Volume I

ARTICLES

In Pursuit Of Global Human Rights Accountability: The Filartiga 1 Amendment To The Alien Tort Statute

Calvin Manahan

Medical Misinformation on Social Media: How Section 230 Impeded 27 Regulation of Online Misinformation

Kevin Zhou

The Violation of Democracy: Unequal Access to the Shaping 45 of Government Tania Aleksanian

Florida House Bill 1557 and LGBTQ+ Controversy 57 Randolph Xie

Enforcement of California Vehicle Code Pertaining to Cyclists 72 Alex Rhee

Theresa Rincker

Data Breaches in an Age of Technology: An Evaluation of Article III 102 Standing and Expectations of Privacy

Tracy Truong

UCSD UNDERGRADUATE LAW REVIEW

VOLUME 1

EDITORIAL BOARD SPRING 2022

Editor-in-Chief

Justin Fang

Managing Editor Morgan Yen

Business Director Sea Choi

Editors

Joseph Cumming Elliott Legaspi

Clara Pham Sparky Mitra Blake Johnson

Mykalle Tran Rishabh Raj Valentina Du Pond

FOREWORD

IamhonoredtopresentVolumeIoftheUCSDUndergraduateLawReview.Overthe pastyear,oureditorialteamhasworkeddiligentlytocreateaplatformwherediversemembers ofthestudentcommunitymaygaintheacademicexperiencenecessarytoexploreissues importanttothemandoeruniqueinsightsfromalegalperspective Thisrsteditionreects ourhopesthattheundergraduatelegalspacewillbecomemoreinclusiveandaccessiblewhile maintainingitscommitmenttoexcellentresearchanddiscourse.

InVolumeI,weareproudtointroducetheworkofeightdistinguishedwriters.These individualscomefromavarietyofmajors,years,andbackgroundstooeranalysisontopics rangingfromthedigitalproliferationofmedicalmisinformationtothefairuseoffan-made texts.Wehopeyouwillndthatthearticlesproducedreectourrigorousstandardsand engagewithrelevantissuesinathoughtfulandpracticalmanner.

Thisyear,IwouldliketogivespecialthankstoAnnaYanandCamilleSchaeferfromthe UCLAUndergraduateLawJournal.Theirinitialguidancewasinvaluableaswenavigatedour journal’ssystemformanagementandpublication,andtheirexceptionalworkhasservedasa reminderforwhereourexpectationsshouldfall IalsorecognizeourManagingEditorMorgan Yenfortheremarkableconsistencyshehasdisplayed,aswellasBusinessDirectorSeaChoifor herearnestworkwithourexternaladvisors.TerryLiandBrendonHahmhavemyadditional sincerethanks theirearlydedicationwasintegraltothisjournalandnotforgotten.Lastly,I amgratefulforallofthestudentmemberswhohavedemonstratednoteworthyperseverance andgracewithusthroughthispastyear,andwishthemthebestintheirownjourneysof growth.Iknowthisjournalandcommunitywillcontinuetoprogressandlookforwardtoits roleinfosteringmeaningfuldiscourseandreection.

JustinFang Editor-in-Chief

UCSDUndergraduateLawReview–VolumeI

CALVINMANAHAN

In Pursuit Of Global Human Rights Accountability: The FilartigaAmendmentToTheAlienTortStatute

ABSTRACT. 28U.S.C.§1350,dubbedthe“AlienTortStatute”(ATS),waspartofthe JudiciaryActof1789andgrantsUnitedStatesfederalcourtsoriginaljurisdictionover tort cases committed by aliens against other aliens. An alien in this instance is an individualwhoisnotacitizenornationaloftheUnitedStates Foralmost200years, thelawwasrarelyused,until1976whenFilartigav.Pena-Iralacreatedaprecedent which turned the ATS into a tool for global human rights. In the coming three decades,theATSwasusedbyalienswhowerevictimsofhumanrightsviolationsto bring a charge or seekcompensationfromtheirperpetrators Thisprecedentended with Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum (2013) which placed a presumption against extraterritoriality, thereby barring the use of ATS for human rights violations committed abroad. This article argues that Congress should add the “Filartiga Amendment'' to the ATS in order toexplicitlyencodetheFilartigaprecedent.The amendmentwouldgrantfederaldistrictcourtswithoriginaljurisdictionofanycivil actionbyanalienforatortonly,committedinviolationofthelawofnationsora treatyoftheUnitedStates,regardlessofwhetherornotthetortwascommittedinthe territoryoftheUnitedStates.ThisempowerstheATStobeusedasatoolforglobal human rights accountabilityandisinlinewiththeUnitedStates’statedmissionof beingagloballeaderinhumanrights

AUTHOR. CalvinManahanisarisingfourth-yearatUCSDmajoringinPolitical ScienceandminoringinHumanRightsandMigration.Heisinterestedin internationalhumanrightslawandhowtostrengtheninternationaltreatiestobemore eectivetoolsforholdinghumanrightsviolatorsaccountablefortheircrimes.Inthe nextfewmonthshewillbeapplyingtolawschool,wherehehopestodeepenhis understandingofpublicinterestlawyering.

1

INTRODUCTION

Seventeen-year-oldJoelitoFilartigawastakenfromhishomeinParaguaybystate forcesinthemiddleofthenightandneverreturned.Hissister,DollyFilartiga,spent the entire night wandering their village screaming for Joelito She was eventually escorted by state forces to a warehouse to see Joelito’sbeatenandmangledcorpse Dolly’sbrotherwasavictimoftortureandmurderatthehandsofParaguayanpolice. HerfamilywasneverabletoattainlegalremedyforJoelitoinParaguaybecauseofthe military regime’s iron grip on thejusticesystem.However,fouryearslater,shewas nally able to bring her brother’s murderer to court over 4,500 miles away from ParaguayinNewYork.InAmerica,shewasabletogetthefairtrialforherbrother’s murder that she could not getinParaguay.Seeingastheentirecrimetookplacein ParaguayandalloftheinvolvedpartieswereParaguayancitizens,howwassheableto attain justiceintheUnitedStates?TheFilartigafamilysuedParaguayanstateforces under the Alien Tort Statute – a statute which had been lying dormant in the Americanlegalcodeforover200years.

TheAlienTortStatute(ATS)wascodiedin1789andgivesUScourtsjurisdiction overcasesoftortscommittedbyaliensagainstotheraliens.Analienisdenedasan individualwhoisnotacitizenornationaloftheUnitedStates 1 TheATSwaslargely unusedinAmericancourtsuntilthelandmarkcaseofFilartigav.Pena-Iralain1980. FilartigasetaprecedentforUScourtshearingcasesconcerningeventsthatoccurred outsideoftheUnitedStatesinvolvingaliens.Thusbeganaseriesofcasesofaliensling complaintsagainstotheraliensfortortsthatdidnotoccuronUnitedStatesterritory andyetAmericancourtsweregivenjurisdictiontohearthesecases,suchasKadicv. Karadzic,Hilaov.EstateofFerdinandMarcos,andPaulv.Avril.Manyofthesecases involved human rights abuses being committed on aliens by ocials of their own governmentorbyproxiesoftheirgovernment FilartigahadgiventheATSausein American courts: to empower them to deliver justice to victims of human rights violationsevenincaseswhereneitherthevictimnortheperpetratorhadanythingto dowiththeUnitedStates.

ThisperiodofAmericaservingasaglobalcourtforhumanrightssoonendedwith Kiobel v Royal Dutch Petroleum, which established the presumption against extraterritorialityincasesundertheATS.Inaunanimousdecision,theSupremeCourt ruledthatapresumptionagainstextraterritorialitywaswarrantedinATScasesdueto fearsconcerninginternationaldisputesasaresultofATScases,aswellasduetoan

8U.S.C.§1101(a)(3).

IN PURSUIT OF GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS ACCOUNTABILITY: THE FILARTIGA AMENDMENT TO THE ALIEN TORT STATUTE

absence of evidencethattheATSwasoriginallymeanttoencompassactionswhich occurredinternationally.Kiobelrequiresthatforacourttohavejurisdictionoveracase concerningtheATS,theclaimmust“touchandconcernterritoryoftheUnitedStates

. . . with sucient force to displace the presumption against extraterritorial application”2 Thiseectivelyendedthepossibilityforvictimsofhumanrightsabuses abroadtopursuecasesintheUnitedStatesastheypreviouslyhadbeenabletodoso Foralmost30years,manyindividualswereabletobringtheirabuserstocourtin the United States. The total amount of damages awarded to these victims has numberedinthemillionsofdollars.Alienswho,eitherthemselvesortheirfamily,have been victims of horrible human rights atrocities in their home countries such as genocide, ethnic cleansing, forced labor, and extrajudicialkillingshavebeenableto attain justiceinthecourtsoftheUnitedStateswhentheywerenotabletointheir homecountries.ButthisallcametoanendwithKiobel.Thisarticlewillexplorethe judicialevolutionoftheAlienTortStatuteandraisecriticismsoftheKiobeldecision Firstly, the test set in the Kiobel standard is problematic because it has resulted in conictinginterpretationsamonglowercourtsaboutits“touchandconcernterritory oftheUnitedStates”doctrine.Secondly,Kiobelunderminesandrunscountertothe United States’ commitment to international human rights treaties Thirdly,froma human rights point of view, Kiobel is regrettable as it blocks human rights abuse victimsfromreceivingredressfromtheirabusers.Beingaunanimousdecision,Kiobel willbediculttooverturnthroughsucceedingSupremeCourtdecisions.Tosolvethis problem,thearticlewillendbyprescribinganamendmenttotheAlienTortStatute encodingtheFilartigaprecedent

I. THE ALIEN TORT STATUTE

A TheJudiciaryActof1789

TheAlienTortStatute(ATS),alsoknownastheAlienTortClaimsAct(ATCA) was created as part of the Judiciary Act of 1789. This actwasadoptedintherst session oftheFirstUnitedStatesCongress.Theprimarypurposeofthisactwasto establishthefederaljudiciaryoftheUnitedStates Theactcreatedcircuitcourtsand districtcourtsallacrosstheoriginalstates,createdtheoceoftheAttorneyGeneral,as well as set the number of justicesontheSupremeCourt.Theactalsoimbuedthe

2 Kiobelv RoyalDutchPetroleumCo,621F3d111,123(2dCir 2010),a'd,569US 108,133S Ct.1659,185L.Ed.2d671(2013).

SupremeCourtwithexclusiveoriginaljurisdictionoverallcivilactionsbetweenstates and between states and the United States. Additionally, the act gave the Supreme Courtappellatejurisdictionoverthedecisionsofthefederalcircuitcourts.Allinall, thisActservedasthebedrockoftheAmericanfederaljudiciarysystem.

B. Section1350

Section1350oftheJudiciaryActof1789wasdubbedastheAlienTortStatute. TheATSstatesthat,“[T]hedistrictcourtsshallhaveoriginaljurisdictionofanycivil actionbyanalienforatortonly,committedinviolationofthelawofnationsora treatyoftheUnitedStates.”3 Thethreekeyelementshereinvolvethefactthatthere was(1)atort(2)committedbyanalienand(3)itwasinviolationofthelawofnations oratreatyoftheUnitedStates.Atortisdenedas“anactoromissionthatgivesriseto injuryorharmtoanother”4 Asaforementioned,analienisdenedasanindividual whoisnotacitizenornationaloftheUnitedStates.Thelawofnationsmentioned here is not specically dened, but the concept largely has rootsinthetheoriesof EnglishjuristWilliamBlackstonewhostatedthat,“[T]helawofnationsisasystemof rules, deducible by natural reason, and established by universal consentamongthe civilizedinhabitantsoftheworld”5

4 Tort,LᴇɢᴀʟIɴғᴏ Iɴsᴛ,https://wwwlawcornelledu/wex/tort(lastvisitedApr 5,2022) 3 28U.S.C.§1350.

5 WilliamS.Dodge,TheHistoricalOriginsoftheAlienTortStatute:AResponsetothe"Originalists", 19HᴀsᴛɪɴɢsIɴᴛ'ʟ&Cᴏᴍᴘ L Rᴇᴠ 221(1996) 4

IN PURSUIT OF GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS ACCOUNTABILITY: THE FILARTIGA AMENDMENT TO THE ALIEN TORT STATUTE

againstambassadors,andpiracy Anotherpossibleexplanation,then,isthattheATS wascreatedasatoolforvictimsoftortscommittedbypirates.

After200yearsofveryminimaluse,theATSwasrevivedin1980withFilartigav Pena-Iralaandbegantoserveanewfunction:atoolforhumanrightsvictimstosue theirabusers

II. A TOOL FOR HUMAN RIGHTS

A. Filartigav.Pena-Irala

Filartiga v. Pena-Irala was a landmark case for the ATS that established a precedent in whichalienscouldbringotheralienstocourtintheUnitedStatesfor human rights violations even if it did not occurwithintheterritoryoftheUnited States The precedent set by Filartiga is that a federal court has subject matter jurisdiction over a case brought under the Alien Tort Statute so long as all ofthe followingconditionsaremet:(1)analiensues(2)foratort(3)committedinviolation ofthelawofnations(e.g.,UnitedNationstreaties).

ThecaseinvolvesadisputebetweenthreeParaguayannationals:DollyFilartiga,her fatherJoelFilartiga,andAmericoPena-Irala,theformerInspectorGeneralofPoliceof the city ofAsuncion,Paraguay.TheFilartigafamilyallegethatonMarch29,1976, seventeen-year-oldJoelitoFilartigawaskidnappedbystateforcesinthemiddleofthe night.DollyFilartiga,Joelito’sbrother,ranaroundtheirvillagescreamingherbrother’s name and attempting to nd where her brother was taken to Then, Pena-Irala’s underlings brought Filartiga to view the mutilated corpse of Joelito.TheFilartigas claimthatPena-IralaandhismenhadtorturedJoelitotodeath.Theyclaimthatthis was in retaliation for Joel Filartiga’s activism and opposition to the Paraguayan government Laterthatyear,theFilartigafamilyattemptedtosuePena-Iralaandhis policeforcesinParaguayancourtsforthemurderofJoelito Theirlawyerwaspromptly arrestedandtheirattemptatjusticeforJoelitofailed.Alloftheseeventsoccurredin Paraguay.

Eventually,theFilartigasandPena-IralaseparatelymigratedtotheUnitedStates.In 1979,DollyFilartigalearnedthatPena-IralawasalsointheUnitedStatesand,withthe help of the Center for ConstitutionalRights,broughtPena-Iralatocourt.Filartiga allegedthatPena-Iralahadviolatednumerousinternationaltreatiesandcustomssuch astheUniversalDeclarationofHumanRights,theUnitedNationsCharter,andthe American Declaration of the RightsandDutiesofMan Theirlawsuitwasinitially dismissedbytheDistrictCourtfortheEasternDistrictofNewYorkbecausealthough

the court recognized torture to be a violation of international law, it viewed internationallawasonlyapplicabletostaterelationsanddoesnotapplytoindividuals.

The Filartigas then brought their suit totheSecondCircuitCourtofAppeals. Here,theyachievedsuccessinoverturningthedistrictcourt’sdecision.Thecircuit’s decisiontoreversethedistrictcourt’srulingsetaprecedentforaliensbeingabletosue otheraliensfortortsthatdidnotoccurwithintheterritoryoftheUnitedStates The AlienTortStatutestatesthatcourtshavejurisdictionover"allcauseswhereanalien sues for a tort only (committed) in violation of the law of nations."7 The circuit interpretedthisastomeaningthatifanindividualwithintheirterritoryisfoundto haveviolatedthelawofthenations,ofwhichtortureisanexampleofaviolation,then thatcourthasjurisdictiontodealwiththematter.

In 1981, adefaultjudgmentagainstPena-Iralawasorderedbythedistrictcourt andthecasewouldproceedtoamagistratetodeterminehowmuchcompensationthe Filartigas were entitled to In 1984, the magistrate found that the Filartigas were entitledto$10,385,364ofcompensationforthelossofJoelitoandtheemotionaland mental toll that his wrongful death caused Dolly and Joel Filartiga. The family, however,wasneverabletoclaimtheirawardasPena-Iralalackedtheresourcestopay theamount Still,theFilartigafamilywerelargelysatisedwiththeresultastheywere not necessarily seeking any monetary compensation Such is true of many other individuals pursuing action under the ATS. Simply receiving a court judgment is sucientforreceivingclosurefortheabusetheyortheirlovedonesexperienced.

B Post-FilartigaCases

Following the ruling in Filartiga, several cases were brought before American courtsbyaliensundertheAlienTortStatute.Filartigahadestablishedaprecedentthat thatcourtshadfederaljurisdictionovercasesinwhich(1)analiensues(2)foratort(3) committedinviolationofthelawofnations Allthreeconditionsmustbesatisedfor jurisdiction to apply. Another important precedent created by Filartiga is that in determining whether an act constitutes a violation ofthelawofnations,thecourt “mustinterpretinternationallawnotasitwasin1789,butasithasevolvedandexists amongthenationsoftheworldtoday”Bothprecedentsopenedthedoorforvictimsof humanrightsviolationsacrosstheworldtobringtheirassailant(s)tocourt.

ThestringofcasesafterFilartigaserveasevidencefortheATS’sabilityasatoolto achieve justice for victims of human rights abuses. Formanyofthesevictims,they

7 JudiciaryActof1789§9(b),28U.S.C.§1350.

IN PURSUIT OF GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS ACCOUNTABILITY: THE FILARTIGA AMENDMENT TO THE ALIEN TORT STATUTE

wouldnothavebeenabletoattainjusticeagainsttheirabusersintheirnativecountry becauseofthelatter’sinuenceovertheirnativecountry’sjudicialsystem.Withthe ATS,victimsareabletoreceiveafairtrialintheUnitedStates.

1. Kadicv.Karadzic

A group of plaintis, comprised of Bosnia and Herzegovinian nationals, sued Radovan Karadzić on charges of genocide, rape, forced impregnation, andtorture, among other actions described by the plaintis as violations of thelawofnations. KaradzićwastheleaderoftheBosnian-Serbmilitaryforceswhichthegroupallegewere theperpetratorsofviolationsagainstthem Alleventsmentionedinthesuittookplace in the territory of the former Republic of Yugoslavia.Karadzićhimselfisaformer citizenoftheformerRepublicofYugoslavia.Theplaintissubmittedtheircasetothe UnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheSouthernDistrictofNewYorkwheretheircase was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction Theplaintisappealedtothe Second Circuit Court of Appeals wherein the decision of the district court was reversed,andthecasewasremanded.8

JohnNewman,ChiefJudgeoftheSecondCircuit,citedFilartiganumeroustimes in his decision and used the standards it had established for ATS cases. Newman acceptsthatthesuitsucesthersttwoconditions,analiensuingforatort,andthe only issue at hand was determining if the allegations against Karadzić constituted violationsofthelawofnations.NewmanheldthattheallegationsagainstKaradzić, specicallygenocide,warcrimes,andtorture,clearlyviolatedthelawsofnations.One of Karadzić’s defenses had been that he was not acting in any state capacity and thereforecouldnotbebroughttocourtoverviolationsofinternationallaws.Karadzić citesthatinFilartiga,thedefendanthadbeenactingasamemberofthestateforces. Karadzić made the paradoxical claim that he was not a member of any state force despitealsodeclaringhimselfasthepresidentofanunrecognizedBosnian-Serbnation ThisdefenseisrejectedbyNewman,however,whocontendsinhisdecisionthatthe lawofnationsdoesnotonlyapplytostatesandstateactorsbutisalsoapplicabletothe actionsofprivatecitizensaswell.

AftertheSecondCircuitreversedtherulingofthedistrictcourtandheldthat federalcourtshadsubjectmatterjurisdictionoverthecase,itwasremandedbacktothe districtcourttofollowtheguidelinessetbythecircuit’sdecision.Inthistrial,ajury decidedthattheplaintisweretobegivenapproximately$4.5billionincompensatory

8 Kadicv.Karadzic,70F.3d232,237(2dCir.1995).

andpunitivedamages

2. Hilaov EstateofFerdinandMarcos

AcaseoftentrumpedasoneofthebigsuccessesoftheATSisHilao.Inthiscasea groupofplaintiswereabletobringaformerworldleadertocourtandwereawarded damagesbyajuryundertheATS Thenumberofplaintisinthiscasewasupwardsof 9,000andover$1.2billionwasawardedbythejuryindamages.9

FormerPhilippinePresidentFerdinandMarcosruledthePhilippinesforover20 years before being ousted from power by a civil movement which has come tobe known as the “People Power Revolution” During his reign, Marcos had almost complete control of the government due to his declaration of martial law in the country from 1972-1981. During this period, over 3,000 extrajudicial deaths and 30,000torturesweredocumented.10 Severalinternationalhumanrightsgroupssuchas Amnesty International stated that the Marcos era in the Philippines wasatimeof majorhumanrightsatrocitiesandabuses 11

Afterbeingoustedfrompowerin1986,FerdinandMarcosandhisfamilysought refugeintheUnitedStates.UponarrivalinHawaii,theMarcosfamilyweremetwitha urryofcasesagainstthemalleginghumanrightsabuses.Over10,000caseswereled, andthesewouldeventuallybeconsolidatedintoaclass-actionsuitknownasHilaov Estate of Ferdinand Marcos. The human rights abusesallegedinthiscaseincluded torture, disappearance, unjust arrest, and summary execution. Plaintis claim that theseactswerecommittedbystateforcesundercontrolofthen-PresidentMarcos.

