Category:Uncategorized
Own Thyself: IP and competition issues in modern Name Image and Likeness claims
Name. Image. Likeness. Three words which, when taken together, evoke increasingly complex meanings. Recently, a number of high profile cases have spotlighted the growing concerns over the meaning and implications of “self” ownership, a concept traditionally lying at the intersection of intellectual property and tort law, connections to privacy law, as well recently implicated issues of antitrust-competition and emerging technology (i.e. AI) regulation.
In an ever-evolving and interconnected technological landscape, issues of Name Image and Likeness (NIL) reveal broad and far reaching implications for today’s courts and regulators. From the scope of traditionally limited contracts to licensing to perpetual ownership and indefinite use, state regulation and limited judicial decisions may finally prove insufficient for the task at hand. However, new applications combined with time-tested legal tools may help even the playing field, both by protecting competition and preventing exploitation.
Recent cases in the sports and entertainment industries (NCAA and SAAG-AFTRA) validate the importance of modern-regulation as a supplement to less-than-binding jurisprudence. While U.S. federal agencies have expressed interest and states have individually taken important steps toward governing NIL controversies, countries like England, France, Spain, Italy and Germany offer clear, robust protections, benefits which U.S. lawmakers and regulators should carefully consider.
But How Much Is It Actually? The Rise of Junk Fees, Drip Pricing, and the Battle for Commercial Transparency
At the forefront of twenty-first century consumer protection issues is corporate price-gouging. Among the most notable examples is the issue of “junk fees” or “drip pricing,” fees which are not initially visible in the list price of goods and service, but are surreptitiously added to the price total by the close of the transaction. Recently, media reports have spotlighted numerous industries implicated by the “hidden pricing” phenomenon, including commercial travel, finance and banking, hospitality, entertainment, and more. Common examples include mandatory fees i.e. common addition of a 3-5 % surcharge added to your bill by a restaurant or concert venue, or an unexplained cleaning fee charged by a hotel at checkout. Perhaps now more than ever, U.S. consumers rely on state and federal government regulators to clarify, enforce, and update statutes for twenty-first century demands, ever emerging technologies, and a modern consumer economy.
Farm-to-Table Regulation: The FDA’s Food Traceability Rule
Kendall Henry Associate Editor Loyola University Chicago School of Law, JD 2027 From potato chips to produce, it seems like food recalls are announced every other day. In today’s global supply chain, a single ingredient may move through countless hands, multiple countries, states, and facilities before reaching shelves. This makes it extremely difficult to identify …
Read more
To Compete Or Not to Compete: A Legal Question
Today, federal and state antitrust laws are as important as ever. However, modern courts struggle to apply the traditional interpretation and application of antitrust law to modern technology and related anti-competitive practices. This is particularly true in the realm of emerging technologies, where algorithms, automation, and artificial intelligence increasingly dominate. As a result, regulators face a host of unique challenges in an increasingly interconnected, data driven, and automated era. From business to finance, healthcare to housing, the importance of anti-competition law cannot be easily understated.
Work Related: AI Governance and Regulation in the Employment Law Context
Today, an explosion in Artificial Intelligence (AI) development is taking the U.S. and global economic systems by storm. Companies like Nvidia (the first company to reach an approximately 5 trillion valuation), Microsoft, Alphabet (Google), and Open AI (formerly a non-profit which still cites the common good as a core tenant of its charter) have kicked off what is widely understood to be an AI “Arms Race.” Investors- from venture capitalists to private equity behemoths- continue to pour billions of dollars into AI technology companies and associated ventures. As AI companies move from beta testing to widespread adoption and integration, debates on AI transparency, accountability, and regulation have risen to the forefront. As a result of this monumental shift and ongoing uncertainty, the necessity of properly understanding (and regulating) AI and automation technology is now more pressing than ever before. Further, the need for strong regulatory oversight, a broad regulatory consensus and clear guidance, a baseline code of ethics (at minimum), as well as strong federal and state regulation- has become one of the most important issues of our time.
Corporate Non-Compliance in Environmental Regulation
Corporations and other firms maximize profits. Without profits, the corporation or the firm fails. Thus, regulations imposed by regulatory agencies become a hindrance. Businesses dealing in fossil fuels and other natural resources especially feel the impacts of these regulations. Specifically, environmental regulation that requires detailed reporting and measurement can become awfully cumbersome for these companies. Not surprisingly, these companies tend to take different paths to avoid abiding by these regulations.
More Life? Or More Death? How Abortion Regulation has Become the Angel of Death
A US Supreme Court decision that ignited national upheaval and stirred global reactions: the overturn of Roe v. Wade. On June 24, 2022, the decision in Dobbs v. Jackson, eliminated the constitutional right to an abortion and returned the power to regulate abortion to individual states. This ruling ended nearly 50 years of federal protection for abortion rights. Overnight, women and girls lost their right to choose, were stripped of the power to shape their own destinies and suddenly had fewer rights than their mothers before them. This ruling is one of the most fundamental infringes on one’s basic human rights.
Chicago’s Bold New Vision: Green Social Housing for a Sustainable, Equitable Future
Last week, Chicago City Council committees on Housing and Finance convened for negotiations and discussions on a monumental—and markedly contentious—green social housing plan. This comes nearly two months after Mayor Brandon Johnson and the Chicago Department of Housing introduced an enabling ordinance in the Chicago City Council, allowing the City to establish an independent nonprofit with the authority to serve as the Green Social Housing (GSH) developer. The GSH model tackles both housing insecurity and climate change head-on by developing permanently affordable, energy-efficient homes in every community. Spearheaded by the Chicago Department of Housing and the Illinois Green New Deal coalition, this initiative is poised to reshape how housing is built, owned, and lived in across the city.
The European Accessibility Act is Looming as Corporations Race to Comply
The European Accessibility Act (the Act/EAA) aims to increase market opportunities for accessible products and services on both the consumer and business level. Accessibility is an essential factor in making buying decisions in today’s world; showing that companies are committed to diversity and inclusion in a time where it is increasingly important. The Act covers a wide variety of products and services that are important for those with disabilities and that may not be accessible across the European Union (EU). Such products and services include: computers or operating systems, smartphones, audio-visual media services, banking services, etc. Although the European Accessibility Act is advertised as a manageable compliance requirement, inconsistent enforcement across EU member states, vague exemptions, and widespread corporate unpreparedness suggest that it will be a significant regulatory challenge.
DEI Under Fire: Corporate Compliance After Trump’s Executive Orders
In January 2025, President Donald Trump issued a series of executive orders aimed at dismantling Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives within the federal government and, by extension, influencing private-sector compliance. These executive actions, presented as a means of restoring merit-based hiring and eliminating what the administration described as “illegal discrimination,” have had profound effects on corporate compliance efforts across industries. While the immediate legal impact has primarily affected federal agencies and contractors, the broader implications have created uncertainty within corporate America, forcing many companies to reassess the scope and structure of their DEI initiatives. This article examines the legal and regulatory ramifications of these executive orders and explores how they have influenced corporate compliance strategies in the evolving landscape of workplace diversity policies.