4. Incorrect reporting of diagnoses or procedures (includes unbundling).

5. Overutilization of services.

6. False or unnecessary issuance of prescription drugs.

“According to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), national health expenditures in the U.S. reached $2.6 trillion in 2010 – 17.9 percent of GDP.”  With the expansion of coverage of an estimated 22 million people that were previously uninsured prior to the U.S. Affordable Care Act(ACA), health fraud crime will become an undeclared war between government agencies and insurance companies that are trying to stop these crimes and the many players that are many steps ahead due to the gap in systems, lack of controls, and stratagem for auditors/investigators deployed to  monitoring claims activities and continuous oversight that would be required.

Sabrina Gilliam Formey is a graduate student at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University.

Article

10 popular health care provider fraud schemes ‘Do no harm’ isn’t their motto By Charles Piper, CFE, CRT

January/February 2013

http://www.acfe.com/article.aspx?id=4294976280

Additional Readings

• Health care: A ‘goldmine’ for fraudsters

January 13, 2010: 3:07 PM ET   By Parija Kavilanz, senior writer

http://money.cnn.com/2010/01/13/news/economy/health_care_fraud/

• Blockchain: Putting the ‘Block’ On Healthcare Fraud, Waste, And Abuse

July 19, 2017, 08:16:38 AM EDT By Michael Scott Bitcoin Magazine

http://www.nasdaq.com/article/blockchain-putting-the-block-on-healthcare-fraud-waste-and-abuse-cm817907

Additional Readings

• Health care: A ‘goldmine’ for fraudsters

January 13, 2010: 3:07 PM ET   By Parija Kavilanz, senior writer

http://money.cnn.com/2010/01/13/news/economy/health_care_fraud/

• Blockchain: Putting the ‘Block’ On Healthcare Fraud, Waste, And Abuse

July 19, 2017, 08:16:38 AM EDT By Michael Scott Bitcoin Magazine

http://www.nasdaq.com/article/blockchain-putting-the-block-on-healthcare-fraud-waste-and-abuse-cm817907

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.

Posted by Jen Suarez.

To what extent is defamation? From my last blog article, I defined defamation as “malicious and damaging misrepresentation,” where an organization was falsely accused of rape. However, can anyone play to the “defamation card” if they don’t like what other’s have to say? For example, Yelp.com is a website where consumers can post and rate the quality of businesses anonymously. The Rhodes Group, which is a Collin County Texas real estate firm, received a poor review on the Yelp website and is now suing on the grounds of defamation; they are requesting the name of the customer, whose username is “Lin L.” The Rhodes Group does not even believe that “Lin L.” is a real person. In fact, they openly suggest that this username belongs to someone from a competing organization, trying to ruin The Rhodes Group’s reputation. The Rhodes Group, however, is fighting in court against Public Citizen, which claims that revealing the user’s identity violates the user’s right to privacy. Though the negative Yelp review has been removed, there is no confirmation its removal was due to the impending lawsuit.

The Public Citizen lawyer, representing Yelp, stated that there is no justification for revealing the user’s identity, especially since The Rhodes Group did not file any complaint until well over a year after the review had been posted. According to its website, “Public Citizen maintains that the Rhodes Group’s claim violates the one-year statute of limitation for libel suits and, additionally, that the subpoena was issued in the wrong state and therefore cannot be enforced by the Texas court.” The Rhodes Group is fighting back stating, “You can’t use the First Amendment as a shield to make false and defamatory statements about an individual, particularly in a commercial arena.”

The Rhodes Group is absolutely right that Yelp cannot hide behind the “First Amendment Shield,” however, Yelp and Public Citizen are correct that the user’s identity should remain anonymous and there is no justification to reveal it. Bad, anonymous reviews, whether they are fake or genuine, are part of the online world. Millions of users have the ability to hide behind a keyboard and this allows us to bestow harsher criticism without fear of consequences. Freedom of speech does not include libel. Therefore, the result of this court case could determine how “free” freedom of speech actually is on the World Wide Web.