This case was also notable in that it used inferential statisticstodeterminethe amountofdamagestobeawarded.Thecourtrecognizedthatitwouldnotbeableto hearthetestimoniesoftheover10,000plaintis,andsoitrandomlysampledasetof plaintisandusedtheirexperiencestoberepresentativeofthewhole.Theresultsof this assessment were supplied to the jury who, after deliberation, would decide to award the plaintis with a far larger amount of money that the court’s statistical

9 Hilaov Est ofMarcos,103F3d767(9thCir 1996)

10 RachelAG Reyes,3,257:FactcheckingtheMarcoskillings,1975-1985,MᴀɴɪʟᴀTɪᴍᴇs(Apr 12, 2016), https://wwwmanilatimesnet/2016/04/12/featured-columns/columnists/3257-fact-checking-themarcos-killings-1975-1985/255735(lastvisitedJune15,2022).

11

Report of an Amnesty International Mission to The Republic of the Philippines, Aᴍɴᴇsᴛʏ Iɴᴛ’ʟ (1976).

IN PURSUIT OF GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS ACCOUNTABILITY: THE FILARTIGA AMENDMENT TO THE ALIEN TORT STATUTE

analysis recommended The court’s analysis recommended an award amount of $767,491,493, but the jury awarded over $1.2 billion. All in all,thiswasanotable victory of the ATS because thousands of human rights victims were abletoattain justicefortheiroppressionatthehandsofaworldleader.

3. Paulv.Avril

Another big victory for the ATSwasinthe1991caseofPaulv.Avrilwherein victimsoftheHaitianmilitaryleaderandformerpresidentProperAvrilwereawarded $41millionindamagesforhumanrightsabuses.Thiscaseservesasanexampleofthe poweroftheATSbecauseitwasthersttimethataHaitianleaderormemberofthe militarywasheldaccountableinacourtforhumanrightsabuses.SixHaitianactivists suedProsperAvril,allegingtohavesueredhumanrightsabusesduringhisreignas presidentofHaiti.

The six activists, headedbyEvansPaultheformermayoroftheHaitiancapital Port-au-Prince,allegethattheywerevictimsofhumanrightsabusesatthehandsof stateforcesundertheordersofAvril.Thesehumanrightsabusesinclude“torture[,] cruel, inhumanordegradingtreatment;arbitraryarrestanddetentionwithouttrial; andotherviolationsofcustomaryinternationallaw.”Theactivistshadbeenprotesting Paul’smilitarygovernmentandwereadvocatingfordemocraticreformsinHaiti They weresubsequentlyarrestedandbeatenbystateforcesamongtheotherhumanrights violationsaforementioned.

AvrilwassuedbythesixactivistsundertheATSintheU.S.DistrictCourtofthe Southern District of Florida Avril repeatedly dodged investigations and refused to cooperatewithcourtproceedingswhichledtoadefaultjudgmentbeingheldagainst him.AfederalmagistratewouldgoontoawardAvril’svictims$41million judgment incompensatorydamages.12

4. Liceav.CuracaoDrydockCo.,Inc.

A group of Cuban nationals sued the Curaçao Drydock Company for illegal trackingandsubjectingthemtoinhumaneworkingconditionsinCuraçaoandwere awardedcompensationforthephysicalandpsychologicaltortstheyexperienced.All events took place in Cuba, but the plaintis were residing in Miami when they

12

Paulv.Avril,812F.Supp.207(S.D.Fla.1993).

launchedtheircase

TheplaintisallegethattheywereintimidatedbyCubanstateforcesintoworking for theCuraçaoDrydockCompanybybeingthreatenedwithimprisonmentifthey refused. Upon arriving at the worksite in Curaçao, the plaintis’ passports were conscated,thusessentiallytrappingthemthere Theywerethenforcedtoworkunder extremelyharshconditions Theyworkedverylonghourseverydayforoveramonth, forcedtoperformextraneousandintensephysicallabor,andtheywerenotgiventhe proper safety gear. This resulted in all three plaintis sustaining workplace-related injuriesincludingburnsandbrokenbones.Theplaintisstatethattheywerenotgiven proper medical treatment andoftenhadtotreattheirowninjuriesthemselveswith makeshiftremediesandbandages.

Additionally,theplaintishadalmostnocontactwiththeirfamiliesthroughout theentiretimethattheywereforcedlaborers.TheirfamiliesbackinCubafacedthreats of imprisonment and intimidation from state forces for attempting to expose the realityoftheplaintis’situationandtherolethattheCubangovernmentplayedinit. Alloftheplaintisreportedthattheywerestillexperiencingchronicpsychologicaland physicaleectsoftheirtimeasforcedlaborers.

Inhisdecision,districtjudgeJamesKingconsideredthereportsofforcedlaborand humantrackinginthiscaseasconstitutingviolationsofinternationallaw,andthus deemed the ATS to be applicable and jurisdiction was granted.Furthermore,King includedatlengthinhisdecisionadiscussionofthehumanrightssituationinCuba andstatedasfactinhisdecisionthat“Cubaisatotalitarianstatethatabuseshuman rights” In the end, the group of plaintis were awarded a total of $80 million in compensatoryandpunitivedamages.

C. SosaLimits

Sosav.Alvarez-Machainisdeemedtobeanotherlandmarkcaseinthehistoryof theAlienTortStatute.In2004,thecasewasheardbytheSupremeCourtandthiswas therstinstanceinwhichtheSupremeCourtwouldberulingontheATS.InSosa,the SupremeCourtupheldtheprecedentthatFilartigahadsetforgivingfederalcourts jurisdiction over cases involving aliens suing other aliens for human rights abuses However,theSupremeCourtinSosaplacedlimitationsonwhatactionsconstituted humanrightsabusesandcreatedthe“Specic,UniversalandObligatory”testtodecide ifacertainactionconstitutesaviolationofthelawofnationsasdescribedbytheATS. SosaisanimportantcaseinthediscussionoftheATSasitsetspecicdirectionsfor

IN PURSUIT OF GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS ACCOUNTABILITY: THE FILARTIGA AMENDMENT TO THE ALIEN TORT STATUTE

lowercourtstobeabletofollowwhendealingwiththeATS

1. Sosav Alvarez-Machain

In 1985,anAmericanDEAagentwascaptured,tortured,andkilledinMexico. Humberto Alvarez-Machain was deemed by the DEA to be an accomplice in the murderoftheagent TheDEAattemptedtocoordinatewiththeMexicangovernment inordertoextraditeAlvarez,buttheywereunsuccessful.Asaresult,theDEAhireda groupofMexicannationals,includingJoseSosa,tocaptureAlvarezandbringhimto theUnitedStates.AlvarezstatesthathewasforciblyabductedbySosaandwastrapped inahotelroomforonenightuntilbeingforcedontoaplaneboundfortheUnited States.

Upon reaching the United States, Alvarez was put on trial for his role in the murder of the DEA agent. His case, United States v. Alvarez-Machain, would eventuallyreachtheSupremeCourtanddealtwithissuessuchasifcourtswereableto try individuals who hadbeenbroughttherethroughforcedabduction Alvarezwas eventuallyacquittedbecauseoflackofevidence.Alvarezthenlaunchedaseriesofsuits includingoneagainstSosaforarbitraryarrestundertheATS.Alvarezwonthecasein district court which concluded that Sosa was guilty of violating international laws againstarbitraryarrestsandthereforewasliableundertheATS Sosaappealedtothe NinthCircuitCourtofAppeals,buthisjudgmentwasupheldthereaswell.Thecase wasthenbroughttotheSupremeCourtlevel.

Inapplyingthe“Specic,UniversalandObligatory”testthattheSupremeCourt created in Sosa to the case of Sosa itself, the Supreme Court found that Alverez’s chargesagainstSosafailedtoliveuptothescrutinyofthetest.AlvarezcitedtheUnited Nations Declaration of Human Rights which denounced arbitrary arrests. The SupremeCourtruledthattheDeclarationfailedtheobligatorypartofthetestasitwas merely a declaration of principle and was not meant to be interpreted as codied internationallaw Forittopasstheobligatoryrequirement,theremustbelanguagein thetreatycitedthatrequiresanactiononthepartofthestateparty.Becausethecited treaty (The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights) failed this test, the SupremeCourtreversedthedecisionofthelowercourtsandacquittedSosa.13

13 Sosav.Alvarez-Machain,542U.S.692,124S.Ct.2739,159L.Ed.2d718(2004).

2. “Specific,UniversalandObligatory”Test

ThekeycontributionofSosatothehistoryoftheATSistheestablishmentofaset ofguidelinesandstandardsbywhichtojudgewhetheractionsconstitutedsucient reasonforimploringtheATS.TheSupremeCourtdidnotwantforjustanyviolation to be liable under the ATS, but rather a very specic set of the most egregious violations only To thisend,theSupremeCourtestablishedthe“Specic,Universal and Obligatory” test. This test is usedtodecideiftheinternationalnormthatwas allegedlyviolatedisofenoughsignicancethattheviolationwouldbeliabletosuits undertheATS.

Firstly,thenormhastobespecic TheSupremeCourtnotesthatwhentheATS wasrstdrafted,CongresswasreferencingWilliamBlackstone’slistofviolationsofthe laws of nations created in his work, “Commentaries on the Laws of England.” Specically, the violations are attacks on ambassadors, piracy,andviolationsofsafe passages ForanacttobeconsideredinternationallawundertheATS,itmusthave beencodiedwiththesamelevelofspecicityasthatcreatedbythedrafteesofthe ATSandBlackstone.Secondly,thenormmustbeuniversallyrecognized.Inthe18th century when the ATS was rst drafted, piracy was a prominent example of a universallyrecognizedviolation.Inthemodernera,anormcanbedeemeduniversalif itispresentinmanyinternationaltreaties Thirdly,thenormmustbeobligatory The codeinwhichthenormisrootedmustholdsomesortoflegallybindingpower.Inthe case of Sosa, theUnitedNationsDeclarationofHumanRightswasdeemedtonot have a legally binding status and thus the claims of arbitrary arrest were deemed insucienttograntliabilityundertheATS

D. Kiobelv.RoyalDutchPetroleum

In 2013, the Supreme Court ruling in Kiobel v Royal Dutch Petroleum signicantlyhamperedtheATSasatoolforhumanrightsandessentiallyendedthe streak beginning with Filartiga of victims being able toreceivejusticethroughthe ATS.

EstherKiobel,aNigeriannational,alongwithagroupofotherNigeriannationals suedagroupofDutch,British,andNigeriancorporationswhichtheyallegeaidedthe NigeriangovernmentincommittinghumanrightsatrocitiesonthepeopleofNigeria whichviolatedthelawsofnations.Beginninginthe1950s,RoyalDutchPetroleum, through its subsidiary Shell Petroleum Development CompanyofNigeria(SPDC),

IN PURSUIT OF GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS ACCOUNTABILITY: THE FILARTIGA AMENDMENT TO THE ALIEN TORT STATUTE

began large-scale oil exploration, drilling, and operations in the Ogoni region of Nigeria.TheactivitiesofSPDCbegantohaveanegativeimpactonthepeopleinthat regionbecauseoftheeectthatSPDC’soperationshadontheenvironment.Agroup of people from the Ogoni region began protesting the SPDC’s operations. The plaintisallegethatin1993,SPDCconspiredwiththegovernmentofNigeria,which at that time had been under militaryrule,toviolentlysuppresstheprotesters The plaintisstatethatNigerianmilitaryforcescommittedseveralhumanrightsatrocities on the people of Ogoni including murder, rape, destruction of property, and attempted genocide. The plaintis allege that SPDC aided the Nigerian forces in carrying out these atrocities by “(1) provided transportationtoNigerianforces,(2) allowedtheirpropertytobeutilizedasastaginggroundforattacks,(3)providedfood forsoldiersinvolvedintheattacks,and(4)providedcompensationtothosesoldiers.”14

In 2002, Esther Kiobel, the wife of a victim of the Nigerian forces’ actions, launchedaclass-actionsuitagainstRoyalDutchPetroleumundertheATSforseveral allegedviolationsofthelawsofnations.Theseviolationsincludeextrajudicialkilling, torture,propertydestruction,andcrimesagainsthumanity.Atthetimeoflaunching hercase,KiobelwasalegalresidentintheUnitedStatesafterbeinggrantedasylum. The District Court of the Southern District of New York dismissed part of the plaintis’casebecausesomeoftheviolationstheyallegedfailedthespecicitypartof the “Specic, Universal, and Obligatory” test asprescribedinSosa.However,other allegations,namelythoseoftortureandcrimesagainsthumanity,werenotdismissed. ThisresultedinaninterlocutoryappealthatbroughtthecasetotheSecondCircuit Court of Appeals The circuit court’s decision dismissed the entire case of the plaintis,holdingthatforeigncorporationscouldnotbeheldliableundertheATS, andtheplaintissubsequentlyappealedtotheSupremeCourt.

TheSupremeCourtacceptedthecaseandinChiefJusticeJohnRoberts’opinion armedtherulingofthelowercourtsdismissingtheplainti’scaseandestablishedan importantprecedentforcasesdealingwiththeATS ThekeytakeawayfromKiobelwas thecreationofapresumptionagainstextraterritorialityincasesdealingwiththeATS. The Roberts Court feared international backlash arising out of ATS cases. Kiobel establishedthatonlycasesthat“touchandconcernterritoryoftheUnitedStates... with sucientforcetodisplacethepresumptionagainstextraterritorialapplication” could be eligible for trial. This eectively endedthetrendofcasesthatbeganwith Filartigaasthevastmajorityofthesecasesinvolvedeventsthatdidnotoccurinthe

14 Kiobelv RoyalDutchPetroleumCo,621F3d111,123(2dCir 2010),a'd,569US 108,133S Ct.1659,185L.Ed.2d671(2013).

UnitedStatesandlargelyhadnothingtodowiththeUnitedStates

E. Jesnerv.ArabBank

Most recently, in2018,theSupremeCourtaddedanewchaptertothejudicial historyoftheATS Jesnerv.ArabBankaddedyetanotherlimitationtotheATS,that foreigncorporationscouldnotbeheldliableundertheATS.

Between2004and2010,5ATScasesrepresentingover6,000plaintis(almostall of whom are foreign nationals) were led against Arab Bank, PLC. Theplaintis’ complaints rangedfromavarietyofgrievances,includingthefactthattheyortheir family members had been injured, killed, or abducted during attacks bythegroup Hamas.TheplaintisallegedthattheseattacksbyHamaswerefundedinpartbyArab Bank.Additionally,theplaintisallegedthatArabBankfundedterroristorganizations andallowedterroriststoopenandmaintainbankaccounts Onespecicexamplecited bytheplaintisisthatArabBankgaveoutpaymentstofamiliesofsuicidebombers whoseactshadcausedinjurytoplaintisandtheirfamilies.Almostallofthealleged actstookplaceacrosstheMiddleEast.Moreover,plaintisallegedthattheArabBank had utilized the Texas-based charity Holy Land Foundation for Relief and DevelopmenttolaundermoneyforHamasandterroristorganizations

ThecourtinJesnersoughttoansweraquestionthatKiobelhadleftopen:whether foreigncorporationscouldbeheldliableundertheATS.BeforereachingtheSupreme Court, lower court rulings on Kiobel had deemed that the plaintis’casecouldbe dismissedonthenotionthatforeigncorporationscouldnotbesuedundertheATS However,intheSupremeCourt’sdecision,ChiefJusticeRobertsneglectedtoinclude this precedent and instead focused on the extraterritoriality aspect. In crafting the opinionforJesner,JusticeKennedyreferredtoKiobelextensivelyandutilizedsimilar logic in his decision Among other reasons, Kennedy noted that allowing foreign corporationstobesuedintheUnitedStatesbyforeignnationalsundertheATSwould setaglobalprecedentthatcouldharmtheactivitiesofAmericancorporationsabroad. Additionally,JusticeKennedycitedthattheJesnercasehadbeencreatingconictin the United States’ relationship with Jordan and avoiding this sort of international conictwastheexactreasonforwhichtheATShadbeencreated 15 Becauseofthese reasons andothers,theCourtultimatelysetaprecedentthattheATScouldnotbe usedagainstforeigncorporations.

15 Jesnerv.ArabBank,PLC,138S.Ct.1386,1394,200L.Ed.2d612(2018).

IN PURSUIT OF GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS ACCOUNTABILITY: THE FILARTIGA AMENDMENT TO THE ALIEN TORT STATUTE

III. KIOBEL CRITICISMS

A. CircuitSplit

TheCourtinKiobelheldthatinorderforacourttohavejurisdictionoveracase undertheATS,thefactsofthecaseshould“touchandconcernterritoryoftheUnited States . . . with sucient force to displace the presumption against extraterritorial application.”Thisrulingansweredthequestionofwhatcasesarenotgivenjurisdiction under the ATS, but the Court failed to answer many questions created by this standard Forexample,therewasnodenitionof“sucientforce”norwerethereany guidelines to determine what amount of force is “sucient” to displace the presumptionagainstextraterritoriality.Additionally,therewasnoexplanationofwhat countsas“touching”or“concerning”theterritoryoftheUnitedStates.Ultimately,the Kiobel standard created more confusionandvaguenessinastatutethatwasalready initiallyquitebroad

Thislackofexactguidelineshasresultedinacircuitsplitwithcourtsbeingforced to create their own methods of deciding whether an action passedthe“touchand concern”testofKiobel.SomecourtshaveoptedtousetheMorrison“focus”testto determine whether a case is extraterritorial The focus test was established by the SupremeCourtinMorrisonv.NationalAustraliaBankLtdandiscommonlycitedby courts in cases involving a presumption against extraterritoriality. First, one must identify what is the “focus” of the statute being applied and which activityinthe speciccaseisrepresentativeofthat“focus”Ifthatactivitywhichisthefocusofthe statute occurred extraterritorially, then the case fails to overcome the presumption againstextraterritoriality.16 Somecourtshaveelectedtousethistest,suchastheFifth Circuit,butotherschosenotto,suchastheSecondCircuitwhichexplicitlyrebuked theMorrisonfocustest’susageinATScases Thishasresultedinmajordierencesin outcomes

As has been discussed, the “touch and concern ” test has spawned numerous dierentinterpretations,andthereisalackofunityamonglowercourtsinwhichto use.Thishasresultedindierentoutcomesdependingonwhichcircuityourcaseis triedby ThisisproblematicintheUnitedStateswhichvaluesrulebylaw,notruleby man.ThisisevidencedbythefactthatallelectedocialsintheUnitedStatespledgeto

16 Morrisonv.Nat'lAustraliaBankLtd.,561U.S.247,130S.Ct.2869,177L.Ed.2d535(2010).

serve and uphold the Constitution, not any other individual or politician 17 The vaguenessoftheKiobeldecisionleavesopenthepossibilityofgettingdierentresults dependingonwhichcircuityourcaseistriedin.Thisgoesdirectlyagainsttheconcept ofruleoflawandisunacceptableintheAmericanjudicialsystem.

1. AlShimariv.CACIPremierTechnology,Inc.

TheFourthCircuitwasoneofthersttoruleonanATScasepost-KiobelinAl Shimari v. CACI Premier Technology, Inc. In this case, the plaintis were able to successfully rebut the presumption against extraterritoriality. Four Iraqi plaintis broughtactionundertheATSagainstCACIPremierTechnology,Inc,acorporation headquarteredintheU.S.TheplaintisallegethatwhiletheywereprisonersinAbu Ghraib,aprisonfacilitycontrolledbytheU.S.inIraq,theyweretorturedandabused bypersonnelsuppliedbyCACIPremierTechnology.Thesepersonnelwerehiredby the US as interrogators when civil supply had run low Some examples of the mistreatmentthattheplaintisallegetheywerevictimstoincludebeing“repeatedly beaten,” “shot in the leg,” “repeatedly shot in the head with a taser gun, ” and “subjectedtomockexecution.”TheplaintissuedthedefendantundertheATSfor “warcrimes,torture,andcruel,inhuman,ordegradingtreatment.”18

The Fourth Circuit forewent applying the focus test and instead opted for a holistic review of all of the relevant circumstancesanda“fact-basedanalysis.”One consideration of the court was that fact that the alleged torturers were hired by a companybasedintheU.S.Additionally,theclaimsofhumanrightsabusesoccurred duringtheperformanceofacontractthatCACIPremierTechnology,Inc hadwith theU.S.government.Finally,althoughAbuGhraibisnotU.S.territory,thefacilityat that time was completelycontrolledandoperatedbytheU.S.Withthesefactorsin mind,thecourtultimatelyruledthatthepresumptionagainstextraterritorialityhad beenovercomeinthiscaseandthesuitundertheATSwasallowedtocontinue

Onekeyaspectthatsetsthiscaseapartfromothercircuitdecisionsisthecourt’s emphasis on theclaims,andnotthetortitself.Instatingthat“[I]tisnotsucient merelytosaythatbecausetheactualinjurieswereinictedabroad,theclaimsdonot touchandconcernUnitedStatesterritory”theFourthCircuitisplacingemphasison theclaimshavingtopassthe“touchandconcern”testwhichdistinguishesitfromlater

IN PURSUIT OF GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS ACCOUNTABILITY: THE FILARTIGA AMENDMENT TO THE ALIEN TORT STATUTE

circuits which instead emphasized the actual torts having to pass the “touch and concerntest.”

