Recently, whistleblower Frances Haugen testified before a Senate subcommittee that Facebook has been deliberately putting its own profits before users’ safety. As Facebook’s former product manager for civic misinformation, Haugen calls for federal regulation of social media platforms and asserts that Facebook will not solve what she calls a “crisis” of deliberately ignoring users’ wellbeing for the sake of its own profits without Congress’s help. She points to tobacco, automobiles, and opioids, stating that when it became clear that those products were harming people, the government took action.
The Public Charge Rule perpetuates anti-immigrant sentiment and keeps poor, disabled migrants who were often Black, Brown, and ethnically oppressed out of the United States. It makes pathways to citizenship contingent upon wealth and the absence of disability. As the Autistic Self Advocacy Network puts it, the Public Charge Rule is a “clear echo of the racist and ableist policies of the eugenics era.”
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has partnered with the Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to address the high cost of prescription drugs. While the FDA possesses the authority to approve generic, lower cost drugs, the USPTO has an important and symbiotic role in bringing affordable drugs to market by blocking anti-competitive patent extensions. FDA-USPTO collaboration has gained congressional support and is the subject of key pieces of new legislation.
A new Nevada law will take effect October 1, 2021 aimed at ensuring that all consumers are protected from unfair and deceptive business acts and practices, regardless of their proficiency with the English language.
On June 1, 2021, a new policy went into effect in New Jersey, requiring police officers to wear body cameras. In November 2020, Governor Phil Murphy signed legislation mandating and regulating law enforcement officers’ use of body-worn cameras during encounters with the public. Specifically, the governor signed two bills: S1163 and A4312. The former establishes the requirement for officers to wear body-cameras, while the latter regulates their use. These bills have received support from both law enforcement officials and civilians.
The Bears of Wall Street have always used their paws to swipe down on financially weak companies by further driving down their stock price. However, the Bulls, recently led by retail investors and Wall Street Bet users, have begun thrusting their horns up into the air to lead an attack on bearish institutions by forcing them to buy back the “Stonks” that they shorted. This stock trading phenomenon, backed with the subjective ethical obligation to protect the little guy on Wall Street, is called the “The Short Squeeze.” While the Bears’ strategy of short selling stocks in the financial market faces public criticism, it is entirely legal. Therefore, financial regulators should encourage these millennial Bulls to take precautions in understanding the legality of trading strategies in the free market.
Collectively, four countries make up the United Kingdom (U.K.), including England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. In 2016, an overwhelming number of Scottish citizens voted to remain in the European Union (E.U.) during the U.K. referendum, which resulted in a 51.89 percent vote in favor to leave. After departing from the E.U. in January of 2020, Scottish industries suffered economic losses due to the ‘red tape’ policies imposed by the U.K., making it more difficult to sell Scottish products to E.U. member countries. As a result, Scotland’s independence and nationalist movement grew exponentially, with forty-five of the fifty-nine Scottish seats in the House of Commons going to the Scottish Nationalist Party, with strong support of seceding from the U.K. Additionally, in 2019, Scotland’s Parliament reconvened for the first time since 1707, signaling the Scotland’s desire for self-autonomy and sovereignty. The possibility of seceding poses questions over the future of economic and social regulatory policies for an independent Scotland.
In the United States, Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) is predominantly self-regulated by a network of medical agencies that publish guidelines. ART refers generally to any fertility procedure where eggs or embryos are handled. ART clinics are not federally funded, and there is no specific national legislation that establishes a clear regulatory framework about the standard of operations, the quality-of-care patients should be provided with, the permissible uses of ART, or recourse for patients who have not benefited from their financial investments in ART. There are minimum standards set forth by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA), which require strict compliance before patients can consult and use clinics’ ART services including the use of pharmaceutical products. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) also oversees truthful advertising and marketing practices within ART to ensure that clinics’ reports of success are consistent with their patient data. All states require that physicians obtain a license before providing care, and physicians are subject to investigation by state boards. Aside from this general regulation for safety and transparency, the only explicit regulation targeting the ART industry is the United States Fertility Clinic Success Rate and Certification Act, mandating all US fertility clinics to report their ART cycles performed to the Center for Disease Control (CDC). The data collected through this reporting act is governed by the NASS 2.0 (National Assisted Reproductive Technology Surveillance System), which is a collaborative surveillance system between the CDC, and private stakeholders. Self-reported data to NASS 2.0 is verified by comparing information from a patient’s medical record with data submitted for the report.
With the recent antitrust lawsuit filed against Amazon and the new antitrust bills being debated in Congress, the online retail giant is at the forefront of everyone’s mind. The behemoth of a company has entered numerous markets including apparel, technology, and even grocery. The size and scope of the company begs the question, is Amazon a monopoly? As the law stands right now, Amazon is decidedly not.
Daniel Bourgault Senior Editor Loyola University of Chicago School of Law, JD 2022 On July 15, 2021, the Hawaii’ federal district court became the first court to publish an opinion utilizing the functional equivalent analysis (“FEA”) established by the Supreme Court of the United States last year in the County of Maui v. Hawaii’ Wildlife …