Jen is a business administration major with a concentration in management at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

The Federal Reserve Bank of New York has come under fire recently with the release of secret tapes supposedly of regulators planning to “go soft” on Goldman Sachs.  Carmen Segarra, a former employee who was assigned to Goldman, claims in a lawsuit that she was under pressure by her superiors to overlook certain findings she made concerning the company.  The Fed eventually fired her allegedly because she refused to comply and change the findings.

In the recordings, one supervisor tells Segarra that basically consumer laws do not apply to certain institutions.  Michael Lewis, best-selling author of “Flash Boys: A Wall Street Revolt,” said after listening to the tapes that, “The Ray Rice video for the financial sector has arrived.”

Segarra’s lawsuit was dismissed for failing to connect her firing with the alleged Goldman disclosures.  The suit is pending appeal.  Nevertheless, the tapes may prompt a Congressional investigation into the matter.  Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), a member of the Senate Banking Committee, stated, “When regulators care more about protecting big banks from accountability than they do about protecting the American people from risky and illegal behavior on Wall Street, it threatens our whole economy.”  She further stated, “Congress must hold oversight hearings on the disturbing issues raised by today’s whistleblower report when it returns in November.”

Posted by Claudine Rosca.

Endo International PLC is a generics and pharmaceutical company that delivers medicines to patients in the fields of urology, men’s health, etc. Despite their professionalism, their products allegedly were defective resulting in liability. Product liability is the responsibility that a manufacturer incurs because they sell or create a faulty product. In 2014, Endo “agreed to pay more than $400 milion to resolve lawsuit allegations.”

Their vaginal-mesh implants had eroded in their female patients which cause painful side effects. The devices are used to “support internal organs and treat incontinence,” which is a lack of control over urination or defecation. Officer Rajiv De Silva “said the company way adding $400 million to its $1.2 billion liability reserve for the devices.” The company was blamed for organ damage in women, combining to over 10,000 suits. The issue with the company was their lack of “stricter safety requirements because they are high-risk devices.” As a result of the 2014 issues among companies such as Endo and Johnson & Johnson, the FDA ordered “vaginal-implant makers to study rates of organ damage and complications linked to the devices.”

Following the allegations in 2014, Endo continues to pay millions to resolve the sums of lawsuits against the company’s vaginal-mesh implants. Recently, Endo set aside $755 million for the eroded implants which constitutes almost $2.6 billion that was paid to wipe out cases. Their Dublin-based Endo was shut down after a piling of complaints against their devices. Other previously named companies continue to face thousands of lawsuits from women who argue against their devices. The U.S. FDA continues to increase regulations on mesh inserts but companies continue to manufacture and sell faulty products.

Claudine is an accounting and IT major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2021.

Sources:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-10-01/endo-said-to-pay-400-million-plus-in-vaginal-mesh-accord

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-07/endo-sets-aside-775-million-to-settle-remaining-mesh-lawsuits

Posted by Victoria Gencarelli.

Product liability is a prevailing issue and concern for companies and businesses who are marketing and selling their products. It is a company’s duty to take the liability for manufacturing and selling a product that is defective or damaged. By creating and issuing a defective product to the public, it increases the risk for dangers, damages, or harmful occurrences to take place with the use of the product. If in the case that a product is defective and capable of any danger, it is the company’s responsibility to issue a warning or a recall on the product. In this way they can they attempt to protect themselves from any legal issues and also protect the general public from encountering danger while using their products.

POM Wonderful is a company who produces fruit juices and fruit extracts, but is most commonly known for the produce of pomegranate juice. The Coca-Cola Company introduced a new “pomegranate blueberry” juice product, but POM wonderful believed the product to be false advertising to consumers. The juice was actually a blend together of apple and grape juices and only consisted of 0.2% pomegranate juice in it and also included the phrase “from concentrate with added ingredients and other flavors” in small typing. POM Wonderful presented this to the court in compliance with the Lanham Act because they believed that the name of the juice and the false advertising of the Coca-Cola Company’s “pomegranate blueberry” juice was misleading and contributing to a loss of sales for POM Wonderful.