2. Adhikariv.KelloggBrown&Root,Incorporated IncontrasttotheFourthCircuit,theFifthCircuitinAdhikariv KelloggBrown& Root,IncorporatedemployedtheMorrisonfocustestandplacesthefocusofthestatute as “conductthatviolatesinternationallaw,”meaningthattheyemphasizetheactual tortandnotjusttheclaims.Usingthisfocus,thecourtinAdhikaritakesupaneven broader view ofthepresumptionagainstextraterritorialityestablishedinKiobeland holdsthatonlytortswhichoccurredonUS territoryareapplicableforactionunder the ATS. With this, the court barred the plaintis in the case from rebutting the presumptionagainstextraterritoriality.Thispresentsalargediscrepancyinthecourts’ interpretation of the Kiobeldecision.TheFifthCircuitutilizedadierentstandard whichwouldrenderdrasticallydierentresultsthanthestandardusedintheFourth Circuit

In thiscase,12NepalicitizenssuedKellog,Brown&Root,Inc.(KBR),aU.S. militarycontractorbasedinHouston,forallegedlycommittinghumanrightsabuses againstthemorafamilymember.In2004,agroupof12Nepalimenwererecruitedby aJordaniancompanytoworkonaprojectinJordan UponarrivalinJordan,themen weretoldthattheywereinsteadgoingtobetakentoIraqtoworkinAl-AsadforKBR. WhileintransittoKBR’sworksiteinAl-Asad,theirtransportationwascapturedby Iraqiinsurgentsandalmostallofthemenwerekilled.Thedeceasedarerepresentedas plaintis in this case by their family members The sole plainti whosurvivedthe ordealandmadeittotheworksiteclaimsthathewassubjectedtohorricandabusive work conditions for over 15 months. The 11 deceased men, represented byfamily members,alongwiththesolesurvivorsuedKBRfortheirallegedinvolvementintheir illegaltracking

Uponemploymentofthefocustest,thecourtplacedthefocusofthiscaseasthe tortsthemselves.Becausethetortstookplaceonforeignsoil,thecasewasbarredfor extraterritoriality. This exposes a problem of the Kiobel standard because of the likelihoodthattheFourthCircuitwouldhaveruleddierentlyconsideringthesimilar details between this case and Al Shimari Similar to Al Shimari, the plaintis experiencedhumanrightsviolationswhileunderthecontrolofaU.S.companyand whileintransittoaU.S.-controlledsite.Whilethismaybespeculation,itiscleartosee howthesetwocaseshighlightsmajordiscrepanciesinthelowercourts’interpretations

ofKiobelandgoestoshowwhyKiobelisproblematicandrequiresoverturning

B. InternationalHumanRightsLaw

TheUnitedStateshaslongexpressedacommitmenttoupholdingandprotecting human rights globally Eleanor Roosevelt, First Lady of the United States from 1933–1945,wastherstChairpersonoftheUnitedNationsCommissiononHuman Rights.19 Additionally, Roosevelt also played a key part in the formulation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights In 1977, the United States signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Among the rights enshrined in this treaty include the “right to life and freedom from torture and slavery.”20 Alsoin1977,theUnitedStatessignedontotheInternationalCovenanton Economic, Social, and Political Rightswhichholdsthatstatesareto“recognizethe rightofeveryonetotheenjoymentofthehighestattainablestandardofphysicaland mental health.”21 Several of the cases brought before courts under the ATS allege instances of violations of rights that the United States hasexpresseditwilluphold throughitssignatureonthesetreaties.DoeIv.NestleUSA,Incpertainstotheissueof childslaverywhichisaclearviolationofarticle8oftheICCPR Ellulv Congregation ofChristianBroscontainsaprovenviolationofarticle7oftheICCPRwhichstates that“Nooneshallbesubjectedtotortureortocruel,inhumanordegradingtreatment orpunishment.”Yetinbothinstances,despiteexplicitviolationsofrightswhichthe UnitedStateshascommittedtoupholding,Americancourtsdidnothingastheywere constrainedbytheKiobelstandard

The United States’ involvement in international human rights is historically grounded and remains prominent in the contemporary. The Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution were largely inspired by enlightenment thinkers espousing ideas of liberalism and self-determinism These ideas,enshrinedinthefoundingdocumentsoftheUnitedStates,serveaspartofthe foundationofmodern-dayhumanrights.

Furthermore,intheNuremburgTrials,wherebyNaziocialswereplacedontrial forcrimesagainsthumanity,byfarthelargestdelegationontheprosecutionsidecame

19 RebeccaAdami,WomenandtheUniversalDeclarationofHumanRights,UɴɪᴛᴇᴅNᴀᴛɪᴏɴs(2018), https://wwwunorg/sites/un2unorg/les/2019/11/women who shaped the udhrpdf(last visitedMay5,2022).

20 999UNTS 171;S Exec Doc E,95-2(1978);S TreatyDoc 95-20;6ILM 368(1967)

21 993U.N.T.S.3;S.Exec.Doc.D,95-2(1978);S.TreatyDoc.No.95-19;6I.L.M.360(1967).

IN PURSUIT OF GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS ACCOUNTABILITY: THE FILARTIGA AMENDMENT TO THE ALIEN TORT STATUTE

from the United States 22 Because of how big their delegation was, the American prosecutorstookonasignicantportionoftheprosecutionworkduringthetrial.This is yet another testament to the historical commitment of the United States to internationalhumanrights.Kiobelrepresentsabreakinthistradition.

IV. MISSED OPPORTUNITIES

FollowingKiobel,thereweremanycasesbroughtbeforefederalcourtsofhuman rightsviolationswhichcourtscouldhavebeengrantedjurisdictionhaditnotbeenfor the presumption against extraterritoriality These cases serve as examples of missed opportunitiesinwhichtheUnitedStatescouldhavegiventhevictimsofhumanrights atrocitiesjusticethattheyotherwisewouldnothavebeenabletoobtainintheirhome countries.Fromahumanrightsperspective,Kiobelhasbeenaveryregrettabledecision asillustratedbythefollowingcasesbecauseKiobeleectivelyclosedapathbywhich many victims of human rights atrocities worldwide haveusedtohavetheirabusers punishedbythelaw.

A. Ellulv.CongregationofChristianBros

A group of plaintis alleged several human rights violations against the Congregation of Christian Brothers (CCB), a Roman Catholic religious order. Plaintisclaimthattheywereabductedaschildren,trackedtoAustralia,madeto workinslaveryconditions,andweresubjectedtosexualabuse.EmmanuelEllulstates that when he was 14 years old, his family sent him and his brothers to what was supposedlyaprogramallowingchildreninMaltatostudyinAustralia Uponarrivalin Australia,however,EllulandhisbrothersweresenttoafarmownedbytheCCB.They didnotreceiveanyeducationandwereinsteadforcedtoperformmanuallabor.They were subjected to horric living conditions, frequently beaten, worked long hours every day, and brainwashedintobelievingthattheirparentsweredead Ellulwould eventually be separated from his brothers to work on adierentfarmanddidnot regaincontactwiththemuntilafter20years.Ellulwasnotcompensatedforanyofhis labor.

Ellul was joined in this suit by other plaintis claiming similar experiences of having been tracked to Australia and forcedintoservitudeaschildren Onesuch

22

KimChristianPriemel,TheBetrayal:TheNurembergTrialsandGermanDivergence,Oxғᴏʀᴅ Uɴɪᴠ.Pʀᴇss(2016).

plaintiwasValerieCormack,whowhenshewas10yearsoldwasforcedtoworklong hoursatanurseryhomeandtrickedintobelievingthatherwageswerebeingplacedin a savings account that she could collect upon reaching adulthood. Once Cormack becameanadult,shewasnotabletocollecthersupposedsavedwages.Bothincidences occurredinthe1960sand40yearslaterin2009,theplaintistookactionagainstCCB for “slavery and involuntary servitude, forced child labor, and cruel,inhuman,and degradingtreatmentorpunishment.”23

BecausealloftheclaimsoftheplaintisoccurredinAustralia,thecasewasbarred because it could not overcome the presumption against extraterritoriality This is despitethefactthatinthecourtopinion,CircuitJudgeGerardLynchstatesthat“Itis beyond question and defendants do not dispute that plaintis allege shocking violations of internationally accepted norms. ” Both parties acknowledged that the allegedabuseswereundoubtedlyhorricandagainstinternationalcustomarylaw.This wouldhavemadethecaseperfectforlitigationundertheATS,butitwasnotallowed to proceed due to the presumption on extraterritoriality. While it is impossible to speculate on what the court’s decision would be without the bar against extraterritoriality, it is still quite regretful that even though there was a court-recognizedviolationofthehumanrightsoftheplaintis,theywerenotableto receivejusticefortheirtraumaticchildhoodexperiencesbecauseofKiobel

B. DoeIv NestleUSA,Inc

This case was also brought forthbyplaintisallegingtobeformerchildslaves. TheywereforcedtoworkincocoafarmsintheIvoryCoastcollectingcocoaforNestle USA,Inc.ThethreeplaintisaresuingNestleUSA,Inc.forallegedlyfundingfarming facilities(suchastheonethattheplaintisworkedat)withthefullknowledgethat these facilities used child labor and subjected the children to horric working conditions The court in Nestle granted the plaintis’ claims of child slavery as actionableundertheATS Thecourtmadenorulingontheextraterritorialityofthe caseandvacatedthecasetoallowtheplaintistheopportunitytoamendtheircasein ordertorespondtotheKiobeldecisionwhichhadbeenmadeduringtheproceedings ofthiscase.Unfortunatelyfortheplaintis,theirchancesofsuccessduetoKiobelare bleak

Thethreeplaintisinthiscasewereformerchildslavesatcocoafarmingfacilitiesin theIvoryCoast.Theplaintisreportbeingsubjectedtoatrociousworkingandliving

23 Ellulv.CongregationofChristianBros.,774F.3d791,793(2dCir.2014).

IN PURSUIT OF GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS ACCOUNTABILITY: THE FILARTIGA AMENDMENT TO THE ALIEN TORT STATUTE

conditions Theyworkedverylonghoursfor6daysaweek,werebarelyfed,andwere oftenbeaten.Topreventthemfromescaping,theywerelockedintinyroomsatnight. Theplaintisreportedwitnessingthatchildrenwhotriedtoescapebutwerecaught wouldhavetheirfeetslicedopenbythefacilitymanagers.Theplaintisnotethattheir experienceaschildslaveshasleftthemwithpermanentphysical,emotional,andmental damage

Thewidespreadpracticeofchildslaveryinthesefacilitiesandinthisregionarewell documented and reported by international organizations. The court in Nestle concludedthattherewassucientevidencetoestablishthatNestlewerefullyawareof thesereportsbutignoredtheminpursuitofthemostlucrativeprotmargins Thus, Nestlecouldbetriedforaidingandabettinginthepracticeofchildslavery,whichisan actionableviolationofinternationallawundertheATS.

Ultimately, the court in Nestle ruled that the plaintis’ claims were actionable under the ATS and there was sucient evidence to prove their claims that Nestle knowinglyaidedandabettedfacilitiesusingchildslavery.24 BeforeKiobel,thiswould perhapshavebeentheendofthecaseinfavoroftheplaintis,anditwouldbesenttoa jurytoawardthemtheircompensatorydamages.However,thecourtinsteadvacated thecaseandallowedtheplaintistimetoamendtheirclaimsinresponsetotheKiobel decisionwhichhadcomeoutwhilethiscasewasbeingtried Theplaintis’chancesof successhavenowgonefromalmostcertainsuccesstoalmostcertaindefeatduetothe likelihood of their case being barred due to not being able to overcome the presumptionagainstextraterritoriality.Again,thisisaregrettablecasewhereinthereis a court-recognized violation of international law actionable under the ATS and a chanceforchildslavestobringtheirabuserstotrial,butitwilllikelybebarreddueto theKiobeldecision.

V. FILARTIGA AMENDMENT

Ashasbeendiscusseduntilthispoint,thereareundoubtedlyproblemswiththe Kiobeldecision.The“touchandconcern”testistoovagueandhascreatedacircuit split whereby dierent circuits usedierentmethodologieswhichconictwithone another KiobelrunscountertoAmerica’sgoalofbeingaworldleaderinhumanrights Additionally,itisregrettablefromahumanrightsperspectivebecauseithasblocked humanrightsviolationvictimsfrombeingabletoreceiveredressagainsttheirabusers. ThebestsolutiontorestoringthepowerthatFilartigagavetheATSingivingjusticeto

24

DoeIv.NestleUSA,Inc.,766F.3d1013,1027(9thCir.2014).

humanrightsabusevictimsisforCongresstoamendtheATStomakeitmoresimilar totheTortureVictimPreventionActof1991(TVPA).

A. TortureVictimPreventionActof1991

TheTVPAwassignedintolawin1992byPresidentGeorgeH WBush The statute “gives rights to U.S. citizens and non-citizens alike to bringclaimsfor tortureandextrajudicialkillingcommittedinforeigncountries.”25 SimilartotheATS before Kiobel, thislawallowsforalienstobringotheralienstocourtintheUnited States for crimes committed outside of the territory of the United States A key dierence is that this law only allows for aliens to take action over two kinds of oenses:tortureandextrajudicialkilling.Additionally,thereareprovisionsinplacein the statute that requireplaintistorstexhaustalldomesticlegalremediesintheir owncountrybeforeseekingactionintheUnitedStates TherstinstanceoftheTVPA being used was in 1995 when Dianna Ortiz, a Guatemalan national, sued former Guatemalan Defense Minister Héctor Gramajo, also a Guatemalan national, for torture.Shewasawarded$5millionindamagesbyagrandjury.26TheTVPAservesas an example of what a re-tooledandamendedATSmightlooklike Apresumption againstextraterritorialityisnotapplicabletotheTVPAbecausetheactitselfexplicitly states that individuals “of any foreign nation”27 could be held liable for torture or extrajudicialkillingnomatterwherethecrimewascommitted.

B TextChanges

TheFilartigaAmendmentwouldaddlanguagetotheATSexplicitlyallowingforit to be applicable in situations where the tort was committed abroad. This would directlyaddresspartofthereasoningbehindtheSupremeCourt’simplementationofa presumption against extraterritoriality: the lack of clarity regarding whether the

25 TortureVictimProtectionAct,TʜᴇCᴇɴᴛᴇʀғᴏʀJᴜsᴛɪᴄᴇᴀɴᴅAᴄᴄᴏᴜɴᴛᴀʙɪʟɪᴛʏ, https://cjaorg/what-we-do/litigation/legal-strategy/torture-victim-protection-act/(lastvisitedMay 20,2022).

26 RyanDiCorpo,DiannaOrtiz,NunwhotoldofbrutalabductionbyGuatemalanmilitary,diesat 62,TʜᴇWᴀsʜɪɴɢᴛᴏɴPᴏsᴛ(Feb.19,2021), https://wwwwashingtonpostcom/local/obituaries/dianna-ortiz-nun-who-told-of-brutal-abductio n-by-guatemalan-military-dies-at-62/2021/02/19/932ac25a-713a-11eb-85fa-e0ccb3660358 story.h tml(lastvisitedJune13,2022)

27 28U.S.C.§1350.

IN PURSUIT OF GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS ACCOUNTABILITY: THE FILARTIGA AMENDMENT TO THE ALIEN TORT STATUTE

originalframersofthelawintendedfortheATStoapplytoactionsoccurringabroad Additionally, the Filartiga Amendment would add a clear denition of “law of nations”soastosolidifythelawasempoweringAmericanfederalcourtstoserveas venues for human rights abuse victims to pursue their abusers. The Filartiga AmendmentwouldchangetheATStoasfollows:

Section1:EstablishmentofJurisdiction

Thedistrictcourtsshallhaveoriginaljurisdictionofanycivilactionbyanalienfora tortonly,committedinviolationofthelawofnationsoratreatyoftheUnitedStates, regardless of whether or not the tortwascommittedintheterritoryoftheUnited States.

Section2:Definitions

(a)LawofNations –AninternationalcovenantoragreementtowhichtheUnited Statesisastate-partytothatisspecific,universal,andobligatory.

C. Section1

Section1oftheFilartigaAmendmentcontainstheoriginaltextoftheATS,but withaddedlanguagewhichexplicitlystatesthelaw’sapplicabilitytotortscommitted abroad. This would dispeltheconfusionleftbytheoriginalframersandcodifythe precedentsetinFilartigaoftheATSbeingusedforinternationaltortclaims.Thislaw ndsbasisintheTVPAwhichcreatesacauseforcivilactionagainstindividualswho committortureorextrajudicialkilling,absentofanyrequirementsforwheretheacts werecommittedandregardlessoftheperpetrator’snationality.

D Section2

Section2oftheFilartigaAmendmentestablishesadenitionfor“lawofnations.”

This section serves many purposes. First, it addresses another piece of the Court’s rationaleforimposingapresumptionagainstextraterritoriality:thepossibilityforATS casestocauseconictsinAmericanforeignrelations Becauseofthissection,onlytorts committedinviolationofinternationallyagreednormswouldbeactionableunderthe ATS.Othercountriesshouldhavenoqualmsregardingtheircitizensbeingpursued using the ATS if they are found to have committed violations of international standards

Anotherfunctionthissectionplaysistoupdatethe“lawofnations”beingreferred tointheATSfromtheideasof18th centuryEnglishjuristWilliamBlackstonetothe modern-day human rights framework. Originally,violationsofthe“lawofnations” referredonlytoactssuchasviolationofsafepassageways,tortsagainstambassadors, and piracy This section allows for the ATS to be used for violations of all ofthe modern conceptions of human rights and gives room for the ATS to adapt to a continuallyevolvingframeworkaswell.

Lastly,thissectionensuresthattheATSwillonlybeusedforthemostegregious violationsonlybyincludingthe“Specic,Universal,andObligatory”testestablished inSosa ThisaddscredibilitytothelawasSosawasnotoverturnedbyKiobelandwas therstATScasetoreachtheSupremeCourt,whereintheFilartigaprecedentwas essentiallyarmed.

E NeedforCongressionalAction

CongressionalactionistheonlyviablepathwaytowardsrestoringtheATSasatool for human rights because the Kiobel decision, although problematic as previously highlighted,isveryunlikelytobeoverturnedduetoitbeingaunanimousdecision Human rights legislation, such as the potential Filartiga Amendment, is not unprecedentedinCongress.Forexample,theTVPAhadsimilarconcernswithregard tocreatingissueswithAmericanforeignrelations,butitwasdeemedthattortureand extrajudicialkillingswereviolationsdireenoughtowarrantacauseforactioninthe UnitedStatesnomatterwheretheactwascommittedandtheperpetrator’snationality Why should slavery, rape, and genocide (which are all oenses whose victimshave receivedredressthankstotheATS)beanydierent?PassageoftheTVPAhasalready proventhattheUnitedStatespaysnoquarreltoindividualswhocommitactswhich renderthemhostishumanigeneris UpdatingtheATStoincludesimilarlanguageas theTVPAisthusareasonablesolution

Intermsofpoliticalfeasibility,upholdinganddefendinghumanrightsgloballyisa positionsupportedbyindividualsfromallsidesofthepoliticalspectrum.Recently,the SenatepassedSenateResolution546whichcondemnstheactionsofRussianPresident VladimirPutininUkraine,allegingthatPutiniscomplicitinwarcrimesandhuman rightsabusesperpetratedbymembersoftheRussianArmedForcesagainstthepeople of Ukraine. Additionally, the resolution urged member states of the International CriminalCourttopetitionacaseagainstPresidentPutin.Intheresolution,thereis languagewhichstatesthat“[T]heUnitedStatesofAmericaisabeaconforthevalues

IN PURSUIT OF GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS ACCOUNTABILITY: THE FILARTIGA AMENDMENT TO THE ALIEN TORT STATUTE

of freedom, democracy, and human rights across the globe”28 Inatimewherethe nation is deeplypoliticallydivided29 andthetwomajorpoliticalpartiesformingthe Americangovernmenthavefounditalmostimpossibletoworkwitheachother,this resolution declaring the United States to be a beacon of human rights andurging internationalhumanrightsbodiestakeactionwaspassedunanimouslyintheUnited StatesSenate Evidently,thereisbroadpoliticalsupportforhumanrights

CONCLUSION

The Alien Tort Statute was created as part of the Judiciary Act of 1789 The originalintentionsofthecreatorsoftheATSarelargelyunknown,butmanyspeculate it was inordertosignaltotheEuropeanpowersandtoforeigndignitariesthatthe UnitedStates,whichwasatthattimestillaedglingnation,recognizedthelawsof nationsandhadmechanismsinplacetoenforcethem Foralmost200years,theATS was an insignicant part of the American legal code until the case of Filartiga v. Pena-Iralain1980whichbeganatrendoftheATSbeingusedbyvictimsofhuman rightsviolationscommittedabroadtoobtaincompensationandjusticeintheUnited States.In2004,theSupremeCourtinSosav.Alvarez-Machainarmedtheprecedent setbyFilartigabutnarroweditsscopesuchthatonlyviolationsofnormswhichpassed the “Specic, Universal, and Obligatory” test were liable for jurisdiction in federal courts under the ATS.Thenin2013,theSupremeCourtinKiobelv.RoyalDutch PetroleumeectivelyendedthetrendoftheATSbeingusedasaremedyforhuman rights abuses abroad by establishing a presumption against extraterritoriality This meansthatunlesstheeventsthattookplaceinthecase“touchandconcernterritoryof the United States . . . with sucient force to displace the presumption against extraterritorial application,” then federalcourtscouldnothavejurisdictionoverthe caseundertheATS TheSupremeCourtsubsequentlyinJesnerv ArabBankfurther limited the ATS by determining that foreign corporations could not beheldliable undertheATS.

