Category:Litigation
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.
The Court Struck Down the Tariffs but the Compliance Nightmare Got Worse
For companies that spent the past year paying billions in tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), February 20, 2026 looked like a victory. The Supreme Court ruled that the IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. But, if compliances officer, general counsel, and importers should not celebrate yet. The ruling did not end the tariff saga; it merely opened a new and more chaotic chapter.
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.