In California federal district court, they deliberated the case and had not found POM successful in proving that the Coca-Cola Company was misleading their consumers into thinking that their “Enhanced Pomegranate Blueberry Flavored 100% Juice Blend” did not actually contain a high percentage of pomegranate juice. When the case reached the highest court, they disregarded POM Wonderful’s claim against the Coca-Cola Company and stating that Coca-Cola was not violating the FDA guidelines on product labeling. The POM Wonderful Company did lose out on millions of dollars in revenue and sales, but it was not seen as unfair competition and the jury ended the case in favor of the Coca-Cola Company. All in all, an issue such as this one has an overall impact on the food industry to be careful when labeling, marketing, and advertising their products to the public. It is always important to keep product liability in mind when generating products and selling them in order to avoid any potential problems in the long run.

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

Posted by Amber Piskunov.

GNC is a widely known and trusted nutritional health retailer that is now being sued for allegedly selling products known to contain an illegal amphetamine-like stimulant. The two chemicals are called Picamilon and BMPEA. In addition to selling the illegal drug, GNC clearly intended for it to be hidden because the chemical was not listed under the nutritional facts or ingredients. In today’s world, many people want to see fast results, such as losing weight or gaining muscle. Stimulants can do that by reducing digestion and hunger, while also increasing your energy output. However, it should be known that these drugs are illegal, addictive, and sometimes deadly. GNC didn’t properly label the product, making it dangerous for the consumers without prior knowledge of purchasing. The investigation is being aided by the US Food and Drug Administration; they have announced that the chemical is illegal and should not be sold to consumers. After this was found by the FDA, GNC has taken all products containing the chemical off the shelves for sale.

The lawsuit states that “GNC sells products obtained from third-party vendors that GNC knows or should have known it contained unlawful and potentially unsafe ingredients.” Being a previously trusted 2.6 billion dollar retailer of “nutritional and healthy supplements,” GNC has now publicly hurt their name because of the chemicals found. Consumers are most likely going to be worried about buying products from GNC because of the secret ingredients that were previously hidden. GNC has since denied any knowledge of the drug in their products or on their shelves, and the ones in question have been removed. They have also mentioned they are protected by federal regulations. The company is denying the claims against them and is strongly defending themselves against the lawsuit.

GNC has caused their company to have bad publicity, a decline in stocks, and also a decline in profits. This is a serious lawsuit regarding consumer safety. GNC was not properly selling their product and did not have the best intentions for the well being of the consumers. With that being said, GNC is now trying to gain sales back by promoting lower prices and a better store experience. This is a way for the company to try to stay stable while dealing with the negative attention the lawsuit has brought. The warning made by the FDA stated the product is, “a substance that does not meet the statutory definition of a dietary ingredient.” The laws were not followed when the company decided to not only put the chemicals in the product but to also not have it labeled for consumer knowledge. The public will now be safer with the product being off shelves. GNC ended up losing profits instead of gaining profits because statutory laws were not met.

Amber is an accounting major at the Feliciano School of Business at Montclair State University, Class 2017.

Sources used:

http://www.bidnessetc.com/56383-gnc-holdings-inc-gnc-hits-new-52week-low-whats-instigating-the-crash/

http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/22/news/companies/oregon-ag-lawsuit-gnc/

http://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/blog/the-pulse/2015/11/gnc-targeted-in-5m-class-action-lawsuit.html

Under new FDA rules, movie theaters, chain restaurants, and supermarkets with 20 or more locations will have to provide calorie counts on the foods they sell.  The stores have until November 2015 to comply and provide calorie information on their menus.  Amusement parks, vending machines, bakeries, coffee shops, and convenience stores must also comply with the new rules.

The move to include these food establishments came from a push by the restaurant industry.  Restaurant owners argued that grocery stores and the like that sell prepared foods should also be made to place calorie counts on their food.  “Representatives for the supermarket industry have said it could cost them up to a billion dollars to put the rules in place — costs that would be passed on to consumers.”

Smaller outlets are exempt from the rules for now, as are airplanes, trains, and food trucks.