TheKiobeldecisionisproblematicformanyreasons.First,itsvagueguidelinesand languagehasresultedindierentcircuitsusingdierentmethodologieswhichcome intoconictwitheachother Thisisaproblembecauseplaintishavereceivedresults

28 S.Res.546,117thCong.(2022)(enacted).

29

MichaelDimock&RichardWike,Americaisexceptionalinthenatureofitspoliticaldivide,Pᴇᴡ RᴇsᴇᴀʀᴄʜCᴇɴᴛᴇʀ(Nov.11,2020), https://wwwpewresearchorg/fact-tank/2020/11/13/america-is-exceptional-in-the-nature-of-its-po litical-divide/(lastvisitedJune16,2022).

thatwouldbedierenthadtheircasebeentriedinadierentcircuit Second,Kiobel runscountertothemissionoftheUnitedStatesofbecomingaworldleaderinhuman rights.Additionally,Kiobelisregrettablefromahumanrightsperspectivebecausethe FilartigastandardwhichwaseectivelyendedbyKiobelhadgivenanoutletforhuman rightsviolationvictimsfromcountrieswithlessaccessiblecourtsystemstoreceiveafair trialincourtagainsttheirabusers ThisdoorwasessentiallyshutbyKiobel Because Kiobelwaspassedbyunanimousdecision,itwillbenearlyimpossibletooverturnthis decision.ThebestcourseofactionisforCongresstoamendtheATSwiththeFilartiga Amendment This amendment would include language allowing for United States federalcourtstohavejurisdictionovertortsthatoccurredoutsidetheterritoryofthe United States. Additionally, it would also include a clear denition of the “law of nations” which ensures that only the most egregious violations of internationally accepted norms can beactionableundertheATS.Thishelpsreducethechancefor conictinforeignrelationsarisingoutofATScases

TheATShasallowedforvictimsofhumanrightsatrocitiestobeawardedmillions in damages, and theopportunitytoservejusticetotheirperpetratorsincourt.Itis deeplyregrettablethatthisonceshiningtoolofhumanrightswasrendereduselessby Kiobel CongressmustactandpasstheFilartigaAmendmenttofurthercementthe UnitedStatesasagloballeaderinhumanrights

ImpededRegulationofOnlineMisinformation

ABSTRACT. Although people have become increasingly reliant on social media for information, misinformation, especially medical misinformation, runs rampant. Companies like Facebook and Twitter have been given discretion on how they maintaintheirplatforms,buttheeectislessthandesirable Undertheirstructures, engagement-driven information takes priority over factuality, contributing to a pandemic of misinformation. Despite thisinuence,socialmediaplatformsfaceno penalties for how users are aected. This is because Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) protects interactive computer services like socialmediaplatformsfromliabilityformisinformationcreatedbyusers Duringthe COVID-19 pandemic, these issues were highlighted when false social media information hurt coordination between government and citizens and increased personalhealthrisks.Toprotectgeneralhealth,Section230needstobeamendedto exempt no-liability protection from user-generated health misinformation, without precautions or user consent. Compliance with this law would require interactive computerservicestolabelhealthrelatedinformationforusersandreviewinformation directly contradictingscienticconsensusascompiledbygovernmentalagencies.By exempting no-liability in medical misinformation, social mediaplatformsandother interactive computer services would face incentives to limittheimpactofcognitive biasesandthespreadofmisinformationthatharms.

AUTHOR. KevinZhouisanInternationalEconomicsUndergraduatestudentandan upcomingMaster'sdegreestudentattheSchoolofGlobalPolicy&StrategyatUCSD HewouldliketothankJamesHolliday,BrendonHahm,andtheULREditorialBoard fortheirtimeandadviceonthisarticle.

2

INTRODUCTION

In a letter to Richard Price in 1789, Thomas Jeerson said of education: “[W]herever the people are well informed they can be trusted with their own government;thatwheneverthingsgetsofarwrongastoattracttheirnotice,theymay bereliedontosetthemtorights”1 ThosewordsreectwhatJeersonthoughttobe important to the institutions ofdemocracyandmaintainingthevaluesoffreedom. From his perspective,informationiscrucialtothebalancebetweenthegovernment and the governed. After all, these ideas were built upon those from the American Revolution, which was represented by Jeerson and other Founding Fathers The Americanidentitycamefromaspreadofinformationthroughnewspapersand,later during the crafting oftheConstitution,articlesliketheFederalistPapers.Hence,if peopleare“wellinformed,”thentheyareabletounderstandthepoliticalrhetoricand canproperlyrepresentthemselvesinademocraticgovernment

In theageoftheinternet,socialmediaplatformshavebecomemajorsourcesof informationforthegeneralpublic.APewResearchCenterstudyfoundthateighty-six percent ofAmericansgetnewsfromdigitaldevicessuchassmartphones,tablets,or computers, and fty-three percentofAmericansoftenorsometimesgetnewsfrom social media 2 With more than half of Americans receivingnewsinformationfrom social media platforms, the impact of misinformation on social media can be considerable.

Thisarticlediscussesthespreadofmisinformationonsocialmediaandwhythe causesofitsspreadarestructural First,socialmediaplatformscauseacognitiveeect calledconrmationbiasthroughstructuralsocialmediaalgorithms,whichcancreate echochambersofinformation.Then,Section230oftheCommunicationsDecency Act (CDA) enables and expands these chambers by providing specialimmunityto social media platforms for the content published on their sites Utilizing these background provisions, this article constructs legal prescriptions for the current systems,namelythatSection230shouldbeamendedtotakeintoconsiderationthe role of social media systems in spreading and facilitating misinformation. These arguments are constructed withthegoalofincentivizingsocialmediacompaniesto

1 LetterfromThomasJeersontoRichardPrice(Jan 8,1789),inTʜᴇTʜᴏᴍᴀsJᴇғғᴇʀsᴏɴPᴀᴘᴇʀs, (Gen.CorrespondenceSer.No.1,1651-1827).

ElisaShearer,Morethaneight-in-tenAmericansgetnewsfromdigitaldevices,PᴇᴡRᴇsᴇᴀʀᴄʜ Cᴇɴᴛᴇʀ(Jan.12,2021), https://wwwpewresearchorg/fact-tank/2021/01/12/more-than-eight-in-ten-americans-get-news-f rom-digital-devices/.

6

MEDICAL MISINFORMATION ON SOCIAL MEDIA: HOW SECTION 230 IMPEDED REGULATION OF ONLINE MISINFORMATION

designonlinesystemsthatbetterdampenmisinformationandcurbdisinformationin order to reduce any kind of resulting harm, including poorly informed health decisions.

I. SOCIAL MEDIA ALGORITHMS

Social media platforms use a tool called “computer algorithms” to manage the orderofthecontentthatusersseeandoptimizerevenuegeneration Accesstothese platforms is generally free because the business model is based not on maximizing transactionsbetweentheplatformandtheuserbutratheronmaximizingengagement between users on the platform Revenue generation algorithms on social media platformscollectdatatohelpadvertisersmaximizetheexposureoftheiradvertisements to the users of the social media platform.3 The platform is unlike a conventional commercial platform where the business model is to sell the user a product in a transaction; instead, users give social media platforms engagement time, and social mediaplatformssellthatengagementtimetoadvertisers,whousethatengagementto compelviewerstobuyproductsandservices.

Inordertomaximizeuserengagement,socialmediaplatformsmanipulatepersonal content“feeds”inaccordancetousers’interests.Thoseinterestsaretailoredtotheuser through the use of personal user data Thatincludes“likes”,oineactivity,online engagementtopics,andotherinteractionstheuserhashadoncertaincontent 4 This hasresultedinanenormousstoreofuserdatathosesocialmediaplatformsanalyzeto recommendcontentthatisengagingtotheuser.5

Duetothequantityofthedata,socialmediacompaniesdonotmanuallyorganize andinterpretuserdata Instead,theyutilizecomputeralgorithms,whicharecomputer programscreatedtocollectandanalyzedatausinginterpretationmodelstocompile contentrecommendationsthatareoptimizedtomaximizeuserengagement.6 Thisisa methodthatisabletopredict,albeitwitherror,whatcontentwillkeepusersonthe

3 AlfredLua,HowtheInstagramAlgorithmWorksin2021:EverythingYouNeedtoKnow,Bᴜғғᴇʀ (2021),https://buer.com/library/instagram-feed-algorithm/.

4 Id

5 SocialMediaandtheBigDataExplosion,Fᴏʀʙᴇs(June28,2012), https://wwwforbescom/sites/onmarketing/2012/06/28/social-media-and-the-big-data-explosion/ ?sh=68e4ecb76a61.

SangAhKim,SocialMediaAlgorithms:WhyYouSeeWhatYouSee,2Gᴇᴏ L Tᴇᴄʜ Rᴇᴠ 147 (2017).

9

7

platformforaslongaspossibleinafarmorecost-eectivewaythanemployinghuman workerstomanuallycollectandorganizeuserdata.

II. COGNITIVE BIASES ON SOCIAL MEDIA

Despite their eciency, the nature of these algorithms results in biases inhow peoplereceiveinformation Oneresearchpaperlookedintoapossiblebiasthatcomes as a result ofsocialmediaalgorithms:conrmationbias7,whichisthetendencyfor people to believe any assertion if it is a conrmation of an existing thought.8 Specically, the paper focused on how conrmation bias emerges in online social groups By studying the dynamics of opinions spread in online social networks, researchersfoundthatconrmationbiasaectsthesesocialgroupsinwaysdierent fromoine,in-personsocialgroups.9 Themodelthattheresearchersconstructedhad membersofanonlinesocialnetworkexposedtoanexternalopinion,withoutbeing abletoimmediatelyreciprocatetheowofinformation.Thisistomimictheeectof receiving information through online sources in contrast to in-person, oine interaction, where information shocks can be promptly addressed through conversation.Overtime,thesameinformationwassharedbyothermembersofthe online social group, gradually changing the perception of the members through conrmation bias to reach a single information equilibrium The end result is a singularperspectivesharedbymemberswithinthesocialgroup Oine,anexchange of information happens through conversation, creating constant shocks to the information of each member of the social network, resulting in a lack of an equilibriumininformation.10

Thisportrayalofonlinesocialnetworks,inapplication,displayshowsocialmedia algorithms could display a single piece of information to multiple members of an onlinesocialnetworkandwouldrecommendsimilarcontenttousersthatsharethe similarinterests.Thesememberscouldthensharethisinformationundertheirown online social networks to unintentionally cultivate misinformation through conrmation bias Other membersthathavealreadyreceivedthisinformationfrom

YanbingMaoetal.,OntheEvolutionofPublicOpinioninthePresenceofConfirmationBIAS,IEEE Xᴘʟᴏʀᴇ(2018),https://ieeexploreieeeorg/document/8619824

8

ShahramHeshmat,WhatIsConfirmationBias?,PsʏᴄʜᴏʟᴏɢʏTᴏᴅᴀʏ(Apr.232015), https://wwwpsychologytodaycom/us/blog/science-choice/201504/what-is-conrmation-bias

YanbingMaoetal.,OntheEvolutionofPublicOpinioninthePresenceofConfirmationBIAS,IEEE Xᴘʟᴏʀᴇ(2018),https://ieeexploreieeeorg/document/8619824

10

Id.

MEDICAL MISINFORMATION ON SOCIAL MEDIA: HOW SECTION 230 IMPEDED REGULATION OF ONLINE MISINFORMATION

their recommended social media feeds would see this information repeatedly, cognitivelyconrmingthetruthfulnessofthisinformation.Ifthispieceofinformation isnottrue,thenmisinformationissuccessfullyspread.

11 MichelaDelVicarioetal.,TheSpreadingofMisinformationOnline,113Pʀᴏᴄ.Nᴀᴛ’ʟAᴄᴀᴅ.Sᴄɪ. 556(2016)

12 Id. 31

13 FranziskaZimmer,FakeNewsinSocialMedia:BadAlgorithmorBiasedUsers?,7JᴏᴜʀɴᴀʟᴏғIɴғᴏ Sᴄɪ.TʜᴇᴏʀʏᴀɴᴅPʀᴀᴄᴛɪᴄᴇIssᴜᴇ2,2019,40.

misinformation Commentsclassiedbythestudyasmisinformationwererefutedby otherusers,eectivelyrestrictingmisinformation.15

Socialmediausers,likeinthecaseoftheRedditstudy,maychoosetoengagewith otherusersthatdisplaysimilaritiesinbelief,creatingechochambersofinformation. Social media algorithms may also create echo chambers by exposing userstoselect perspectives thatareinterestingorengaginginordertomaximizeengagementtime Both types of echo chambers facilitate misinformation through conrmation bias. Thesestructuralsystemsareintentionallybuiltintosocialmediaplatformsandarean easytargetforpolicymakersaimingtodampenthespreadofmisinformation.

III. IMMUNITY FOR SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS

Socialmediaplatformsprovideanopportunityfortheiruserstopublishrelatively freely while the platforms themselves retain little liability for facilitating misinformation.Thisisbecausesocialmediaplatformshavespecialimmunityagainst liability for content published on their platforms Under Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act (CDA) of 1996, they are able to publish most user content(withfewexceptions)withoutbeingliableforthecontentorconsequencesof theseposts.16 Section230hashelpedfosterthegrowthofsocialmediaplatformsaswell asotheronlineinternetservicesbylimitingtheresponsibilityofinteractivecomputer services(ICS)companies Socialmediaplatformsfallwithinthecategoryofinteractive computer services, alongside websites for online services like ecommerce and many others.Inthecontextofsocialmediaplatforms,thiswouldmeanthatnomatterwhat content a user posts, the social mediaplatformwillnotbeheldresponsibleforthe consequencesoftheseposts

Section230hasbeensuccessfulinsupportinginteractiveinternetservicesduring its developmental stage, but now faces criticisms for disincentivizing social media platformsfrompolicingmisinformation.17 Theargumentisthatbyprotectingsocial mediaplatformsfromliabilityforwhattheiruserscreate,theseplatformshavelessof

MEDICAL MISINFORMATION ON SOCIAL MEDIA: HOW SECTION 230 IMPEDED REGULATION OF ONLINE MISINFORMATION

an incentive to lter malicious or harmful content, including misinformation and violentrhetoric.

Indeed, according to Tim Kendall, ex-director of monetization at Facebook, Facebook intentionally uses section 230 immunities to promote content that will “provoke, shock, and enrage ” its users to maximize attention 18 He states that the algorithmdesignispartofan“addictivebusinessmodel”19and,inhistestimonytothe HouseCommitteeonEnergyandCommerce,describesthealgorithmsasavehicleto “deliver . . . incendiary content . . . in the exact right way ” in order to facilitate engagement and prots.20 This proves two points: rst, social mediaplatformslike Facebookformrevenueinawaythatisdirectlycorrelatedtoengagementtime,and, second,theuseofincendiarycontentincluding“shockingimages,graphicvideos,and headlines that incite outrage”21 was internally recognized as a method to increase engagementtimes.Theiralgorithmstriggeremotionstodemandthemostattention fromFacebook’susers Becausesocialmediacompanieslacktheincentivetomoderate content,Section230immunitieshaveinsteadencouragedthemtoturntopromoting sensational content, regardlessofaccuracy.Thisisahugecauseofmisinformation’s prevalenceonline,andaneasysourceforasolution.

IV. PRECEDENT FOR EXCEPTIONS

There are exceptions to this immunity, however, including criminal cases, intellectual property infringement cases, andsextrackingcasesthataresubjectto federalcriminallaw.Infact,theinstanceofanti-sextrackinglanguageinSection230 was only recently signed into the exceptions’ clauses in 2018.22 This was done to combatonlinesextrackingwebsitesthathavemadehundredsofmillionsofdollars inrevenuefacilitatingprostitutionformorethanadecade.23

ThespecicstatuteexemptingsextrackingcasesfromSection230istheAllow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Tracking Actof2017(FOSTA).FOSTA amendsSection230sothat“[E]nforcementagainstprovidersandusersofinteractive computer services of Federal and State criminal and civil law relating to sexual exploitationofchildrenorsextracking”isnotprohibited 24InaJune2021reportby the United States Government Accountability Oce (GAO), the impact of the FOSTAbillwasanalyzedandputintothecontextofmajorsextrackingcasesthat werefacilitatedthroughonlineplatforms.ThereportcombinestheimpactofFOSTA andthefederalseizureofbackpage.com,“thelargestonlinemarketplaceforbuyingand selling commercial sex ” , which had happened ve days before the enactment of FOSTA.25 ThesetwoeventshappenedinApril2018andwerefollowedbyamassive relocation of platforms supporting online commercial sex. 26 By 2019, the Underground Commercial Sex Economy (UCSE) had become “fragmented”, with “severalsignssuggest[ing] thatdemandhasfallenandsupplymightbefalling” 27 However,concernsaboutthelimitationsoftheFOSTAbillarisefromitspractical applications.BecausetheFOSTAbillissochronologicallyclosetothebackpage.com seizure, the impact of the FOSTA bill is dicult to independently assess. 28 Furthermore, the Constitution’s Ex Post Facto Clause dictates that “only conduct engagedonorafter[theenactment]ispunishablebythelaw” 29Thus,aspartofanew bill,theSection230amendmenthashadlittleapplicationincourt.Oneexampleisa SupremeCourtofTexasopinionbyJusticeBlacklockinresponsetoFacebook’swritof mandamus petition to dismiss three separate claims for Facebook’s “negligence, negligent undertaking, gross negligence, and products liability” regarding sex tracking on its platform.30 Justice Blacklock recognized that, according to the

MEDICAL MISINFORMATION ON SOCIAL MEDIA: HOW SECTION 230 IMPEDED REGULATION OF ONLINE MISINFORMATION

majority of legal precedent, these claims would be dismissed under Section 230’s eectiveno-liabilityforuser-generatedcontent,thusgrantingmandamusreliefunder common-law claims ofnegligenceandliability.However,hefurthercontendedthat section 230 does not “Create a lawless no-man ’s-land on the Internet” and cites FOSTA to deny mandamus reliefagainststatutoryhuman-trackingclaims 31 This meansthatthelanguageofFOSTAallowedFacebooktobesueddespiteSection230 protections and the overwhelming precedent of dismissing liability claims towards computerserviceproviders.StatutorychangesthroughtheFOSTAbillhaveledtoa change in legal precedent that argues in favor of increased liability fromcomputer serviceproviders

V. CURBING MISINFORMATION THROUGH RESTRICTING ACCESS

Under Section 230 immunities, social media platforms limit the spread of misinformationthroughcontentandaccessrestriction,suchasdeletinguser-generated content and banning users ’ accounts For example, repeatedviolationsofFacebook communitystandardscanresultinthelossoftheprivilegetopostandreacttocontent on Facebook. These standards include the authenticity of content, safety, privacy concerns,andpeople’sdignity.32Thismeansthatcontentrepresentingmisinformation canbetakendownandusersspreadingsuchcontentfacerestrictionsintheiruseofthe platform, thus limiting their ability to spread and aect other users with misinformation.

However, self-regulation can be severely inept. One example of self-regulation failing is described in an article published by the University of Chicago’s Chicago Journal of International Law, detailing the relationship between social media platforms, specically Facebook, and the Rohingya genocide in Myanmar.33 Misinformation campaigns targeting Rohingyas used Facebook to spread hateful messagesagainsttheRohingyapeopleaspartofapoliticalagenda.Inconjunctionwith the United Nation’s Independent Investigative MechanismforMyanmar,Facebook releasedanindependentinvestigativecommissiontowardstheplatform’seectonthe Rohingyagenocideandfoundthatitwasbeingutilizedto“fomentdivisionandincite

32 FacebookCommunityStandards,Mᴇᴛᴀ(Feb.2,2022), https://transparencyfbcom/policies/community-standards/?source=https%3A%2F%2Fwwwfaceb ook.com%2Fcommunitystandards%2F.

33 NeemaHakim,Comment,HowSocialMediaCompaniesCouldBeComplicitinIncitementto Genocide,21U.Cʜɪᴄ.L.CʜɪᴄᴀɢᴏJᴏᴜʀɴᴀʟᴏғIɴᴛ’ʟLᴀᴡ(2020).

31 Id 35

oine violence” 34 Facebook eventually responded, putting in place restrictions on contentthatincitedviolence.Theserestrictionswerefoundtobeeectiveinlimiting thespreadofmisinformationexacerbatingtheRohingyagenocide.

Althoughtherestrictionsthemselvesprovedtobeeective,theFacebookexample proved that social media platforms cannot be fully trusted to implement those restrictions Facebook had received warningsofitseectontheRohingyagenocide throughpublicnewschannelssince2013.35However,accordingtoaUnitedNations commissionforMyanmarin2015,Facebookhadnotappropriatelyrespondedtothose warnings.WhilesocialmediacompaniessuchasFacebook,Twitter,andYouTubehave developed self-regulatory algorithms to limit the spreadofmisinformationontheir platforms, this is not enoughtocountertheirabilitytoexacerbateconictthrough misinformation.

Thoughconictmaybeanirregularoccurrence,medicalmisinformationcanhave drastic personal eects daily A 2021 studyonTwitterexaminingtheprevalenceof misinformationinmedicalinformationarticlesshowedthatmedicalmisinformation was extremely common on the platform. Smoking and drug-use related articles contained up to 87% misinformation, and vaccine-related articles contained 43% misinformation 36 Overall,alargeproportionofmedicalmisinformationispresenton Twitter,evenaftercontentmoderationeortsandrestrictions Thisshowsthatcurrent eortstocurbmisinformationisfarfromenoughtomitigatethedamageofmedical misinformation.

