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.”

Los Angeles will pay 24 million dollars to two men who spent decades in prison for crimes they did not commit. In one case, lawyers and a team of students from Loyola Law School challenged a key witness’s testimony. In 1979, Kash Delano Register was charged with the armed robbery and murder of Jack Sasson, 78, after eyewitness testimony placed him at the scene at the time of the shooting. The witness told police she heard gunshots and she saw Register fleeing the scene. The witness selected Register out of a photo lineup, but her sisters told police that her story was untrue. No murder weapon was recovered and no fingerprints were found. Based solely on this witness’s testimony, a jury found Register guilty and he spent 34 years in prison.

The witness’s sister testified she tried to tell a detective that her sister had lied, but in response, the investigator allegedly put a finger to his lips indicating she should keep quiet about it. Her other sister told the police that she was lying, but even her pleas were ignored. Register’s attorneys claimed that the witness selected him under the threat of being prosecuted for credit card forgery and a recent theft if she failed to choose someone out of the lineup.

In the other case, Bruce Lisker was accused of murdering his mother. “At the time of the murder, Lisker, who had a reputation for fighting with his mother and a history of drug abuse, told police he saw her lying in the foyer and broke into the home to help her. They did not believe him.” During a hearing challenging the conviction, lawyers undermined or disproved key elements of the prosecution’s case, including that a bloody shoe print that could not have been made by Lisker’s shoes. His attorneys claimed “that the lead detective ignored evidence that Lisker’s friend may have been a possible suspect.”

In every arrest and criminal prosecution, someone’s liberty is at stake, and these cases illustrate the importance that prosecutors and police get it right. Money can always be replaced. But no one can ever get back all those years lost in prison, as a result of being falsely accused.

Posted by ZaAsia Thompson-Hunter.

The Federal Communications Commission(FCC) is trying to enforce the disclosure of media contracts from various media companies. These companies include widely recognized corporations such as Disney, CBS, Comcast, Time Warner, and many more. These highly established media corporations oppose the order because they affirm this action will put them at a competitive disadvantage.

Earlier this month these media companies put in a request to the U.S court of appeals to stop the disclosure of their programing contracts. In response, the FCC stated that disclosure “’will aid the commission in the expeditious resolution of these proceedings.’”

Announced on November 14,2014, the media companies won the order to block the request made by the FCC. In connection, “a federal appeals court in Washington today said regulators reviewing the merger can’t immediately let third parties see the contracts.”

ZaAsia is a business administration major at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

Posted by Ovais Ahmed.

An article posted on bloomberg.com talks about an appeal made by ex-Goldman Sachs trader Deeb Salem to get an extra $5 million he thinks he deserves in bonus money. He has already received $8.25 million and still wants to get more money out of his former company. I don’t understand why the trader can’t settle with the money he has already made, which is more than the average American would probably ever make. To me, it spells out nothing but greed. Salem states he helped Goldman Sachs earn $7 billion in profit and was sought after by many investment professionals in his industry. The article states:

In September, Justice Eileen Bransten denied Salem’s request to set aside a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority panel decision to dismiss his claim, and granted Goldman Sachs’s request to seal portions of the dispute with the former trader. Salem told a state appeals court in Manhattan today that the judge erred in her decision, according to a filing. Salem claimed he helped the bank earn more than $7 billion, and told the arbitration panel Feb. 25 that he was one of the most sought-after investment professionals in the mortgage industry. The panel, described by Salem’s lawyer as a ‘kangaroo court,’ didn’t let Salem call some of Goldman Sachs (GS)’ top trading executives as witnesses, resulting in a miscarriage of justice, according to his original petition.

Goldman Sachs claimed they gave Salem the opportunity to give his evidence, and followed through fully with the law in denying his award claim. Therefore, Salem has appealed the decision is continues his fight for the extra $5 million he believes he deserves due to his efforts at Goldman Sachs.

Ovais is a business administration major with a concentration in management at Montclair State University, Class of 2015.

Posted by Ovais Ahmed.

