Tag:Journal of Regulatory Compliance
Closing out the 2017-2018 academic year
With less than a week left in the semester, the Journal of Regulatory Compliance editors are hard at work studying for exams, gearing up for summer jobs, or eagerly awaiting graduation. However, before we shutter INSIDE COMPLIANCE for the summer session, I want to take this opportunity to look back over the past year, and how much our members have accomplished.
The Journal of Regulatory Compliance is a young law journal, even for Loyola University Chicago School of Law. It’s only been a few years since our first annual symposium, and the debut of the Center for Compliance Studies here at Loyola University Chicago School of Law. In many ways, this year was an experiment—we debuted a new Board structure, a new editorial process, a new blog format and a new time of year for our Symposia. Despite that uncertainty, the 30-plus members of the Journal of Regulatory Compliance have accomplished extraordinary things.
The Food Safety Modernization Act is Just the Beginning of the FDA Compliance We’ve Been Waiting For
Despite the United States having one of the safest food supplies in the world, more than 48 million Americans get sick from foodborne illnesses and diseases each year, and more than 128,000 are hospitalized and 3,000 die from similar issues that are largely preventable. On January 04, 2011 President Obama signed the Food Safety Modernization Act (“FSMA”) into law. This enactment was called the “most sweeping reform” of U.S. Food Safety laws in more than seventy years. But seven years later, the act is still only partially enforced as the FDA has faced resistance from the government as well as a lack of funding. The FMSA was and is intended to enable the FDA to protect the health of the public by strengthening the food system in the United States. While change and reform in the industry are necessary, what good are new reforms if they will not be enforced for years to come?
REGISTER NOW for the 2018 Compliance Symposium!
“What is the Role of a Regulation if it is Not Enforced?”
Friday, February 16
9 a.m.–4 p.m.
Philip H. Corboy Law Center
25 E. Pearson Street
Power Rogers & Smith Ceremonial Courtroom, 10th Floor
Chicago, IL
The symposium will explore questions of theory and practice related to an administrative state that has such a largesse of regulations (and quasi-regulations in the form of interpretative guidance) that administrative agencies cannot possibly audit or enforce all of their expectations for regulated actors. The size and decentralized control of the administrative state poses questions of legal theory on the role of regulations in society if the state has no intention or lacks resources for enforcing them and practical questions for the regulated actors in how or when to comply with the regulations. But it also sets up a minefield for the regulated actor if enforcement agencies can play “gotcha” on technical strict liability rules which may be buried amid manuals or have been previously enforced. Although focusing on law, the symposium is intended to be multi-disciplinary and seeks to bring together scholars from law, ethics, political science, business, economics, and philosophy.
How will the Supreme Court’s new rule barring the government from refusing offensive trademarks affect the marketplace?
On June 19, 2017, the Supreme Court, in an 8-0 ruling, found that the government can no longer sensor trademarks on the grounds that they may be offensive. In Matal v. Tam, the Supreme Court Justices found the seventy-one year old rule allowing the government to refuse offensive trademarks to be unconstitutional and to violate free speech and first amendment rights. The justices were unable to agree on exactly what legal standard was to apply to the present case or future cases. The revocation of this seventy-one year old rule that has affected the registration of many marks over the years is bound to have an effect on the future of trademark law and trademark litigation. Immediately following the Supreme Court’s decision, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) was inundated with requests to register offensive trademarks.
Deregulation of Uranium Mining or: How I Learned to Stop Regulating and Love the Bomb
Compliance professionals all over the country are paying close attention to the Trump administration’s deregulatory campaign. While deregulation in finance has received the most media attention, the uranium mining industry has been a quiet beneficiary of the President’s new regulatory scheme.
Kicking Off a New Academic Year at the Center for Compliance Studies
The academic year for 2017-2018 has begun at the Center for Compliance Studies. We have a lot on tap—a new look for the blog, an exciting symposium in February 2018, Issue 2 of the Journal soon to be published, and a number of new scholarly endeavors.
Financial Fair Play’s Impact on European Football
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.
FDA Finalizes Enforcement Policy Against Vaping
Amid the epidemic levels of youth use of e-cigarettes, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, released a policy on January 2, 2020, requiring enforcement against certain unauthorized flavored e-cigarette products that appeal to kids. According to the policy, the FDA intends to prioritize enforcement against fruit and mint flavored, cartridge-based electronic nicotine delivery system (“ENDS”). The FDA looks to regulate all ENDS products that manufactures have failed to make safe for use, as well as any ENDS product marketed for use by minors. The 2019 National Youth Tobacco Survey (“NYTS”), a survey conducted annually by the FDA in conjunction with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, shows approximately 1.6 million youths were using ENDS products frequently, with nearly one million using e-cigarettes daily. The FDA’s enforcement policy is not a “ban” on flavored cartridges. If a company can demonstrate to the FDA that a specific product meets the applicable standard set forth by Congress, including considerations on how the marketing of the product may affect youth initiation and use, then the FDA could authorize that product for sale.
Emerging Risks Associated with AI and Machine Learning
Today the healthcare industry is being transformed using the latest technology to meet the challenges it is facing in the 21st century. Technology helps healthcare organizations meet growing demands and deliver better patient care by operating more efficiently. As the world population continues to grow and age, artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning will offer new and better ways to identify the disease and improve patient care.
Facing Facial Recognition Technology
In March 2019, Senator Brian Schatz and Senator Roy Blunt introduced a bill to Congress designed to provide oversight for facial recognition technology, known as the Commercial Facial Recognition Privacy Act. If passed, this law could change the way Americans deal with privacy.