VI. LIMITATIONS OF RESTRICTING ACCESS

Further complicating matters, arguments against the legality of social media restrictions have been raised. A signicant argument invokes the FirstAmendment right to freedom of speech. Due to the large range of inuence that social media companies have developed, a restriction to the access of posting content on social mediawouldbeadeprivationofthefreedomofspeech 37 Becauseofthatrestriction,

MEDICAL MISINFORMATION ON SOCIAL MEDIA: HOW SECTION 230 IMPEDED REGULATION OF ONLINE MISINFORMATION

theargumentprescribestothephilosophyofmarketbalance-thatmisinformationon socialmediashouldberegulatedthroughadiscussionoftruthsversusfalsehoodsby usersonsocialmediaplatforms,whichwouldprotectusers’rstamendmentrightson theinternet.

SupremeCourtJusticesrecognizedinPackinghamv NorthCarolinain2017that social media platforms have become unambiguous public forums for communication.38 Communication on socialmediaisrelativelyeortless,accessible, and costless, compared to traditional public forums that require in-person communication. The summary explained that “[U]sers employ these websites to engage in protected First Amendment activity” 39 This reects the previous contentionthatsocialmediacompanieshaveaninuenceonpeople’sabilitytocarry outfreespeech.

Anexampleofthisargumentbeingusedtopolicespeechlimitationsfrommedia sources dates back to a previous technological development:radiowavebroadcasts

The Fairness Doctrine was a 1949 communications policy by the Federal CommunicationsCommission(FCC)thatattemptedtobalancetherepresentationof news topics on public broadcasts by mandating fair coverageandequalairtimefor candidates of public oces 40 Licensedbroadcasterswererequiredtoabidebythese FCCregulations

ThebasisoftheFairnessDoctrinewasthatmediatimeisscarceandlimitedbythe amount of available radio frequencies.41 The FCC feared thatlicenseeswouldonly display a single perspective to the public.42 Thus, broadcasting stations would be allowedtouseairwavefrequencies,apublicresource,tobroadcasttheirownprograms, butwouldhavetohostotherperspectivesatthebroadcasters’expense.

39 Id. 38

40

Packinghamv NorthCarolina,582US ,at2(2017)

MattStefon,FairnessDoctrine,Bʀɪᴛᴀɴɴɪᴄᴀ(Mar 17,2021), https://www.britannica.com/topic/Fairness-Doctrine.

41 Id

42 AudreyPerry,FairnessDoctrine,TʜᴇFɪʀsᴛAᴍᴇɴᴅᴍᴇɴᴛEɴᴄʏᴄʟᴏᴘᴇᴅɪᴀ(May2017), https://wwwmtsuedu/rst-amendment/article/955/fairness-doctrine

TheFCC’spoliciesregardingtheFairnessDoctrinewereupheldbytheCourtof Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC as constitutional 43 Red Lion Broadcasting wasaradiostationthat“carriedaprogram which constituted a personal attack” on Fred J Cook, a writer As per FCC regulations, Red Lion Broadcasting was to provide Cook with reply time on the 43 RedLionBroadcastingCo.v.FCC,395U.S.367(1969).

broadcastsoastoaddresshisownperspectivefortheaudience RedLiondeniedCook replytime,claimingFirstAmendmentrightstofreedomofspeech.

However, the Seventh Circuit upheld the legality and constitutionality of the FCC’sregulations.RedLionstatedthattheFairnessDoctrinehelpedtomaintainthe FirstAmendmentrightsofthepublic 44Thelogicfollowedthat,becauseofthelimited airwavesavailableforbroadcast,thepublicheldrightstobroadcasttimeaswellwhenit cametorepresentationandthepublic’sfreedomofspeech.Thepublic’sfreedomof speech then ruled over the radio station’s freedomofspeech,and,thus,theFCC’s regulationspromotedfreedomofspeechratherthanharmedit.

TheFairnessDoctrinewaslaterreviewedandrecededasnewtechnologyallowed more broadcasting stations to beintroduced,providingavarietyofperspectivesfor American radio audiences.45 Yet this example shows a potential scenario in which mediacompaniescanhavecontrolovertheirownplatformslimitedtoservethepublic good More importantly, this shows that government moderation,specicallyFCC intervention,ispossiblewhensystemicissuescausingmisinformationarepresent.

Quitetheoppositeofpreventingsocialmediacompaniesfromrestrictingaccess, current legal perspectives maintain the right for social media companies to restrict access of its users to content that goes against company guidelines Private entities generally do not fall under the rst amendment However, the Supreme Court conducts a test to determine exceptions to that rule: whether the private entity providesservicesthatarea“traditional,exclusivepublicfunction”.46 Thismeansthat privatecompaniesthatprovideservicesthatwouldotherwisebeexclusivelyprovided bythegovernmentwouldfallunderrstamendmentjurisdiction Thisisthebasisthat allowssocialmediacompaniestomanagethecontentontheirplatforms.

InNyabwav.Facebook,thecourtfoundFacebooknotguiltyofabreachoftheFirst Amendment because the First Amendment applies only to restrictions by the government,notprivateparties Facebook,asaprivatecompany,doesnotfallunder the jurisdiction of the First Amendment 47 This decision also allows companies to continuetoregulatetheirwebsiteswithoutfearofinfringingontherighttofreedom of speech of its users. Furthermore, social media platform usage is by no means a traditional service managed by the government. With the current legal landscape,

MEDICAL MISINFORMATION ON SOCIAL MEDIA: HOW SECTION 230 IMPEDED REGULATION OF ONLINE MISINFORMATION

companies like Facebook can control the extent to which they choose to curb misinformationontheirsiteswithoutfearofintrudingonrstamendmentrightsof theirusers.However,asmentionedbefore,theabilitytomoderatecontentdoesnot sucientlyprotectusersfromtheseveremisinformationthatexists.

VII. AMENDING SECTION 230

The prevalence of dangerous misinformation was highlighted during national emergenciesliketheCOVID-19.48 Tomitigateitseect,countriesaroundtheworld shut downtheircitizens’movementstowaitforthedevelopmentofavaccine.The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an Emergency Use Authorization for the rst COVID-19 vaccine on December 11, 2020 Vaccinated people were predicted to have more than a ninety percent chance of immunity.49 However, as of February 2022, less than sixty-ve percent ofAmericanswerefully vaccinated.50 Likeinthecaseofmeasles,whichwasbelievedtobeeradicatedin2000 butobservedaresurgenceinthelate2000s,vaccinehesitancylikelycontributedtothis low vaccination rate.51 MisinformationaboutvaccinesdiscouragedmanyAmericans fromtakingtheCOVID-19vaccine,resultingindeathsanddisabledtheworkforce. HighervaccinationratescouldhavelimitedtheeectofCOVID-19underthecurrent scope,andcombatingmisinformationwouldbeaneectivewayofachievingthisgoal Inordertocombatsuchmisinformation,theincentivesofsocialmediacompanies needtochange.Ifsocialmediaplatformsfaceaneedtolimitmisinformation,thenthey can design algorithmsthatquellthespreadofmisinformation.Toincentivizesocial mediaplatformstochangetheiralgorithmsthatarespreadingmisinformation,holding them responsible for spreading such misinformation isthemosteectiveway Like whenSection230wasamendedtoincludeexceptionsforsex-trackingcases,Section 230shouldagainbeamendedtoincentivizemoderationofonlinecontent.Thiscanbe

48 SARS-CoV-2Transmission,CᴇɴᴛᴇʀsғᴏʀDɪsᴇᴀsᴇCᴏɴᴛʀᴏʟᴀɴᴅPʀᴇᴠᴇɴᴛɪᴏɴ(May7,2021), https://wwwcdcgov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/sars-cov-2-transmissionhtml

49

FDATakesKeyActioninFightAgainstCOVID-19ByIssuingEmergencyUseAuthorizationforFirst COVID-19Vaccine,US Fᴏᴏᴅ&DʀᴜɢAᴅᴍɪɴ,(Dec 11,2020), https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-takes-key-action-ght-against-covid-1 9-issuing-emergency-use-authorization-rst-covid-19

50

Coronavirus(COVID-19)Vaccinations,OᴜʀWᴏʀʟᴅɪɴDᴀᴛᴀ,(Feb.25,2022), https://ourworldindataorg/covid-vaccinations?country=USA

51

ChristianAkemDimalaetal.,FactorsAssociatedwithMeaslesResurgenceintheUnitedStatesinthe Post-EliminationEra,Sᴄɪ Rᴇᴘᴏʀᴛs(Jan8,2021), https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-80214-3#Sec10.

donebyaddinganewexemptiontoSection230(c)(1):exemptno-liabilityfromthe spreadofhealthmisinformation,withoutreasonableprecautionsoruserconsent,that directlycausesorotherwiseincitesbodilyharm.

Inthiscontext,healthmisinformationwouldbedenedas“[A]nyhealth-related claim of fact that is false based on current scientic consensus ” 52 Like during the FairnessDoctrine,thestandardsforthoseclaimswouldbedeterminedbytheFCC,in conjunctionwithrelevantgovernmentagenciessuchastheCenterforDiseaseControl (CDC)andFoodandDrugAdministration(FDA).

This argument comes from two main points: rst, the increased control social mediacompanieshaveoverwhatcontentisdisplayed,andsecond,theoriginalintentof Section230beingaprecautionaryincentiveforsocialmediacompaniestoself-regulate. In the last few years, Twitter and other socialmediaplatformshaveswitchedfrom personal “feeds”basedonchronologytopersonalizedfeedscreatedbydeep-learning algorithms using users ’ data 53 Through this algorithm,socialmediaplatformshave more control over whatcontentbecomesinteractedwithmoreoften,aswellasthe categories of users ’ posts that get more exposure. By having morecontroloverthe content,socialmediacompaniesshouldalsohavemoreresponsibilityforthecontent they promote Thus, amending misinformation and its consequences into Section 230’sexceptions’clauseisalegislativechangethatplaystotheabilityofsocialmedia platforms. Theirabilitytofacilitatemisinformationmeansthattheyshouldhavean increasedresponsibilityforthespreadofmisinformation.

52 SylviaChouetal.,WhereWeGoFromHere:HealthMisinformationonSocialMedia,110Aᴍ. JᴏᴜʀɴᴀʟᴏғPᴜʙʟɪᴄHᴇᴀʟᴛʜSᴜᴘᴘʟ 3,273-275(2020)

53 NahemaMarchaletal.,JunkNewsDuringtheEUParliamentaryElections:Lessonsfroma Seven-LanguageStudyofTwitterandFacebook,OxғᴏʀᴅIɴᴛᴇʀɴᴇᴛIɴsᴛ (2019), https://demtech.oii.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/93/2019/05/EU-Data-Memo.pdf.

ᴀɴᴅFᴇᴅ.Pʀᴏsᴇᴄᴜᴛɪᴏɴs(2021). 40

MEDICAL MISINFORMATION ON SOCIAL MEDIA: HOW SECTION 230 IMPEDED REGULATION OF ONLINE MISINFORMATION

liable because they actively ltered out oensive language, employedmoderatorsto enforcecontentguidelinesforusers’contentand,thus,wereabletobetreatedasthe publisher for the user-generated content.55 Lawmakers saw this decision as a disincentive for computer service companies to regulate oensive content on their platforms because of concern that liability for screening content would cause companiestostopscreeninginsteadofimprovingscreeningcapabilities 56 Section230 was a response to combat screening disincentives proposed by Representatives ChristopherCoxandRonWydenasanamendmenttotheCDA.Section230(c)(2), the“GoodSamaritan”clause,givescompaniesfreedomtoscreentheirownplatforms without legal repercussions 57 Thelawwascreatedtoincentivizeself-moderationby socialmediacompanies,notexcuseit.

But because Section 230 currently only provides companies with theabilityto policetheirplatforms,nottheincentives,itsgoalisnotfullyrealized.Theproposed new amendment would require social mediacompaniestoimprovealgorithmsthat moderate content and information spreading structures such as recommendation algorithmssothatuserscanbecomemoreawareofsourcesofinformation.

If these system changes are not implemented to protect users, cases to sue companies for any content causing bodily harm can be brought into court onthe groundsofthisnewstatutorychange Otherwise,misinformation-basedcaseswillbe readilydismissed,likesextrackingcaseswerebeforeFOSTA.

VIII. IMPLICATIONS OF SECTION 230(C)(1)

Itisimportanttonotethatcompaniesunderthisnewexemptionareonlyliablefor facilitatingthespreadofmisinformation Thismeansthatcompaniescannotbeheld liableiftheyhaveactedtosubstantivelymitigatethespreadofmisinformation.One example of this is algorithmsonsocialmediaplatformsthattagcontentcontaining medical advice. During the Covid-19pandemic,majorplatformslikeFacebookand Twitter highlighted content that included information about the coronavirus and warned users to double-checktheinformationwiththeCenterforDiseaseControl andPrevention(CDC)websiteforaccuracy.Bygivingusersaninstantaneouswayto

55

56

StrattonOakmont,Inc.v.ProdigyServicesCo.,23MᴇᴅɪᴀL.Rᴇᴘ.1794(N.Y.Sup.Ct.1995).

DanielleKCitronandBenjaminWittes,TheProblemIsn’tJustBackpage:RevisingSection230 Immunity,2GᴇᴏʀɢᴇᴛᴏᴡɴL.Tᴇᴄʜ.Rᴇᴠ.453(2018).

57

DaisukeWakabayashi,LegalShieldforSocialMediaisTargetedbyLawmakers¸ TʜᴇNᴇᴡYᴏʀᴋ Tɪᴍᴇs(Dec.15,2020).

verifyinformation,Facebookessentiallyslowsthespreadofmisinformationwithout restrictingthearticlesthemselves.

Thisadditionalinformationalsopromptsreaderstoquestiontheaccuracyofwhat they are viewing on the internet. In a study, researchers found that by prompting survey respondents to think about the accuracy of news headlines,theaccuracyof informationsharedalsoincreased58 Thus,socialmediaplatformsareabletoincrease theaccuracyofinformationontheirplatformsbypromptinguserstothinkaboutthe accuracyoftheirinformation.Doingsowouldbeprogressinmitigatingthespreadof misinformation.

However, this may also not be enough Misinformation on socialmediapartly spreads because of a desensitization to spreading inaccurate information on social media platforms. In a study, researchers found thatsubjectsaskedtoassessasetof informationlabeledinformationastruearoundfteenpercentofthetime,andwere willing tosharethesamesetofinformationmorethanthirtypercentofthetime 59 Thisshowedthatmisinformationwassharednotsomuchasaresultofaninabilityto discern the accuracy of information but rather because “[P]eople were apparently willing to share content that they could have identiedasbeinginaccurate.”60 The study explained that the social media context distracts people’s attention from providing accurate information Instead, the “attention economy ” of social media platforms diverts users ’ attention towards maximizing engagement, resulting in an increaseintheshareoflow-qualitynewscontent.61 Becauseofthestructureofsocial mediaplatforms,usershavebeguntoforgotheaccuracyofcontentinfavorofgaining engagementontheplatform,whichexacerbatestheprevalenceofmisinformation

58

GordonPennycooketal,ShiftingAttentiontoAccuracyCanReduceMisinformationOnline,592 Nᴀᴛᴜʀᴇ(2021).

59

GordonPennycookandDavidGRand,ThePsychologyofFakeNews,25TʀᴇɴᴅsɪɴCᴏɢɴɪᴛɪᴠᴇSᴄɪ Issᴜᴇ5,388-402(2021).

The structural algorithms behind social media platforms’ design results in the degree of the spread of misinformation. Thus, to combat misinformation, policy shouldtargetthesystemsthatallowsuchmisinformationtospread.Byholdingsocial mediacompaniesliableforphysicalharmcausedbymisinformation,thosecompanies areincentivizedtochangetheiralgorithmsandprovidebuersagainstthespreadof misinformation, like additional informational prompts for users consuming information on social media platforms. User warningandconsentcancomeinthe form of joining public groups andinteractionslike“follow”and“friend,”allowing 61 Id. 60 Id

MEDICAL MISINFORMATION ON SOCIAL MEDIA: HOW SECTION 230 IMPEDED REGULATION OF ONLINE MISINFORMATION

users to still publishandspreadinformation,onlyinawaythatmitigatescognitive bias. These changes, in conjunction, will help to prevent medical misinformation incidentsandenhancegeneralpublicsafety.

CONCLUSION

Followingtheexplosivedevelopmentofinternetservicesoverthepastfewdecades, the inuence that social media platforms now have on people’s livesisbeyondthe scopeofmanyUnitedStates’existinglaws.Legislatorshaveandcontinuetolookfor waystomanageinternetservicessothatsocietyasawholecanreapitsbenetswithout having to sacrice the rightsandwell-beingofindividuals CrisesliketheCovid-19 pandemic and the Rohignya genocide have showcased the drastic eect that social mediaplatformslikeFacebookandTwittercanhaveoninformation,alteringpeople’s perceptionofbothproblemsandsolutions.

Currently, we are balancing information and misinformation through a “free-market equilibrium” by believing that true information will trump over misinformationeitherthroughusers’supportofaccurateinformationorthegoodwill of social media platforms to eradicate misinformation. Assuch,Section230ofthe CommunicationsDecencyAct(CDA)grantsnear-fullimmunitytoplatformsagainst publishingmisinformationgeneratedbyusers However,thisdoesnotprovidethem with incentives to maintain information accuracy Computer algorithms that these platformsusetoorganizewhatusersseearepronetocreatingechochambersthrough cognitive biases, eectively diminishing interaction between true information and misinformation. This phenomenon of “echo chambers” combinedwiththegoalof theseplatformstooptimizeengagementtimecanexplainalargepartoftheprevalence ofmisinformationonsocialmedia.

The alteration of incentives provides an eective way to limit health-related misinformation,anareathatdirectlyaectsthelivesofallAmericansandcontainsan abundance of scientically-proveninformation-muchoftheexistinghealth-related misinformationontheinternetisdirectlycontradictedbyexistingscienticconsensus Bycreatingstandardsformedicalaccuracyonline,governmentalagenciesandhealth expertswouldbetaskedtosetthestandardsforprovenmisinformation.Thatisnotto say those standards could not be changed Scientic research constantly makes breakthroughsonthemostbasicassumptionsofresearch Thatiswhatgivesscience therigorousnessthatmakesconsensusinthescienticeldmeaningful.Yetwithout limitationsonthespreadofmisinformationontheinternet,therigorousnessoftrue informationbecomeslessuseful.

To resolve this, legislationneedstotargetthestructuralincentivesbehindsocial media platforms. By amending Section 230 to hold interactive computer service companiesliableforhealthmisinformationspreadontheirplatforms,thesecompanies wouldbeincentivizedtoenhancealgorithmsthatdetectmisinformation,provideusers withcloseraccesstoreliablesourcesofinformation,andsetupsystemsthatimprove internetliteracybytargetingcognitivebehaviors

Thesealgorithmswillpresentthemselvesintheformoftimelywarnings,accuracy requirements for content claiming to be medical information, and other direct vericationmethodsforsocialmediausers Userscanstillchoosetopublishorreceive unveriedmedicalinformation,butcomputeralgorithmswillnolongerrecommend thatinformationtouserswithoutwarningorconsent.Bybringingonthesechanges, thefundamentalstructureofsocialmediawillbechanged.Thesechangeswillmitigate cognitive biases that drastically worsen the misinformation pandemic, and overall healthsafetyofthepublicwillrise

TANIAALEKSANIAN

TheViolationofDemocracy:UnequalAccesstotheShaping ofGovernment

ABSTRACT. TheUnitedStatesgovernmentwasbuilttoprotectagainstatyrannical government in which the wishes of the minority elite are prioritized ahead of the wishes of the majority. The fear of such minority inuence in government isnow groundedintheriseofwealthycorporations Withtheriseofcorporations,theUnited States has become increasingly economically dependent on major companies. Corporationsareuniquelypositionedeconomicallytobargainforpoliticaladvantage, andpoliticalcampaignsareespeciallyvulnerabletothisrelationshipduetotheirheavy relianceondonors Consequently,campaignnancelawshavebeenestablishedwith the goal of curtailing corporate political inuence Campaign nance laws have undergoneseveralinterpretationsbythehighestcourtintheUnitedStatestoaddress evolvingpublicconcernssurroundingcorruption.Mostnotableisthe1975Buckleyv. Valeocase,wheretheSupremeCourtruledthatthewealthyminoritynotbegivenfree rein to deposit funds toward their favorite candidates, citing corruption and the appearanceofcorruptionasjustication.Fromthis,onecanderivetheappearanceof corruptiontomeananyoutcomebywhichpublictrustintheAmericandemocratic system is justly diminished. However, dissenters opined that despite governmental interest against corruption, the Court’s remedy wasoverinclusiveandthusviolated FirstAmendmentprotectionstopoliticalspeech Thetwenty-rstcenturyrulingsof Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission andMcCutcheonv.FederalElection Commission overturned precedent and opened a oodgate of money that can now participateinpolitics,birthinganover3.5billiondollarlobbyingindustrybywhicha direct line of communication between large companies and legislative leaders was granted. Such a connection between the two powers has constructed a dangerous relationship between Big Money andpoliticalmobility.Thegoalofthispaperisto understandhowtherulingsinCitizensUnitedandMcCutcheonchangedtheextentto whichordinarypersonscanaccessandshapegovernment Thispaperunderstandsthe shaping of government to mean any means by which an individual or group of

individualsinuencepolicymakers;unequalaccesstotheshapingofgovernmentthen refers to any circumstance under which a minority possesses a disproportionate inuenceoverapolicymaker’sattentioncomparedtoordinarypersons.Toaccomplish itsgoal,thispaperwillstudytherelevantfactsofthetwocases,assessthearguments throughwhichtheCourt’sdecisionsweremade,andgaugethepossibleoutcomesof theCourt’sdecisions

AUTHOR. TaniaisathirdyearEconomicsstudentpursuingaminorinLawand Society.Shehopestoenrollinadualdegreeprogramwhereshecanearnamasters degreeineconomicsandajurisdoctorate Hercareergoalistostudytheintersection betweengovernmentpoliciesandeconomicoutcomes.ShewouldliketothankElliott Legaspiforhisconsistentandattentiveeditingthroughoutthewritingprocess,andis gratefultohavehadhisassistance.Lastly,shewouldliketothankherfamilyand friendsfortheirsupportinheracademiccareer

INTRODUCTION

WhenindustriesbegantodominatethemarketsintheUnitedStates,American leaders expressed concerns regarding political corruption led by corporations who donatelargefundstopoliticalcampaigns.FormerPresidentTheodoreRoosevelt,in 1905,expressedsimilarfears.Consequently,herequestedthatlegislationbewrittento bannancialcontributionstopoliticalleadersbycorporations.Thecompletebanning was never done, but eorts toward creating constitutional methods by which corporations could donate without the risk of corruption were made. The 1971 Federal Election CampaignAct(FECA)andlatertheBipartisanCampaignReform Act(BCRA)weremeanttodojustthat.