An article posted by the Wall Street Journal talks about the time it takes for high courts to actually hear a case. The average time runs around 6 years, and since 2009 that time period has been extended. There has been a case involving two businesses that are battling about who gets trademarks rights to screws they use. The article states,

The Supreme Court on Tuesday will consider a business battle over trademark rights for screws that has been in the courts for more than 16 years, an extreme example of how cases headed for the high court can be matters of endurance. . . . The average age for a high court case is nearly six years, but 37% of cases have taken longer since 2009. In most circumstances a case can spend at least three to four years in the courts before resulting in a high-court ruling.

The process to get a case heard at the high court is a true test of endurance, and the willingness to wait the time period in order to get the issue resolved in these courts.

The cost of legal fees overtime can add up to high numbers, and is one of the reasons people involved in the case can get emotional. The article states, “ Given the time and money litigants put into cases, emotions can run high by the time the Supreme Court gets involved. That is true in the long-running trademark case before the court this week.” There isn’t a specific reason that cases take so long to be heard in the Supreme Court, but it’s just that some rulings for appeals happen to take a while. Criminal cases are considered more important, and so if a civil case arises during the same time as a criminal matter, the civil case will have to wait.

The Supreme Court only sits 9 times out of the year, and if a case lands on the right timing of when the court sits, that case is likely to be heard quicker than if it landed during off season. If one needs a case to be heard in Supreme Court, I suggest he or she has the time, money, and endurance to wait his or her turn.

Ovais is a business administration major with a concentration in management at Montclair State University, Class of 2015.

Posted by Devaki Sidhaye.

Recently department of Justice announced largest ever health care fraud enforcement action by the Medicare Fraud Strike Force, involving 412 individuals, including 115 doctors, nurses and other licensed medical professionals. Their involvement in health care fraud scams totaling approximately $1.3 billion in false billings. As per the department, many of the charges were related to medical professionals illegally prescribing opioids and other prescription narcotics, some of which were then sold on the street. Furthermore, according to federal officials, a rehab facility in Palm Beach, Fla., recruited addicts with gift cards, drugs and visits to strip clubs, billed the government for over $58 million in false treatments and tests. A clinic in Houston allegedly gave out prescriptions for cash. Some falsely billed Medicare and Medicaid. Narcotics officers have arrested schoolteachers, doctors, nurses and fellow law enforcement personnel (Merle, 2017).

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, approximately 91 Americans die every day of an opioid related overdose. Attorney General Jeff Sessions said at a news conference that, “One American dies of a drug overdose every 11 minutes and more than 2 million Americans are ensnared in addiction to prescription painkillers.” He further said in assurance that, “We will continue to find, arrest, prosecute, convict and incarcerate fraudsters and drug dealers wherever they are.” Health and Human Services Inspector General Daniel Levinson added that, “Health care fraud is a reprehensible crime, it not only represents a theft from taxpayers who fund these vital programs, but impacts the millions of Americans who rely on Medicare and Medicaid” (Merle, 2017).

This approaches a larger debate about how the country should address the government estimates are addicted to opioids. Public health authorities urge doctors to cut back on the prescriptions they offer. States struggling with the shortage of treatment has proposed roll back of the Affordable Care Act’s expansion of Medicaid (Merle, 2017).

This crisis represents a massive public health challenge that requires a broad-based, multi-pronged response from public health agencies and law enforcement. Physicians, pharmacists and citizens all can play a role in identifying and preventing nonmedical use of prescription drugs. Doctors and other healthcare professionals who prescribe these drugs need to be educated about responsible prescribing of opioids and about safe, effective alternatives that are not addictive and presently available (Young, 2016).

Even though law enforcement officials use advanced investigative methods to uncover the different actions health care fraud happens, they can’t fight these crimes alone. Individual can help remove these people responsible for wrongdoings by protecting their health insurance identification number, social security number, looking through the statements for medical services he didn’t receive, and reporting to authorities on recognizing the signs of possible fraud (Outreach, 2012).

For the protection of each person of the country as well as for the economic strength it is essential to destroy all traces of health care fraud. Health care frauds damage billions of dollars of the nation; mislead general public in the courses of actions, and innocent people become victims of white-collar crime.

Devaki is an MS Accounting student at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University, Class of 2018.