Posted by Da’Naysia Aarons.

In an article called “Forced Arbitration,” Gordon Gibb, describes how citizens in the United States are taken advantage of by popular rich companies, such as, Time Warner Cable, T-Mobile, Wells Fargo and several others. Many consumers who buy products from these companies do not realize that they are facing forced arbitration.

Companies forced arbitration through a contractual clause that waives any rights to purse a dispute through courts. For example, a consumer decides to purchase a phone from T-Mobile. Before the consumer can buy the product he or she has to sign a document. In many cases, the force arbitration clause occurs in fine print at the bottom of the page, so many consumers are not aware of what they are signing. If the consumer does not sign the contract, they are not able to purchase their item. However, if the consumer signs the contract they receive their item.

If the consumer decides that he or she wants to sue the company, because something went wrong with the product, that consumer will never get their day in court because he or she signed the contract giving over that right. In the article, an appellate attorney, Deepak Gupta, states, “[Forced arbitration] is really an exit clause from the civil justice system and people aren’t aware that they’re even entering into these contracts.”

Force arbitration has become a popular issue in the United States. Several people are now starting to challenge its use. It is not right on how the government and companies are taking advantage of these consumers.

Da’Naysia is an international business major at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

Research proposal posted by Brian Kane.

In the digital age, the rights and laws regarding privacy are being contested now more than ever. Today personal privacy, both digital and physical, is being discussed. One of the earliest examples of privacy laws in the United States is the 4^th amendment. Under this amendment gives “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” (Fourth Amendment, U.S. Constitution). This and other laws, including the Federal Wiretap Law of 1968, are designed to protect the individual against unlawful searches of personal property by an unfair government. The individual right to privacy is held sacred in this country.

However, the laws of privacy protection are not absolute. Communications and interactions in general areas, such as online chatrooms, and digital communication used for work. Surveillance monitoring by employers has been contested by employees in courts in multiple cases. In City of Ontario, California v. Quon, for example, a search was justified because there were “reasonable grounds” and done “for a non-investigatory work-related purpose” (Ontario v. Quon).

Some argue that the privacy laws are for the best interests of individuals. Individuals and consumers are protected when the monitoring parties have clearly defined limits and barriers. When the government requires search warrants and the corporations are required to obtain consent, the best interests of those being monitored are kept in mind. The constant surveillance by powerful entities removes the right for individuals to act freely and live their own lifestyle. Gratuitous monitoring dehumanizes the employee and implies guilt without any evidence.

Privacy law is not completely virtuous, however. Like all laws, some may seek to exploit privacy law and use it to shield unproductive, immoral, and unethical behavior. When employees use corporate email accounts for personal business, they often claim a right to privacy when investigation begins. Many act recklessly online in this digital age, assuming that the right to privacy is absolute and unbreakable. There are instances where there is legitimate reasons to investigate an individual. When there is probable cause, public good supersedes individual privacy.

The issue of privacy and surveillance laws raises many ethical questions. The rights of individuals and the definition of individualism is put into question when anyone is monitored by a third party. There is concern for the maintenance of human dignity, as some see these searches dehumanizing and distressing on private lives. Pope Leo XIII spoke out against increased surveillance, saying that it intruded and lead to control over individuals. In Catholicism, the holy sacrament of confession revolves around the private recounting of sins and transgressions. When discussing privacy, the matter common good is raised. Aquinas believes that law is created for the common good, “made by him who has the care of the community and promulgated” (2 Bix).

Privacy and Surveillance Law is a widely contested issue in the catholic faith and general ethics. It has its advantages and disadvantages, as any other issue in law, but it will continue to be contested as new innovations shape the information age.

Works Cited

Bix, Brian H. “Secrecy and the Nature of Law.” October 2013. University of Pennsylvania School, Center for Ethics and the Rule of Law. Web. 3/3/2016. Avaliable: https://www.law.upenn.edu/live/files/2418-bixsecrecy-and-the-nature-of-law-full

City of Ontario v. Quon. 560 U.S. 746. Accessed 3/3/2016.