TheFECAsetstherstaggregatelimitastohowmuchanindividual,apolitical action committee (PAC), or a party committee candonatetoasinglecandidateor multiplecandidates.1 Additionally,in1974,theFECAestablishedtheFederalElection Commission (FEC), whose primary goal was to carry out the standards setbythe FECA TheFECAtargeted“hard”moneycontributionsandspending:spendingthat wasdoneatthefederal,state,orlocallevel A1979rulingestablishedthatthespending of “soft” moneyneednotberegulated.Thismeantthatanyplatform,company,or personcouldspendtheirownmoneyadvocatingforthecandidatetheyareinsupport

1 Legislation,FEC,https://www.fec.gov/legal-resources/legislation/(lastvisitedJune25,2022).

3

THE VIOLATION OF DEMOCRACY: UNEQUAL ACCESS TO THE SHAPING OF GOVERNMENT

ofwithoutbeingheldtoanyregulations Thisthen,ofcourse,directlyinuencedhow muchmoneywasbeingdonatedundertheguiseofsoft-moneydonationswhichthen wereindirectlyusedtosupportelections.

ThisthengavefootingtotheBipartisanCampaignReformAct(BCRA)inwhich softmoneycontributionsandissueadvocacyweretargeted 2Theactmadeitillegalfor corporationsandunionstousetheirownfundstoadvertiseinsupportofapolitical candidatewithinsixtydaysofageneralelectionandthirtydaysofaprimaryelection.

Thecasesreviewedinthispaperchallengethesectionsofthelawsdescribedabove. Moreclosely,CitizensUnitedv.FederalElectionCommissionchallenged§203ofthe BCRA,whichprohibitselectioneeringcommunications,andMcCutcheonv Federal ElectionCommissionchallengedTitle2oftheUnitedStatesCode,§441(a)whichsets anaggregatelimitfordonationstowardcandidatesandcandidatecommittees.

Therstpartofthispaperwillchallengetherulinginthe2010CitizensUnitedv. FederalElectionCommissionbyarguingthatitfalselyextendsequalprotectionofFirst Amendmentrightstocorporations.Thesecondpartofthispaperwillarguethatthe Court’s majority argument in McCutcheon depended too heavily on a narrow denitionofcorruptionwhichallowedthemtoconcludethattheaggregatelimitwas ineectiveandaviolationofFirstAmendmentrights Thesetwocases,whichprovided corporationsandwealthyindividualsalargerpottodonatefrom,coupledwithsuch individuals’ ability to hire lobbyists,createapoliticalenvironmentinwhichmoney prevailsingovernment.Therefore,thelastpartofthispaperwilldiscusstwooutcomes of these cases. The rst outlines the extent to which money dictates politics. The second explores the eect of these cases on public perception of the American democraticsystem.Additionally,thelastpartofthispaperwillentertaintheideaof remedyingsucheects.

I. CITIZENS UNITED: APPLYING FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS TOO BROADLY

In 2008, CitizensUnitedcreatedadocumentarylmtitledHillary:TheMovie Hillarywascriticalofthesenatorandthedemocraticcandidateforthepresidencyat the time, Hillary Clinton. This lm produced ads that were presented on cable televisionandotherbroadcastingnetworksandtheyhopedtomakeHillaryavailable through on-demand services 3 Giventhatthemoviewouldbereleasedwithinthirty daysofaprimaryelection,itviolated§203oftheBRCA

2

H.R.2356-107thCongress(2001-2002):BipartisanCampaignReformActof2002,Cᴏɴɢʀᴇss.ɢᴏᴠ, https://wwwcongressgov/bill/107th-congress/house-bill/2356(lastvisitedJune26,2022)

CitizensUnitedv.Fed.ElectionComm’n,558U.S.310(2010).

5

The Supreme Court acknowledged Citizens United’s violation of the BRCA However,theybelievedthecasebeggedadierentquestion:ratherthanjudgingthe meritsofCitizenUnited’sviolationoftheBRCA,itmerelyquestionedthestatute’s constitutionality. In order to do so, the Court sought toquestionthevalidityofa previouscasethatreviewedthatlaw,Austinv MichiganChamberofCommerce

In Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, the Supreme Court held that corporate independent expenditures that try to persuade state elections are not constitutional.4 However,theCourt’srevisitofthiscaseinCitizensUnitedoereda dierent outcome. Justice Kennedy shared that Austin’ s interference with the “marketplace of ideas” was a direct violation of the First Amendment rights of corporations thatFirstAmendmentprotectionsapplytocorporationsaswell.5This decision was made with the notion that corporations occupy the same realm as individualsastheyareledbygroupsofindividuals.Moreover,theCourtrecognizesthe use of currency to advocate for your beliefs as a form of speech, and therefore a protected right under the First Amendment. Therefore, this extension of First Amendment rights to corporations invalidates the government’s power to limit independentcorporateexpendituresthroughlegislation,apowergivenby§441(b)of theBCRA

Ina5-4vote,theSupremeCourtruledinfavorofCitizensUnited,claimingthat §203 of the Bipartisan Campaign and Reform Act violated the First Amendment rights of corporations based on the unconstitutionality of §441(b)’s restriction on privateexpendituresbycorporations.

The decision of the Court gave corporations the ability to communicate electioneering content at any time before an election. More broadly,itenabledthe oodingofmoneyintopoliticsundertheguiseofcorporateexpenditures.Whileinthe precedingcase,Buckleyv.Valeo,thisoutcomewouldhavefallenundertheguidelineof the“appearanceofcorruption,”6 theapplicationofabroaderunderstandingofFirst AmendmentrightsallowedthisCourttobroadenthosewhoareprotectedbyit Asa consequence,onecanexpectariseofcorporateinuenceinpoliticalatmospheresin theformofelectioneeringcontentonmediaplatforms.

TheCourt’sargumenttakesforgrantedanequivalencebetweenindividualsand corporations in order to provide equal access and protection of both groups'First Amendment rights. In doing so, the argument discredits the signicance of the

4 Austinv.Mich.ChamberofCom.,494U.S.652(1990).

CitizensUnitedv Fed ElectionComm’n,558US 310(2010)

6 Buckleyv.Valeo,424U.S.1(1976).

THE VIOLATION OF DEMOCRACY: UNEQUAL ACCESS TO THE SHAPING OF GOVERNMENT

relationshipbetweenone’spositioninsocietyandthepowertoinuencesociety This relationship is enabled by the notion referred to as credibility excess. Evidence demonstratesthatindividualstendtocorrelatepowerwithhigherethicalground.7 A correlation that then justies the granting of an excess of credibility to those individualsinpositionsofpower Moreover,recipientsofcredibilityexcess,asaresult, tendtobeseenasworthyofgreaterepistemictrust 8 Thisappliestocorporations,for they occupy such auent positions in society and thus inevitably assume greater credibility. Therefore, when unied with their ability to reach a mass audience, corporations carry the power to inuence: steering the conversations held in the marketplaceofideas Ordinarypersonsdonotassumethesameprivilegeastheylikely lack credibility or the access to communicative modes withlargegroupsofpeople. Consequently, when a corporation makes a politically charged statement, that statementhasthepotentialtoinuencetheideasbeingdisputedinthemarketplace. This dissimilarity permits thelimitingofcorporations'accesstofreespeechastheir greaterabilitytoinuencepublicopinionallowsthemtosteerthemarketplaceofideas creatinginequityforthosemerelyparticipatinginit.

A corporation's ability to steer the marketplace of ideas is dangerous as the objectives of corporations are often in contrast with social objectives Traditional corporationsoperatewiththegoalofmaximizingtheirprotstopleaseshareholders who invested insaidcorporations.Intheirpursuitofmaximizingprots,theyhave historically had little regard for how theoutcomesoftheiractionsaectindividual people. Issues such as income inequality, climate change, and healthcare are not considered to be driving factors of economic growth In fact,suchissuesareoften regardedasimpedingfactorsonacompany’sabilitytomaximizeitsprotsastheyare additionalcoststhatcanbeexternalized.Whereasforapoliticalcandidate,suchsocial issuesshouldbethedrivingforcefortheircandidacyastheyareissuesthataectthe majority of Americans Thus,assumingcorporationsadvocateforcandidateswhose policieshelpadvancethegoalsoftheircompany,itisthensafetodrawtheconclusion that said candidate in some respects will be sacricing social objectives to advance businessobjectivesasthesupportofthecorporationreliesonthisexchange.

Lastly, the outcome of this case will amplify the magnitude to which political leaders are vulnerable to corporations The most obvious medium of vulnerability

7 BradleyJones,MostAmericanswanttolimitcampaignspending,saybigdonorshavegreater politicalinfluence,PᴇᴡRᴇsᴇᴀʀᴄʜCᴇɴᴛᴇʀ(May8,2018), https://wwwpewresearchorg/fact-tank/2018/05/08/most-americans-want-to-limit-campaign-spe nding-say-big-donors-have-greater-political-inuence/(lastvisitedJune25,2022).

betweenpoliticalleadersandcorporationsistheeconomy Thispointwasexpressed earlierinthispaperandwillnotberevisited.Instead,thispaperwilldiscussamore relevant and relatively new medium of vulnerability between the two groups: corporate-funded political advertisements on social media platforms. Political advertising on online platforms now plays a fundamental role in any successful campaign as print newspapers and cable advertisements become obsolete In fact, candidateexposureonsocialmediaisheavilycorrelatedwiththeirresultsinthepolls.15 Whilestudiesareinconclusiveaboutanexclusivelylinearcausalrelationshipbetween thetwo,thereisacausalbiconditionalrelationshipbetweenthetwovariables.8 This meansthatperformanceinthepollscausesmoresocialmediacoverageandmoresocial mediacoveragecausesbetterperformanceinthepolls.Anestimatedtwohundredand fty corporations spend tens of millions of dollars to fund their electioneering communication through Facebook-owned platforms: primarily Facebook. Facebook hasbecomeanincreasinglypopularplatformforadultsnotonlyforentertainmentbut for political news as well. A reported seven out of every ten adult Americansuses FacebookatleastonceadayandalittleoverathirdofAmericansreportreceivingmost oftheirnewsfromFacebook.9Withinthisrelationshipliestherelativelynewavenueof vulnerability between political candidates and corporations who fund these advertisements Which is to say, electioneeringadvertisementspaidforonbehalfof corporations play a key role in deciding which candidate receives greater media exposure,consequentlyaectingsaidcandidate’spollingoutcomes.

II. ALTERNATE RULINGS TO CITIZENS UNITED

WhenthecasewasrstpresentedtothehighestcourtintheUnitedStates,itwas onlyaskedoftheCourttoconsiderwhetherthereleaseofthelmHillary:TheMovie byCitizensUnitedwasinviolationof§441(b)oftheBRCA.However,theCourtsaw t to reconsider the validity of preceding casesthatwouldinuencetheirrulingin CitizensUnited ThisisnotanunusualcourseofactionfortheCourttotakeifthey believethattheconstitutionalvalidityofaprecedingcaseisinquestion.Thus,wemust

8 Howmuchinfluencedoesthemediareallyhaveoverelections?diggingintothedata,NɪᴇᴍᴀɴLᴀʙ (Jan 11,2016), https://www.niemanlab.org/2016/01/how-much-inuence-does-the-media-really-have-over-electio ns-digging-into-the-data/(lastvisitedJune25,2022)

9 JohnGramlich,10factsaboutAmericansandFacebook,PᴇᴡRᴇsᴇᴀʀᴄʜCᴇɴᴛᴇʀ(June1,2021), https://wwwpewresearchorg/fact-tank/2021/06/01/facts-about-americans-and-facebook/(last visitedJune4,2022).

THE VIOLATION OF DEMOCRACY: UNEQUAL ACCESS TO THE SHAPING OF GOVERNMENT

accept that the Court was valid in questioning the legitimacy of a preceding case However,onecanstillconcludethatthemajorityopinionofthisCourtfallsshortof convincing.

ThemajorityopinionexpressesconcernsinregardtothedangersoflimitingFirst Amendmentrights JusticeKennedystates,“IftheFirstAmendmenthasanyforce,it prohibitsCongressfromningorjailingcitizensorassociationsofcitizensforsimply engaginginpoliticalspeech”.10 Thisindicatesthatthecaseisbroughtforthbecauseof the content in the lm. However, this issimplynotthecase.Thecontent,though politicallydrivenanddistributedbyacorporation,isnotthemainpointinquestion; rather,thetimingofitis Thelmwasreleasedwithinthirtydaysofaprimaryelection, placingitinviolationoftheBRCAbecauseofitstiming,notcontent.Toillustratethis point,giventhecasethatCitizensUnitedreleasedtheirlmaftertheelectionorprior to their thirty-day cut-o, their actionswouldhavebeenconstruedasacompletely legaldemonstrationofthenon-prot’srighttofreedomofspeech

Whenoneunderstandsthatthecasewasbroughtforwardandwastobeevaluated basedonitstimeofrelease,onecanconcludethattheprecedentsetbyAustindidnot eliminatetheFirstAmendmentrightsofcorporationsaltogether,itsimplysetalimit totheirFirstAmendmentright Thislimitationonspeechhasbeenappliedcountless timesbeforeinaneorttoprotectthepublic Forexample,yelling“re”intoalarge crowdofpeopleisillegalforitcanresultinchaosandinjuries.Inthisspeciccase,the limitation onspeechistoprotectfromcorruptionortheappearancethereofandis thereforecompletelyvalid.Nevertheless,therulingwasmadeincontrasttothislineof reasoning

III. MCCUTCHEON: AN EXCESS OF MONEY IN POLITICS

Shaun McCutcheon had donatedfundstowardvariousRepublicancommittees andindividualcandidatesduringthe2011-2012electioncycle.Hisdonationswerein proportiontothelimitssetbytheBCRA However,McCutcheondesiredtodonate moremoneythatwouldnotexceedtheindividuallimitbutwouldexceedtheaggregate limit.McCutcheonpresentedhiscasetotheSupremeCourtarguingthattheaggregate limit presented a violation ofaperson'sabilitytocarryouttheirFirstAmendment right,notingthathistoricallytheSupremeCourthasequatedthespendingofmoney withone’sexpressionoffreespeech 11

10

11

CitizensUnitedv Fed ElectionComm’n,558US 310(2010)

McCutcheonv.Fed.ElectionComm’n,572U.S.185(2014).

Morespecically,inanearliercase,Buckleyv Valeo,theSupremeCourtruledthat the First Amendment protects one ’ s ability to contribute money to a campaign. Setting a limit to those contributions was only permissible if it was set to avoid corruption, which was dened to refer to any contributions made that are then followedbyaskingthereceivingcandidateforfavorsthatwouldbenetthecontributor insomeway12TheCourtusedthisprecedenttoinformtheirjudgment

TheCourt’sopinion,asexpressedbyJusticeRoberts,emphasizestheimportance of the cause for fears of corruptionintheirdecision.Healsomakesnotethatnew protectiveagenciesandlawshavebeenenactedfollowingtheBuckleydecisionandthus Buckleymaynotbecompletelyuptodateinitsinterpretationofwhatcanconstitute corruption.Asaresult,theCourttakesforgrantedthatabaselimitforcontributions provides enough deterrence forcorruptiontomaketheeectsofanaggregatelimit insignicant.Initsinsignicance,theaggregatelimitthensimplybecomesalimiton how much money can be exerted into politics 13 As this Court has previously understood the spending of currency to be a form of speech, this limit is unconstitutional.Consequently,theCourtfoundtheaggregatelimittobeinviolation of First Amendment rights and therefore in a 5-4 vote, ruled in favor of Shaun McCutcheon

12 JoséMedina,TheRelevanceofCredibilityExcessinaProportionalViewofEpistemicInjustice:

DifferentialEpistemicAuthorityandtheSocialImaginary,25Sᴏᴄ

THE VIOLATION OF DEMOCRACY: UNEQUAL ACCESS TO THE SHAPING OF GOVERNMENT

$46,200forfederalcandidatesand$70,800fornationalparties However,whenone donationis$200andoneis$100,000,thelargerdonationdiminishesthepoliticalvoice andinturnthepoliticalpowerofthesmallerdonor.

IV. ALTERNATE RULINGS TO MCCUTCHEON

To corroborate the Court’s minority opinion, the Roberts Court applied too narrowadenitionofwhatimpliescorruptionandtheappearanceofcorruption:only thosecontributionswhichaimtoextractafavorinreturngivecauseforalimit(quid proquo).However,quidproquodealsareonlythemostobviousformofcorruption, the Court should consider that it can make its way into politics throughdierent meansaswell Corruptionortheappearancethereofshouldbeunderstoodinbroader terms to mean any outcome by which the public’s condence in government is reasonablyandjustlydiminished.Thisoutlookisnecessarybecauseitcoversthevery obviousformofcorruptionandleavesthedooropentoscrutinyfromtheordinary personastheyperceivetheperformanceofelectedocials Thelatterpartensures“the appearanceofcorruption”14 isalsoconsideredwhenconstructingjudgmentsaround casessuchasthetwodescribedinthispaper.

Moreover,thisCourt'srelianceontheFECtoperformitsdutiesinterminating corruptionandtheappearanceofitisanaivedependencythatthecommissionwill perform its duties awlessly. A dependency that can easily be avoided with the application ofanaggregatelimit.TheCourtclaimsthatsinceBuckley,theFEChas added “regulations that dene earmarking”15 in broader terms making it more applicable Thebroadertermsare:

14 Buckleyv.Valeo,424U.S.1(1976).

15

McCutcheonv Fed ElectionComm’n,572US 185(2014)

[A]n individual who hascontributedtoaparticularcandidatemaynotalso contribute to a single candidate committee for that candidate.Normayan individual who has contributed to a candidatealsocontributetoapolitical committeethathassupportedoranticipatessupportingthesamecandidate,if theindividualknowsthatasubstantialportion[ofhiscontribution]willbe contributedto,orexpendedonbehalfof,thatcandidate”16 16 Id.

While this denition makes a validcaseforcurtailingsuchillegaldonations,its application is in most cases imperfect, as the proof of suchaninstancewouldrely heavilyonprovingintentbeforethedonationwasmade.

CONCLUSION

Upuntilthetwenty-rstcentury,theSupremeCourthasheldthatcorruption,or theappearanceof,iscloselyrelatedtohowmuchmoneyisplacedintopolitics.More closely,theCourthasplacedemphasisonthenotionthatanexcessofmoneyinpolitics willinevitablyleadtothediminishingofpublictrustintheAmericanpoliticalsystem andisthereforeequivalenttotheappearanceofcorruption Intherstcasediscussed inthispaper,itwasmadeapparentthatequatingcorporationstoordinarypersonsand usingthatdenitiontograntcorporationsequalaccesstotherstamendmentenabled greatercorporateinuenceinpolitics.Inthesecondcasediscussed,thispaperexplored theimplicationsofallowingnearlyendlesssumsofmoneyintocampaignnancing Additionally,itexploredanapproachtodeningcorruptionthatwouldencompassthe mostobviousformsofcorruptionaswellaswhatcanbeconstruedastheappearance ofcorruption.Thispaperwillclosebyrsttakingacloserlookatreal-lifeimplications ofthetwocases.Second,byexploringifalternaterevenuesforremedyingtheoutcomes ofthiscaseareavailable

Nearlyadecadehaspassedsincethesetworulingsandthepowerofthewealthyin dictatingpoliticsisnowinsurmountablecomparedtothatoftheordinaryperson.A studyfromtheyear2000to2020showsthatonaverageacandidateis92.34%likelyto wintheirseatinthehouseiftheyarethecandidatewhospentmoremoneyontheir campaign 17 A weaker, yet alarmingly high rate, also applies to the senate with an average 80.49% chanceofvictory.18 Thistellsusthatonaverage,thecandidatewho receives the most votes is also the candidate who receives the most funding. This shouldnotbesurprisingascampaigningexpenditureshavecontinuedtosurpassrecord numberseachpresidentialelectionyear Implyingthatitisnearlyimpossibletowin electionswithoutthenancialsupportofmillionairesandbillionaires.