References:

Merle, S. H. (2017, 07 13). DOJ announces charges against 400 people for $1.3 billion in health-care fraud. Retrieved from www.washingtonpost.com: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2017/07/13/doj-announces-charges-against-400-people-for-1-3-billion-in-health-care-fraud/?utm_term=.f9b959fbfea6

Outreach, E. &. (2012, 04 23). How to Protect Yourself From Health Care Scams. Retrieved from www.aarp.org: http://www.aarp.org/health/medicare-insurance/info-10-2010/fightfraud.html

Young, L. (2016, 03 04). There’s no debate – America’s opioid epidemic is undeniable. Retrieved from www.pennlive.com: http://www.pennlive.com/opinion/2017/09/heres_what_you_need_to_know_ab_5.html

Posted by Stephen D’Angelo.

Just six hours after New York Attorney General placed a temporary injunction, which would stop sites like Fanduel and DraftKings from doing business in New York, an appellate court saved them by issuing an emergency temporary stay that will allow New Yorkers to continue to use Fanduel and Draft Kings until further notice. This stay will last at least till the end of the year which is likely when a permanent decision will be made, “Eventually, both sides will go before a panel of four or five appellate judges” Randy Mastro said, from an outside council for DraftKings.

The State of New York is likely to win the case because of the wording of their law on gambling. Fantasy football gambling sites commonly use the defense that they don’t take wagers, they take entry fees. In many states, this allows them to continue to do business. But, New York is stating that their penal law does not refer to “wagering” or “betting.” Instead it states that a person, “risks something of value.”

Although New York has the upper hand, the laws in place are very vague. The statement regarding risking something of value had no relation to online fantasy sports gambling when created. It was worded this general because that would include gambling bookies in a gambling law. I personally do not believe that Fantasy sports gambling will be shut down in New York. The NBA, NHL, and MLB all own equity in Fanduel and the likelihood of the 600,000 New Yorkers who play daily fantasy to not be able to in the New Year is very slim.

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

Posted by Devaki Sidhaye.

Recently department of Justice announced largest ever health care fraud enforcement action by the Medicare Fraud Strike Force, involving 412 individuals, including 115 doctors, nurses and other licensed medical professionals. Their involvement in health care fraud scams totaling approximately $1.3 billion in false billings. As per the department, many of the charges were related to medical professionals illegally prescribing opioids and other prescription narcotics, some of which were then sold on the street. Furthermore, according to federal officials, a rehab facility in Palm Beach, Fla., recruited addicts with gift cards, drugs and visits to strip clubs, billed the government for over $58 million in false treatments and tests. A clinic in Houston allegedly gave out prescriptions for cash. Some falsely billed Medicare and Medicaid. Narcotics officers have arrested schoolteachers, doctors, nurses and fellow law enforcement personnel (Merle, 2017).

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, approximately 91 Americans die every day of an opioid related overdose. Attorney General Jeff Sessions said at a news conference that, “One American dies of a drug overdose every 11 minutes and more than 2 million Americans are ensnared in addiction to prescription painkillers.” He further said in assurance that, “We will continue to find, arrest, prosecute, convict and incarcerate fraudsters and drug dealers wherever they are.” Health and Human Services Inspector General Daniel Levinson added that, “Health care fraud is a reprehensible crime, it not only represents a theft from taxpayers who fund these vital programs, but impacts the millions of Americans who rely on Medicare and Medicaid” (Merle, 2017).

This approaches a larger debate about how the country should address the government estimates are addicted to opioids. Public health authorities urge doctors to cut back on the prescriptions they offer. States struggling with the shortage of treatment has proposed roll back of the Affordable Care Act’s expansion of Medicaid (Merle, 2017).

This crisis represents a massive public health challenge that requires a broad-based, multi-pronged response from public health agencies and law enforcement. Physicians, pharmacists and citizens all can play a role in identifying and preventing nonmedical use of prescription drugs. Doctors and other healthcare professionals who prescribe these drugs need to be educated about responsible prescribing of opioids and about safe, effective alternatives that are not addictive and presently available (Young, 2016).

Even though law enforcement officials use advanced investigative methods to uncover the different actions health care fraud happens, they can’t fight these crimes alone. Individual can help remove these people responsible for wrongdoings by protecting their health insurance identification number, social security number, looking through the statements for medical services he didn’t receive, and reporting to authorities on recognizing the signs of possible fraud (Outreach, 2012).

