At the end of January, the Federal Reserve Board, the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, and the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (the “Agencies”) approved a notice of proposed rulemaking (“Proposed Rule”) to amend the “covered fund” provisions of section 13 of the Bank Holding Company Act, also known as the “Volcker Rule” (the “Rule”). The Volcker Rule is a regulation that generally prohibits banks from certain investment activities with their own accounts and limits their dealings with private equity and hedge funds, also known as “covered funds.”
On November 18th, 2019, Congress introduced the Stop Marketing and Revealing the Wearables and Trackers Consumer Health Data Act, known as the Smartwatch Data Act. The Smartwatch Data Act was introduced by Democratic Senator Jacky Rosen and Republican Senator Bill Cassidy, due to Google’s desire to acquire fitness tracker manufacturer Fitbit in 2020. Since notice of this acquisition, privacy advocates have raised concerns about how Google will use personal health data collected through Fitbit devices. Therefore, this legislation aims to ensure that health data collected through fitness trackers, smartwatches, and health apps, cannot be sold without consumer consent.
Public Act 101-0531 (“Act”) was signed into law on August 23, 2019. The Act is a step that the Illinois legislature has taken to protect students from recurring violence by school employees. It allows the Illinois State Board of Education (“ISBE”) to suspend an educator’s license if they are charged with crimes listed in Section 21B-80 of the Illinois School Code. If the person is acquitted of that crime, however, they would have their license reinstated. Prior to the enactment of this statute, ISBE had to wait until the conclusion of any criminal proceedings to revoke a teaching license if a teacher was charged with a sex crime or Class X felony. In addition to the change in agency authority, the bill also creates several reporting and policy review requirements that will help protect students from violence and school districts from liability.
By now most people are familiar with the #MeToo movement. The movement began in 2006 by women, specifically Tarana Burke and women of color from low wealth communities, to help survivors of sexual violence. Eleven years after the movement was founded, it exploded during the fall of 2017 when well-known women in the entertainment industry began to use the famous #MeToo hashtag and shared their stories of sexual, discrimination, abuse and harassment. Two and half years later, there has been some change, but not enough. The National Sexual Violence Resource Center, said the biggest impact of #MeToo is that it decreased the stigma associated with sexual abuse and harassment and increased awareness.
In the past 12 years, Manchester City has seen a dramatic rise to the European Elite. In 2008, Sheikh Mansour, who has ties to the United Arab Emirates’ royal family, took over ownership of the club. Following the take-over, Manchester City has gone on to win 10 major trophies. On February 14, 2020, Manchester City was handed a two year ban on European competitions, as well as a $32.5 million fine. This is the largest fine ever by Union of European Football Associations (“UEFA”), the governing body of European Football. The UEFA found that Manchester City overstated its sponsorship revenue in its accounts. This, according to the Adjudicatory Chamber of the Club Financial Control Body, is a “serious breach” of Licensing and Financial Fair Play. If the ban is upheld, Manchester City would be fined approximately $232.5 million, a sum of the initial fine plus potential winnings in European Football competitions. According to Simon Chadwick, director at the Centre for the Eurasian Sport Industry, “UEFA must win this ban, if it doesn’t then its position on Financial Fair Play beings to unravel.” This is a pivotal moment in UEFA’s history as a governing body.
The California Attorney General’s office released an updated draft to the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) on February 10th. This updated draft follows the four public hearings that were held in December of 2019 and over 1,700 pages of submitted comments. Comments are being heard as of the posting of this article, and if no new changes are made, a final rulemaking record will be submitted.
As our society evolves over to a more digital world, it is important to take a step back and review what we are putting online. Recently, data breaches have become a common occurrence in our day-to-day lives. In 2016, personal information from about 25 million Uber customers and drivers in the United States. The notorious website for individuals seeking extra marital affairs, Ashley Madison, has itself fallen victim to a data breach. The hacker dumped 9.7 gigabytes of data into/onto the dark web. The data released in the Ashley Madison breach included names, passwords, addresses, and telephone numbers of users who created an account on the site. When data breaches like these happen, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) steps in to protect the United States consumers by investigating the source of data breaches and prosecuting hackers.
On January 31, 2020, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) Alex Azar declared a public health emergency (“PHE”) over the outbreak of the new coronavirus. The PHE response requires coordination with a complex set of federal, state, tribal and local laws and effective compliance calls for a comprehensive understanding of the legal implications and ramifications—which impose challenges from adherence to certain federal laws.
Sarah Suddarth Associate Editor Loyola University Chicago School of Law, JD 2021 Student athletes across the nation are praised, admired, and in some cases, made famous for their athletic performances. Although, behind those athletes are young people dealing with the typical struggles of college and early adulthood. Student athletes face the pressure of recognition, high …
In re Caremark International Inc. Derivative Litigation was a landmark Delaware case that changed the way what is expected out of a board of directors, and how they are in turn able to run a corporation. In 2019, Delaware courts brought Caremark to meet modern day duty of care standards in the cases of In re Clovis Oncology, Inc. Derivative Litigation and Marchand v. Barnhill.