17

DidMoneyWin?,OᴘᴇɴSᴇᴄʀᴇᴛs(Apr 1,2021), https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/winning-vs-spending?cycle=2020(lastvisitedJune 25,2022)

Moreover,publictrustinthegovernmentto‘dotherightthingalmostalwaysor mostofthetime’isonaconstantdownwardtrend;thistrenddatesbacktothelate 18 Id.

THE VIOLATION OF DEMOCRACY: UNEQUAL ACCESS TO THE SHAPING OF GOVERNMENT

1950s to now 19 It may be easy to assume that thistrendisaresultofaninherent mistrust of the government. However, a closer look atthedatawillshowthatthis wouldbeanaiveassumption.Ifthemistrustwereinherentthentherewouldnotbe volatility in the data. Instead, it would be a constant trend as there would be no particular variable that can inuence the level of trust individuals feel toward the government Therefore, since there is volatility in the data, there must also exist inuencingvariables.Variablesofvolatilityexaminedincludewhichpoliticalpartyis occupying the presidency, how the economy is performing, and the frequency of political scandals. Though, there is one pointofconsistency.Americantrustinthe governmenthasnotexceededthirtypercentsince2007 Inaneorttoproperlyassess themeaningofthisstagnation,wemustexplorewhathaschangedsincethatdate.Ifwe account for thefactthatnearlyseventy-twopercentofAmericansdisagreewiththe followingstatement “[P]eoplewhogivealotofmoneytoelectedocialsdonothave more inuence than others”20 it is reasonable to conclude that mistrust in governmentisstronglycorrelatedwithincreasedcampaignspending/nancing.When weassessthisdataalongsidethetwocasesevaluatedthroughoutthispaper,itisnatural toconcludethatwhatchangedwassimplytheamountofmoneyallowedintopolitics. Thisexcessoffundsinpolitics,whetherdirectlyorindirectly,dramaticallydecreased the American public’s trust in our democratic system Whileacausalrelationship cannot be established, the correlation is not a naive one. Seventy-seven percent of Americansbelievethatcampaignspendingshouldbelimited.21 Thus,theremustexist somecausalconnectionbetweendecreasingtrustingovernmentandincreasingmoney inpolitics

19 Howmuchinfluencedoesthemediareallyhaveoverelections?diggingintothedata,NɪᴇᴍᴀɴLᴀʙ (Jan 11,2016), https://www.niemanlab.org/2016/01/how-much-inuence-does-the-media-really-have-over-electio ns-digging-into-the-data/(lastvisitedJune25,2022)

followsthatdistrustingovernmentgrewasaresultofthecasesdiscussedinthispaper astheyenabledtheincreaseinexpendituresdiscussedabove.

Naturally, the question nowbecomeshowdoweremedythesenegativeeects? SucharemedywouldhavetoexploremethodsbywhichtheFirstAmendmentrights ofcorporationsarenotchallengedandyetBigMoneyinpoliticsiscurtailedenoughso as to reallocate space for the voices, expenditures, and needs of ordinary persons However, any restriction placed on corporate electioneering expenditureswouldbe consideredunlawfulbytherulingsinMcCutcheonandCitizensUnited.Ontheother hand, suppose legislation was to restrict the receiving end by setting a limit on campaignspendingforthosecampaignsfundedbyprivatedonors Anexcessofmoney inpoliticswouldremainascorporateelectioneeringexpendituresthatdonotdirectly fundcampaignswouldstillhavenoceiling.

Itwouldbenaivetostatethatlegislationisthecorrectingroutefortheinuenceof Big Money in politics and its consequential eect on the public’s trust in the government. For legislation to do so, it would be necessary to reduce corporate electioneering expenditures and Big Money in politics. However, such legislation would have to challenge McCutcheon or Citizens United and thus require thatthe Courtrevisitthesecases

RANDOLPHXIE

FloridaHouseBill1557andLGBTQ+Controversy

ABSTRACT. Sincethe1960s,whenlegalandsocialinitiativesoftheLGBTQ+rights movementrstrosetoprominence,issuessurroundingtheLGBTQ+communityhave inspired some of the most prevalent political and social discussions today. Despite signicant advancements having been made in the interests of promoting justice, LGBTQ+communitiesstillfaceconsiderablepolitical,legal,andsocialinequalities.In Marchof2022,theFloridaStatelegislaturepassedHouseBill1557(HB1577),which imposes legal restrictions oneducationalpracticesrelatingtosexualorientationand gender identity in kindergarten through grade three statewide Infamously characterizedbymanyprominentmediaoutletsasthe“Don’tSayGay”bill,HB1557 has garnered insurmountable headlines and public attention in the past months, ultimatelybecomingoneofthemostcontroversialpiecesofrecentstatelegislationby receiving criticism and discussion at a national level. This article reviews the constitutionalbasisandlegalityofHB1557,ndingthatthefocalpointofthisbill–the prohibition on the scope of teacher’s instruction intheclassroom–shouldbe considered unconstitutional. Given that HB 1557 also reveals critical implications about the remaining legal challenges the LGBTQ+ community faces, this article recommendsseveralcoursesofactionforlegislatorstofurtherremovethelegalbarriers fromequalitymaintainedbyLGBTQ+communitiesandindividuals Inconcluding remarks, this article demonstrates the signicance of this issue and the need for rigorouschangetobemadeforthefutureoftheUnitedStatessociety.

AUTHOR. RandolphXieisathirdyearstudentatUCSDpursuingamajorinPolitical Science-InternationalRelationsandaminorinBusiness.Heisexcitedtograduate nextspringandlooksforwardtoattendinglawschoolnextfall.Hewouldliketothank theEditorialBoard,professorGlennSmith,andhiseditorValentinafortheirsupport throughoutthedraftingandeditingprocess Eventually,hehopestopursueacareerin businesslawandintellectualproperty.

5

1

INTRODUCTION

Thegoalofregulatingeducationalsystemsistoimprovethequalityofeducation forAmericancitizens.However,legislationsmadetotheeducationsystemhavebeen characterized by more controversy than approvalinthepastyears Accordingly,the mostrecentbillpassedbytheFloridaStateSenate,HB1557,1hasescalatedsignicant publicdebateandcriticism.

HB 1557’s general aim is to increase parental oversight on student education. Essentially,thebillincludesmoreopportunitiesforparentalinvolvementinareassuch asstudentsupportmechanisms,mentalhealthproctoring,andanumberofotherareas critical for student development. However, concerns aboutHB1557stemfromits new guidelines on classroom discussions concerning sexual orientation and gender identity. Namely, the textofthebillonlyallowsinstructiononthetopicsofsexual orientationandgenderidentitytooccurunder“ageappropriateanddevelopmentally appropriate settings” that coincide with the “state standard of education,” nding grades including kindergarten through third and corresponding classroom environments as ageinappropriateordevelopementallyinappropriate.2 Afterseveral roundsofrevision,HB1557waspassedintheFloridaHouseofRepresentativeswitha vote of 69 to 47 and in the Florida State Senate withamajorityvoteof22to17 Afterward,itwasociallysignedintotheFloridaStatelawbyGov.RonDeSantis.3 Soonafterthebillwasapproved,ittookovermediaheadlineswithmassivecriticism, claiming that the imposed regulations on education curriculum enhanced existing social inequalities of the LGBTQ+4 communities and challenged the freedom of speechofteachers.

Historically,freedomofspeechregardingLGBTQ+communitieshasbeenoneof themostcontroversialmattersintheUnitedStates.5 LGBTQ+rightsandinequality

Fla CS /CS /HB 1557(2022):ParentalRightsinEducation

2 Id.

3 ElizabethBibi,FloridaSenatePasses“Don’tSayGayorTrans”Bill,LegislationHeadstoDeSantis’ DeskforSignatureorVeto,HᴜᴍᴀɴRɪɢʜᴛsCᴀᴍᴘᴀɪɢɴ(Mar.8,2022), https://wwwhrcorg/news/orida-senate-passes-dont-say-gay-or-trans-bill-legislation-heads-to-desa ntis-desk-for-signature-or-veto(lastvisitedApr.8,2022).

4 The term LGBTQ+ collectively refers to individuals identifying as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer as their sexual identity or gender identity. LGBTQ, Random House UnabridgedDictionary(2022)

LGBTQRightsMilestonesFastFacts,CNN(Aug.11,2022), https://wwwcnncom/2015/06/19/us/lgbt-rights-milestones-fast-facts/indexhtml(lastvisited June5,2022).

FLORIDA HOUSE BILL 1557 AND LGBTQ+ CONTROVERSY

8

6

areoneofthemosthighlydiscussedtopicsamongpoliticalscientists,scholars,social activists, andpoliticians.AsmorepeopleintheLGBTQ+communityacknowledge andasserttheirsexualorientationorgenderidentity,itseemsinevitabletoseegrowing antagonism between LGBTQ+ groups and political institutionsthathavegenerally been unaccepting or hesitant to address thelegalandpoliticalaspectsofLGBTQ+ inequality issues States dier drastically in terms of their laws associated with LGBTQ+ equal rights and legal protections. The general public also maintains dierent degrees of acceptance regarding LGBTQ+ gender identications. As the conict continues to escalate and the narrative of LGBTQ+ justice acquires more profoundmomentum,FloridaHB1557hasbecomeoneofthemostpervasivesubject mattersinU.S.societysoonafteritsnalizationandauthorization.6

I. EFFECTS AND INTERPRETATIONS OF FLORIDA HOUSE BILL 1557

FloridaHB1557tookeectonJuly1st,2022 7 Thebill’sseveralmaineectsare describedinthefollowingsection.

ThecriticismofHB1557hasbeenmostlybuiltagainstitscontroversialprovision on teacher speech and expression. In essence, HB 1557 legally prohibits classroom instruction, discussion, or any type of involvement with topics regarding sexual orientation and gender identity from kindergarten to third grade. With everything considered, HB 1557 was passed in a Republican-ledHouseandSenate,aligninga recent tendency of political conservatism to limit LGBTQ+ rights andliberties.In 2020, for example, four anti-LGBTQ+ bills were submitted to Florida legislative bodies, whichincludedrepealinggender-arminghealthcareandrepealingLGBTQ anti-discriminationmeasures.8

Asidefromthis,HB1557institutedanumberofotherlegalprovisions.Firstly,it increasedthedegreeofparentaloversightwithrespecttochildren’seducation,9making

AndrewAtterbury,Florida’sfightover‘Don'tSayGay’isgettingmoreheated Andithasn’teven goneintoeffectyet,Pᴏʟɪᴛɪᴄᴏ(May17,2022), https://wwwpoliticocom/news/2022/05/17/orida-ght-dont-say-gay-00032512(lastvisited June17,2022)

7 Fla CS /CS /HB 1557(2022):ParentalRightsinEducation

TimFitzsimons,FloridaRepublicanssubmit4anti-gaybillsonlastdaytofile,NBCNᴇᴡs(Jan.15, 2020), https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/orida-republicans-le-4-anti-gay-bills-last-day-session -n1116256(lastvisitedJune21,2022)

9 Fla.C.S./C.S./H.B.1557(2022):ParentalRightsinEducation.

itmandatoryforschoolstonotifyparentsaboutchildren’smentalhealthstatusand acquireparentalconsentbeforeimplementationofanyschool-providedmentalhealth services, treatments, or therapeutic support to their children. Secondly, HB 1557 introduced training regulations atthestatelevelforstudentsupportpractitioners,10 andparentsweregrantedtherightsofconsentandtherightofknowledgeaboutthe trainingprotocolsandtheschool’smentalhealthsupportpractices Thirdly,thebill established a series of adjustments forschoolsandacademicinstitutionstoadopt.11 Schoolswouldberesponsibleforaddressingalldisputesorcomplaintsthatarebrought againstthemuntilparentsaresatisedwithanacceptedresolution.Parentshavethe righttoinitiatelegalproceedingsagainsttheschooliftheyfailtocomplywithanyof therequirementsidentiedaboveonaproceduralbasis,requirementbasis,legalbasis, or a perceptual basis that seeks to institute any inappropriate, unfavorable, or questionable actions.12 Signicantly, all costs and expenses instigatedfromthelegal processasaresultofthesereasonswouldbepaidandnanciallycoveredbytheschool district.

II. CONSTITUTIONALITY: IS IT TOO VAGUE?

HB 1557 has undergone enormous debate from a legal standpoint The legal conversationpredominantlyfocusesonwhetherornotthefocalpointofthisbill–prohibitiononeducationofsexualorientationandgenderidentity–isaconstitutional matter. This article suggests that HB 1557 should be considered unconstitutional because the centerpieceofthebillposesaclearchallengetotheVoidforVagueness Doctrine that resides in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth AmendmentsoftheUnitedStatesConstitution.

The Vagueness Doctrine, residing in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment, suggests that “[A] statute may be unconstitutionally vague because the statute is worded in a standardless way that invites arbitrary enforcement” where “sucient deniteness[isrequiredtoensure]thatordinarypeoplecanunderstandwhatconduct is prohibitedandinamannerthatdoesnotencouragearbitraryanddiscriminatory enforcement”.13 In short, a statute or a legislation is considered unconstitutionally

13 U.S.Const.Amdt.5.4.8VoidforVaguenessDoctrine. 12 Id 11 Id. 10 Id

FLORIDA HOUSE BILL 1557 AND LGBTQ+ CONTROVERSY

vague if its phrasing could be subject to various interpretations due to a lack of specicitythatcanleadtoconictinglegalinterpretationsofenforcement.

Florida HB 1557 challenges the Void for Vagueness Doctrine and promotes arbitraryprosecution.Theterminologyusedtodescribetheprovisionofthebillon teachers’ speech and expression is vague and ambiguous For instance, it fails to concretely dene key denitions such as “sexual orientation,” “gender identity,” “developmental appropriateness,” and other terms that are pivotal to its implementation.Instead,thebillleavesthesebroadtermsopentointerpretationata ratherconcerningdegree.Thismeanslegalenforcementpractitionerscouldinterpret the provisions of the bill dierently, where every phrase in the bill is subjected to arbitraryinterpretationsthatwouldintroducelegalinconsistency.Oneschoolocial or parentmayperceiveacurriculumsubjectasinappropriateunderHB1557while otherpartiesmaynditperfectlysuitable.Thisultimatelycanleadtoheightenedlegal conict and diculty for schools to comply Furthermore, it leaves room for manipulationfromcertaininterests;schoolscouldunlawfullyreteachersandpunish their sta members with obscure foundations, while parents could also victimize teachersinthesamemannerwithlittlesecurereasoning.Thisbilllacksthebasicclarity to establish whatconstitutesaninappropriatesettingforsexualorientation,whatis consideredasinstructionon“sexualorientation”or“genderidentity,”whatsuggests developmentalappropriateness,andseveralotheraspectswhichareallcrucialtothe arbitrationsofthebill.

SimilarlegalfoundationsforvaguenessarefoundinSupremeCourtcasesJohnson v UnitedStatesandKeyishianv BoardofRegentsofUniv ofStateofN Y InJohnson, the main legal debate revolved around the question of whether the denition of “violent felony” as used in the disputed provision was considered to be unconstitutionally vague. In this case, the defendant was held under an enhanced imprisonmentuptofteenyearsduetoapreviousfelonyconvictionthatwasexpected toincreasehischargeunderthenewprovisionoftheAmericanCareerCriminalAct (ACCA).Thelowercourtdeterminedthathispreviousfelonychargewasconsidereda “violent felony” that would enhance the sentence. However, the Supreme Court overturned the lower court’s decision because the provision of ACCA failed to determinewhatspecictypeofconductwouldbeconsideredas“conductthatpresents aseriouspotentialriskofphysicalinjurytoanother”,andfailedtodeterminewhich specic type of criminal conduct is punishable and constitutes a “violent felony.” Therefore,Johnsonfoundthat“[J]udicialprecedenthasheldthatlawsthatdonotgive ordinarypeoplefairnoticeofwhatconductispunishedorcanbeenforcedarbitrarily

violatetheDueProcessClauseoftheFifthAmendment”Thus,theidentiedphrase in the provision was found to be unconstitutionally vague. In a similar manner, Keyishianv.BoardofRegentsofUniv.ofStateofN.Ysuggeststhat“[T]hegovernment couldonlyregulateFirstAmendmentrightswithnarrowspecicity.”InKeyishian,the executiveboardoftheStateUniversityofNewYorkrequiredallofitsteachingstato declare renouncement from communism in order to earn eligibility to resign for employment, becausetheyguredsucharequirementwouldprevent“theintentto overthrowthegovernment”growingamongteachersandstamembers.However,the Supreme Court of the United States has decided that such a requirement on “declaration of communist non-aliation” to prevent “subversiveness” is unconstitutional since establishing such a requirement to spot rebelliousness is a violationoftheVoidforVaguenessDoctrine.TheSupremeCourtindicatedthatwhile the logical and legal relationship of communism involvement to overthrowing the government lacks further connection, while most indeed hinders the teacher’s constitutionalrightstofreedomofspeech.

ComparedtoHB1557,thisbill’sprovisiononteacher’sfreedomofspeechand expressionisunconstitutionallyvague,anditslegalfoundationshouldbechallenged ongroundssimilartothelegalprecedentsestablishedbyJohnsonandKeyishian Thisis becauseHB1557failstospecifyanumberofessentialmeasures First,theunclarityof “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” could very much reside in whetheritis illegal for teacherstoteachstudentsaboutgeneralknowledgeongenderidentityor whetheritisillegaltoresolveagenderidentityrelatedstudentconict.Thebillfailsto presentobjectivenotionsthatspecifywhichtypeofactionrevolvingaroundgender identitymattersareallowedandwhicharenot,resultinginarbitrarypersecutionsince legal practitioners will not have a clearideaofwhattypeofconductispunishable. Thus,accordingtothelegalprecedentssetforthbyJohnson,HB1557’sprovisionon teacherfreedomspeechandexpressionisunconstitutionallyvague,violatingtheDue Process Clause establishedbytheFifthandFourteenthAmendmentsoftheUnited States.Secondly,asidefromthenotionthatHB1557failstospecifyitsphraseology,it alsorestrainsteachers’freedomofspeechandexpressionbecausetheprovisionwould allow less breadth and magnitude of speech in public schools teacher's working environment Consequently, according tothelegalfoundationfromKeyishian,HB 1557’sprovisiononteacherfreedomofspeechandexpressionshouldbeconsidered unconstitutionalbecauseitisnotonlyunconstitutionallyvaguebutalsoaviolationof the teachers’ constitutionalrights.Thirdly,thevaguenessissueisexacerbatedbythe fact that HB 1557 does not only restrict instruction to grade levels kindergarten

throughthird Itspecicallystatesthateducationongenderidentityshallnottranspire under grades kindergarten through third nor in any developmentallyinappropriate manner,whichmeansithasthepotentialtobeappliedtoallgradelevels.Theterm “developmental and age-appropriate instruction” in addition to the vagueness in “gender identity” and ‘sexual orientation” adds another layer of vagueness to the provision of the bill thathasthepotentialityofbeingusedinahighlyinconsistent mannerorinanabusivemanner.Somewouldarguethateducationongenderidentity shall not happen at all grade levels because they maintain that it is considered inappropriate for student development. As a result, HB 1557 is unconstitutional because it isarmviolationoftheVoidforVaguenessdoctrine,supportedbylegal precedentssetin JohnsonandKeyishian.

On the other hand, legal foundationsindefenseoftheconstitutionalityofHB 1557 should be noted. With everything considered, HB 1557’s provision mainly targets the First Amendment right to freedom of speech Chiey, it is commonly acknowledgedthatitisindisputablyunconstitutionalandaclearviolationoftheFirst Amendmentifandonlyifastateweretoprohibitparents,family,ortheprivatesectors fromanytypesofexpressionregardingsexualorientationorgenderidentitymatters. However,HB1557’slegalprohibitionofspeechresideswithinpublicschoolteachers andstamembers,whichareconsideredasgovernmentemployeesorthepublicsector Theparametersthatdeterminetheconstitutionalguidelinesandlegalestablishmentof thepublicsectorfreedomofspeechremainindecisive,andteachershavehistorically andconstitutionallyobtainedlessfreedomandlesscapacityofspeechandexpression comparedtoothergovernmentalsectorsoverthecourseofthepastdecades 14

AlegalfoundationforlimitingpublicsectorspeechcanbefoundintheSupreme Court’sdecisioninGarcettiv.Ceballos,15 whichseemstoparallelthelegislativebasisof HB 1557. In Garcetti, a 5-4decisionandthemajorityopinionproposedbyJustice Kennedy indicates that “[T]he speech by a public ocialisonlyprotected[bythe constitution]ifitisengagedinasaprivatecitizen,notifitisexpressedaspartofthe ocial’spublicduties.”16 Thismeansthatthefreedomofspeechisonlyprotectedasa constitutional right ifandonlyifthepublicocialismakinganexpressionfroma standpointthathasnoassociationwithitspublicduty,butnotprotectedifthepublic

14 Editorial:Silencingteachersovercurrenteventsviolatesfreespeech,TʜᴇSʜᴏʀᴛʜᴏʀɴ(Sept.2,2020), https://wwwtheshorthorncom/opinion/editorial-silencing-teachers-over-current-events-violates-fr ee-speech/article 6b3948c8-ecc6-11ea-9c84-8b18ade6358d.html(lastvisitedMay25,2022).