For the protection of each person of the country as well as for the economic strength it is essential to destroy all traces of health care fraud. Health care frauds damage billions of dollars of the nation; mislead general public in the courses of actions, and innocent people become victims of white-collar crime.

Devaki is an MS Accounting student at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University, Class of 2018.

References:

Merle, S. H. (2017, 07 13). DOJ announces charges against 400 people for $1.3 billion in health-care fraud. Retrieved from www.washingtonpost.com: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2017/07/13/doj-announces-charges-against-400-people-for-1-3-billion-in-health-care-fraud/?utm_term=.f9b959fbfea6

Outreach, E. &. (2012, 04 23). How to Protect Yourself From Health Care Scams. Retrieved from www.aarp.org: http://www.aarp.org/health/medicare-insurance/info-10-2010/fightfraud.html

Young, L. (2016, 03 04). There’s no debate – America’s opioid epidemic is undeniable. Retrieved from www.pennlive.com: http://www.pennlive.com/opinion/2017/09/heres_what_you_need_to_know_ab_5.html

Posted by Stephen D’Angelo.

Friday morning, two days after the judge presiding the Uber class action lawsuit decided that drivers attempting to arbitrate can be included in the law suit, Uber sent drivers a new agreement. The document undermined the judge’s ruling by revising the arbitration clause.

Liss-Riordan and her team are filing an emergency motion that will be heard in front of Judge Edward Chen next Thursday; it asks the court to block Uber from enforcing this new driver agreement. “Uber has tried to fix the problem that Judge Chen ruled made the agreement unenforceable,” Liss Riordan told TechCrunch in an email.. The Private Attorney General Act gives “a private citizen the right to pursue fines that would normally only be available to the State of California. It also allows that private citizen to “seek civil penalties not only for violations that he personally suffered” but also for violations of “other current or former employees.”

According to Chen’s Wednesday ruling, the Uber driver agreement of 2014 and 2015 illegally waived drivers’ rights under PAGA, which informed Judge Chen’s decision that the arbitration clause could not be honored because it contained an illegal provision. This was the reason for the provision of the agreement, to quickly remove the illegality and include new provisions to the agreement.

The Private Attorney General Act protects uber drivers from what uber has tried to prevent, a large action against the company. Uber has agreed to resolve any claim against the company but only on an individual basis. Uber’s driver agreement provision also attempts to prevent workers from participating in any class collective or representative action against the company. Uber also rewrote the agreement to remove a requirement that arbitration between a driver and the company remain confidential. The language makes it clear that the agreement goes into effect only when a driver accepts it  not when a revision is published, therefore, protecting drivers who previously signed the agreement.

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

Posted by Ali Paladino.

Recently, on September 1, 2016, the electric car maker Tesla Motors was called out for attempting to sell their vehicles directly to their customers in Missouri. The judge ruled Tesla’s efforts to rule out the middleman, car dealerships, violated state law.  The Missouri Revenue Department “gave the California-based manufacturer a license for a University City dealership in 2013 and a franchise license for a Kansas City dealership in 2014.” Both of these licenses allowed Tesla motors to sell their vehicles directly to their customers, disregarding any use of dealerships.

The court ruled this was not suitable, and Missouri Automobile Dealers Association agreed. The Association sued the State claiming that “it had given Tesla special privileges,” in their attempts to disregard using franchised dealerships to sell their vehicles. The court ruled that Tesla’s action was not technically unconstitutional, but held the licensing was not allowed. Tesla argued the ruling against them was going to damage the company and suppress their ability to compete with other motor vehicle companies. The company also argued the order was an “attempt” to “limit consumer choice in Missouri.” Yet, Tesla appears to be determined to try and continue to sell to their customers directly in the hopes that this will improve their bottom-line. Doug Smith, head of the Dealers Association, however, does not agree with Tesla’s actions and believes that it is not fair to other manufacturers. He believes all manufacturers should be “treated the same in Missouri.”

I have to agree with Doug Smith. I do not think Tesla should have the right to sell directly to their customers and completely bypassing dealerships, only because it puts the company on a different playing field than other motor vehicle companies. I do not believe that is fair.

Tesla has looked at other ways to get around laws in other states in order to improve their sales; however, I do not agree with this either. In this situation, the law stands blurry and unclear and it is intriguing to see how far Tesla will go in attempts to get around the law.

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