15 Garcettiv Ceballos,547US 410(2006)

16 Garcettiv.Ceballos,Oʏᴇᴢ,https://www.oyez.org/cases/2005/04-473(lastvisitedJune21,2022).

ocial'sspeechresidesinthepracticeofresponsibilitiesduefortheirposition Asa result,GarcettisuggestsasimilarideacomparedtothelegislativemeasurementofHB 1557, that the speech and expression of public ocials in terms of fullling their publicduties–inthecaseofHB1557,beingpublicschoolteachersfulllingapublic dutyofeducation–isnotprotectedbytheFirstAmendmentoftheUnitedStates Thus,accordingtothelegalprecedentsestablishedbyGarcettiv.Ceballos,itisperfectly legalandconstitutionalforthestateofFloridatorestrictthefreedomofspeechand expressionforpublicschoolteachersoncertaintopics.

Despite the legal measures of HB 1557’s provision on teachers’ speech and expression being rather unclear at this given moment, this bill should remain unconstitutional because its violation of the Void for Vagueness doctrine is not addressedbythisargumentandultimatelyremainsunconstitutional.Evenifissuesof freedomofspeecharenotathreattoHB1557’sconstitutionality,thevaguenessofthe legislationstillmeansthatthebillmaybeinterpretedandenforcedonaninconsistent basis,whichisproblematicforanypieceoflegislation.Sincethisfeatureofthebillis proven to be unconstitutional, the bill as a whole should be considered unconstitutional.

III. LEGAL CONTROVERSY

Since Florida HB 1557 was signed intolawbyStateGov.RonDeSantis,ithas taken over social media, press platforms, and news agencies with insurmountable attention 17 Shortly after HB 1557 was ocially amended into the Florida State Constitution,massiveprotests,publicobjections,andcriticismsfromdierentsocial sectorsagainstthebilltookholdalloverthecountry.HB1557instantlybecamean extremelycontroversialmatternotonlyfromalegalstandpointbutalsoasociopolitical standpoint Theamountofattention,debate,andcriticismthebillhasreceivedhas onlygrownsomuchthatthestateofFloridaiscurrentlyundergoinganunprecedented periodoftensionandantagonism.

Asexaminedpreviously,thereasonwhythestateofFloridaisfacingsuchpressure isinpartduetothefactthatHB1557’sprovisiononteachers’speechandexpression curtailed their First Amendment rights Compared to other public sectorsandthe

17 ElizabethBibi,FloridaSenatePasses“Don’tSayGayorTrans”Bill,LegislationHeadstoDeSantis’ DeskforSignatureorVeto,HᴜᴍᴀɴRɪɢʜᴛsCᴀᴍᴘᴀɪɢɴ(Mar.8,2022), https://wwwhrcorg/news/orida-senate-passes-dont-say-gay-or-trans-bill-legislation-heads-to-desa ntis-desk-for-signature-or-veto(lastvisitedApr.8,2022).

FLORIDA HOUSE BILL 1557 AND LGBTQ+ CONTROVERSY

private sector, HB 1557 nonetheless reduced teachers' capacity of expression in classroomenvironments,leavingthemwithlessfreedomofspeech.Despitethelegal debateofsuchaprovisionremainsratherunsettled,itmostindeedhindersthefreedom of speech for teachers on an observable constitutional parameter. Teachers are restricted from speaking on certain content, where others have more freedom to express,whichisoneofthemostcontroversialaspectsofthebillandessentiallywhy thestateisfacingsuchnegativemediaattention.Asstatedbefore,itisobviousthatthe implementationofHB1557wouldhinderthefreedomofspeechforteachers.

Overall,thelegalcontroversyofthisbillrevolvesaroundtheideathatboththestate ofFloridaanditsassociatedschooldistrictsshareacommonincentivetoexecutethis provisionofthisbill.Asforthestate,Floridahasastrongincentivetofullyexecuteand implementtheprovisionofthebillnotonlytoupholdthenewlaw,butalsoitisin theirinteresttominimizethepressureandnegativeattentionfromthepublicalong withotherpotentialfuturebacklash Toexplain,thepoliticalconsiderationinthiscase isthatithinderstheimageandlikenessofFloridaasafederalstateintheeyesofthe public when there are controversial news reports on this issue consistently taking headlines.ThenegativepublicimagefromHB1557’songoingsituationhasalready dealt damage to their reputation The pressuretheycurrentlyholdisnonethelessa heavyburdenandtheydemandtoreducesuchantagonisminthefuture Preventing anymentionofsexualorientationorgenderidentityasprohibitedbyHB1557inthe rstplacewouldavoidaddingtothemediafrenzyaroundHB1557inthecasethat moving to charge a teacher for doing so indeed adds other momentum to the controversy Thestatewouldliketominimizetheirfutureexposureunderthemedia for thisreasonanddiminishthechallengestopubliccondencethattheycurrently face.Ifaparent-schoollegalcontroversyisexposedtothemediaasaresultofviolating amenitiesofthebill,theamountofpressureandnegativeattentionwouldbebuiltup again and create more complications that are clearly out of the state’s interest Consequently,theStateofFloridaindeedhasanincentivetoavoidfurthercontroversy, andthusthereisastrongdemandforthemtocarryouttheprovisionofHouseBill 1557andpushforitseectuation.

On the other hand, the school districts also maintain a compelling interest to complyunderthebillbecausetheywouldsuernancialsanctionsfromescalatedlegal expenses if andonlyifanylegalproceedingsorconfrontationsareinitiated.Asitis statedinHB1557,schooldistrictsareresponsibletocoverallthenancialexpensesfor anyparent-schoolconict.Thus,publicinstitutionsandschooldistrictsarelikelyto makeasupremeeorttoenforceHB1557toavoidnancialliabilities,whichwould

indeedharmteachersandstamembersbecausethefocalpointofthebillcurtailstheir freedomofspeech.Pairedwiththevaguenessofthebill,italmostcertainlymeansthat schoolsdistrictsandpublicinstitutionswouldbewillingtointensivelycrackdownon theprovisionsofthebill,andtrytocoverallbasesinordertoavoidnancialsanctions attheexpenseofsueringteachers'freedomofspeechtoadramaticextent Whereasif one of the two involved parties - school and the state - lacks this shared interest, teacher’sfreedomofspeechwillnotbecurtailedasmuch.Thus,theconictofinterest betweenthestateandschooldistrictswouldfurtherdeterioratetherightsofteachers, creating a legal norm thatstressestheinferiorityofthepublicsector,menialtothe privatesector’srightsandprotections

Yet, this legal norm of thepublicsector’sinferioritytotheprivatesectorisnot entirelynew.Thegovernmentspeechdoctrine18 providesalegalfoundationsimilarto thisconictofinterest,where“[T]hegovernmenthasitsownrightsasaspeakerwhois immune from freedom ofspeechchallenges”Inessence,thisdoctrineissuesalegal clause for the government to restrict and regulate speech of government representatives,controllingthecontentoftheirexpression.However,therelacksany legalcausalitytoimposeanycontrolforcitizensandexpressionsintheprivatecontext. Thus,thepresenceofthe“governmentspeechdoctrine”limitsthefreedomofspeech forteachers RelatingtoFloridaHouseBill1557,itprovidesalegalbasisforthestate to impose a limitation on teachers, who are considered government personnel, to prohibittheinstructionofsexualorientationandgenderidentitythatdiminishestheir First Amendment rights without posing a clear threat to the Constitution. This unexpressed superiority of citizens' right’s intactness over government ocials coincideswiththe“governmentspeechdoctrine”andthelegalsubstratumofHouse Bill1557,wheretheincentivetorestrictgovernmentalspeechforthecollectiveinterest ofthesocietyattheexpenseofpublicsector’sfreedomofspeechisunwrittenbutvalid. Therefore,theconictofinterestmaintainedbytheschoolandthestateofFloridato implement andexecutetheprovisionofHB1557wouldmostdenitelyhinderthe freedomofspeechforteachers,andintensifythelegalnormthatplacesprivatesector’s rightsoverpublicsector’srights.

18 DavidL HudsonJr,GovernmentSpeechDoctrine,TʜᴇFɪʀsᴛAᴍᴇɴᴅᴍᴇɴᴛEɴᴄʏᴄʟᴏᴘᴇᴅɪᴀ(2009), https://www.mtsu.edu/rst-amendment/article/962/government-speech-doctrine#: :text=Hudso n%20Jr&text=Under%20the%20government%20speech%20doctrine,Amendment%20claims %20of%20viewpoint%20discrimination.(lastvisitedJune20,2022).

IV. WHAT THIS BILL MEANS FOR LGBTQ+ INEQUALITIES

As itiscommonlyacknowledgedbyscholars,politicians,andsociologistsinthe UnitedStates,thedisparitiesenduredbyLGBTQ+communitieshavebeenanactive issuefordecades 19 Namely,LGBTQ+rightsasasocio-politicalissuearecharacterized by historical inequalities For the past centuries, members of the community have experiencedbothdejureanddefactosegregation.Despitethefactthatthesituationhas gotten a lot better with the eort of extraordinary social activism and many adjustmentsmadefromthelegalsystem,theLGBTQ+inequalityissueremainsoneof the most predominant challenges in the current society both socio-politically and legally.

LGBTQ+topicsandrelateddiscussionsremainahighlytaboosubjectmatterin many American households. Some parents still do not want their children to be exposedtothetopicofsexualorientationorgenderidentity,especiallyatearlyages It issuggestedthatsexualorientationandgenderidentity,despitebeingacceptedtodayas scientically valid diverse parts of life, arebynaturedelicateandformanyfamilies, “unsuitable”topicsforchildrentolearnabout.Itisapredominantconcernthattheir child might misinterpret the message or others believe that it is a shameful and a dishonorablethingtotalkaboutsexualorientation Fundamentally,peoplestillpossess asignicantideologicalbarrierthatLGBTQ+conversationsaredangerous,sensitive, andthreateningtothewell-beinganddevelopmentoftheirchildren,despiteknowing the presence of dierent sexual orientations and gender identities are completely justiedfromabiologicalandpsychologicalstandpoint

ThepresenceofFloridaHouseBill1557indicatedthatthecurrentlawmakersare stillseekingtoescapefromtacklingthetaskofaddressingLGBTQ+inequalityfroma legal standpoint. Despite knowing for a fact it is rather inevitable to confront LGBTQ+inequalitieswithinthelegislativesystem,theystillattempttopostponethis battle by setting up laws and policies thatwouldsuppresspubliccontroversyfrom escalating,insteadofmakinganeorttoaddressinequalitieswiththeirlegalpower. Legislators have always lacked the true incentive to resolve the disparities faced by

19

LGBTQRightsMilestonesFastFacts,CNN(Aug.11,2022), https://wwwcnncom/2015/06/19/us/lgbt-rights-milestones-fast-facts/indexhtml(lastvisited June5,2022).

LGBTQ+ groups withcomprehensivepolicies,20 andtheutmosteorttoprovidea solution that is founded upon constitutional rights which indeed requires insurmountablededicationfromalllevelsoftheinstitution.Instead,theycontinueto evadethisissueandallowinequalitiestoprevail,legallypreventingpeoplefromtalking about it while refusing to use their power and legal capacity toprovideLGBTQ+ communitieswithacohesivesolution FloridaHouseBill1557isjustanotherexample ofhowcurrentlawmakersandlegislatorsarerefrainingtheeorttoaddressLGBTQ+ inequality, taking on the easier approach to suppress and conceal it with a bill maintainingratherdebatableconstitutionality.

For this reason, Florida House Bill 1557 is an illustration of how current lawmakers, legislators, and representatives still refuse to dedicate sincere eorts in resolving social inequalities and addressing the long-standing discrimination endeavoredbyLGBTQ+communitiesfromalegalstandpoint.Althoughsuchactions andideologicalreimbursementwouldtakeatremendousamountoftimeandeortto make substantial dierence,thehesitationtoproduceanysinceresolutionfromthe legalsocietywillcontinuetoburdentheUnitedStatessocietyfordecades.

V. RECOMMENDATIONS

Florida House Bill 1557 sheds light onthegreaterdisparityfacedbyLGBTQ+ communitiesintheUnitedStatessociety.Weprovidethefollowingsuggestionsand potential solutions to resolve the vagueness of the bill as examined previously and promote LGBTQ+ equality, ultimately addressing the ongoing controversy of HB 1557.

Firstly,itissuggestedthatthestateofFloridashouldaddresstheunconstitutional aspectofHouseBill1557withamorecomprehensivelawthatisfreefromvagueness challenges, with respect to a higher level of specicity in its provisiononteachers’ speechthatwillnotallowarbitraryinterpretationorinconsistentenforcementofthe bill.Astheexaminationsincorporatedinthisarticleindicated,vaguenessandfailureto ensureclarityinlawmakingwouldintroduceseriouslegalandsocialconsequences.In the case of HB1557,maintainingwordslike“genderidentity”and“developmental appropriateness”withoutprovidingfurtherdetailonwhatspecicallythesetermsare

20 DustinJonesetal,NotjustFlorida Morethanadozenstatesproposeso-called'Don'tSayGay'bills, NPR(Apr.10,2022), https://wwwnprorg/2022/04/10/1091543359/15-states-dont-say-gay-anti-transgender-bills(last visitedJune4,2022).

CONTROVERSY

referring to would result in arbitrary enforcement,inconsistentlegalinterpretation, andopportunitiesforabusiveusethatwouldallcausesevereharmtothosetargeted groups and individuals. Thus, laws as vagueasFloridaHouseBill1557needtobe revised and reconsidered by eliminating or replacing vague terminologies with precisionandexplicitness,whileincorporatingobjectivestandards,detailedguidance, and circumstantial explanation on how to enforce this provision In addition, the clarityoflawmakingandprecisenessofamendmentinlegislationshouldbefurther reinforcedatboththestateandthefederallevel.AsapartoftheDueProcessClause undertheFifthandtheFourteenthAmendmentoftheUnitedStatesConstitution, theabsenceofvaguenessandunclarityarecriticalaspectstotheAmericanlegalsociety andtheruleoflawingeneral.AsillustratedinHB1557,failuresinensuringtheclarity andprecisenessinlawmakingwouldhinderthedevelopmentofUnitedStatessociety toaprofoundextent.Mostimportantly,clarityandprecisenessinthephrasingoflaw reducesthechanceofthemediatakingadvantageofvaguenesstogeneratepublicity stunts,whereoutletsmaintainaprofoundtendencytodistorttheoriginalmeaningof thelawandcreatehugeheadlinesthatmisleadthepublicforprot.

Secondly, it is suggested that the State of Florida should reconsiderHB1557’s aliation with teachers’ speech because of its threat to the First Amendment’s protection As previously noted, HB 1557’s provision on teacher’s instruction of sexualorientationandgenderidentitychallengesthefreedomofspeechprotectionthat isgiventopublicschoolteachers.Despiteitsconstitutionalitybeingratherdebatableat thismoment,thepresenceofHB1557indeedcurtailedtherightsandprotectiongiven topublicschoolteachersasUnitedStatescitizens Thus,itissuggestedthatFlorida State legislation should reevaluate HB 1557’s provision on teachers’ speech and re-examine the necessity to incorporate such a provision into the legislation. Nevertheless,theprincipalgoalofHB1557istoproctorstudents'mentalhealthand reinforcestudentsupportmechanisms Hypothetically,theabsenceofthisprovision on teachers’ speech will not undermine the overall purpose of the billwhenother amenities remain valid, such as requesting parental consent andincreasingparental oversight. However, incorporating alawthatpreventspeoplefromcertainformsof expression will be controversial because it diminishes the freedom of speech that should be given to all United States citizens in equal terms, especially when an observableconstitutionalmeasureisidentiable.Thus,legallychallengingtherightto freedom of speech in the name of protecting the students would introduce severe backlashandsocialinstability,especiallywhentheeectivenessofusingsuchpractice as an approach to protect students' well-being remains questionable Despite its

debatable constitutionality and legal foundation, the legal causality behind Florida HouseBill1557’sprovisiononsexualorientationandgenderidentityrequiresfurther research and consensus from the political, social, and scientic society. Yet, one potentialsolutionistopreserveHB1557atthedismembermentofitsprovisionson teachers’ speech and expression, ultimately making this bill free from First Amendmentcontroversiesandotherconstitutionalchallenges

Finally, itisadvisedforinstitutionsandlegislaturesonthestateleveltoprovide protection and establish standards that allow topics of gender identity and sexual orientation to take place in classroom settings if and only if they are built upon scienticorintellectualfoundation,refrainingfrommakinglawsandpoliciesidentical to HB 1557thatcreatesocialandlegalcontroversy.Aspreviouslypointedout,HB 1557’s provision that restrict teachers’ speech and expression on topics of gender identity and sexual orientation is considered a rm violation against LGBTQ+ communities and individuals Its sociopolitical consequences are prodigious and it wouldincentivizehugebacklashandpublicresentment.Fundamentally,instructionof gender identity and sexual orientation should transpire in classroom settings as nonetheless factual aspects of natural science and human knowledge rather than informationthatwouldhinderthedevelopmentofchildren Entirelyeliminatingthe presenceofgenderidentityandsexualorientationinclassroomwouldonlyintroduce moreunfavorableoutcomesandsocialcontroversy,whichneithercontributetosocial stabilitynormakingthenextgenerationmoreknowledgeableaboutlifeandscience.As aresult,itisadvisedthatstatesshouldestablishstandardsthatallowtheeducationof genderidentityandsexualorientationtotakeplaceinclassroomsettingsifandonlyif theyarebuiltuponscienticorintellectualfoundation.Doingsowouldreducethe legal challenges faced by state legislatures, minimize the damage made to teachers’ speech protections, and prevent the intensication of LGBTQ+ related issues that resultedfromHB1557’slegalcontroversy UndersincereeortsmadebytheAmerican legalsociety,disparitieswouldbesettledandLGBTQ+socialcontroversieswouldbe resolvedwiththefullnessoftime.

CONCLUSION

FloridaHouseBill1557isoneofthemostcontroversiallegislativesubjectsofthe past months, and it is a crystallization of the LGBTQ+ inequality issuesthathave prevailedintheUnitedStatesfordecades.TheimplementationofHouseBill1557in theFloridaStatelegislaturewouldintroduceseveralnegativelegalconsequencesinthe

FLORIDA HOUSE BILL 1557 AND LGBTQ+ CONTROVERSY

society, and it is unfavorable to most interest groups that are involved with the controversy.

Essentially,FloridaHouseBill1557’sprovisiononteachers'speechandexpression is unconstitutional. The provision of the bill undermines the Void for Vagueness Doctrine that resides in the due process clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth AmendmentsoftheUnitedStatesConstitution Theinfringementofconstitutional rights and the excessive vagueness have ultimately made the focal point of Florida House Bill1557unconstitutionalandoneofthemostcontroversialmattersfroma legislative perspective. Moreover, it furtherinstitutesthelegalnormthatintroduces more harm than good, further hindering the power of public education and its inuence.

Insummary,LGBTQ+communitiesintheUnitedStateshavebeenfacingsomeof the worst social disparities.21 It is not only an urgency but also an obligation for lawmakerstondsolutionstoaddressthisissuefromadejurestandpoint Itisareality that the inability of the legislature to make any dierence in the past decades has introducedseriousconsequencestotheUnitedStatestoday,andthecommonsociety mustacknowledgethatitisatremendouslydicultmissionforanygrouptomakean impact However, more hesitation would result in a heavier burden that the next generationwouldnonethelesstakeon Futurelegalreformsandsolutionshavetobe madeincontemplationtotheruleoflaw,well-being,andproperfunctionalityofthe UnitedStatessocietyinthefuture.

21

LGBTQRightsMilestonesFastFacts,CNN(Aug.11,2022), https://wwwcnncom/2015/06/19/us/lgbt-rights-milestones-fast-facts/indexhtml(lastvisited June5,2022).

ALEXANDERRHEE

Enforcement of California Vehicle Code Pertaining to Cyclists

ABSTRACT. For the past decade, cyclist deaths have steadily increasedbecauseofa general lackofawarenessandenforcementofvehiclecode.Additionally,thereisno currentlegislationpertainingtothemechanicsofoperatingabicycle.Thiscausesthree issues Firstly,newroadhazardsarecreatedformotoroperators Secondly,otherwise avoidablecrashesinvolvingmotorvehiclesandcyclistsoccur.Lastly,thereispushback from both the cyclist community and the motorvehiclecommunitywherecyclists increasinglydemandmorefreedomsontheroadwhilethemotorvehiclecommunity increasingly demands more restrictions on cyclists and other non-motor vehicles Despitevaryingopinionsonvehiclerestrictions,theocialstatisticsprovidedbythe US Department of Transportation Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) are indisputable: 843 cyclist deaths have occurred across the nation in 2019 with Californiaastheleadcontributorwith20%ofthesedeaths,whichishowithasbeen for the past decade This is no longer an issue offaultbetweencyclistsandmotor vehicles but now an issue of enforcement andoutdatedlegislation.Thispaperwill analyze how the lack of enforcement of CaliforniaVehicleCode21200and21202 from law enforcement and legislative powers to combaton-roadnegligencesuchas ridingantiparalleltotracanddisobeyingtracsignalsnegativelyimpactsthecurrent stateofdrivingonthehighwayforbothmotorvehiclesandcyclists Thearticleaimsto proposenewlegislation,namelyrequiringcycliststohavealicenseorpermittoridea bicycletomitigatefuturedeathsandimprovethelevelofsafetyon-road.

AUTHOR. AlexanderRheeisarisingthirdyeartheoreticalmathstudentwithinterests inresearchandthelegaleld.HethanksGodandhischurchfamilyforsupportingand encouraginghim.

3

ENFORCEMENT OF CALIFORNIA VEHICLE CODE PERTAINING TO CYCLISTS

INTRODUCTION

I. TheNecessityOfStricterEnforcement

Over800cyclistsdiedin2019,accordingtothereportbytheUSDepartmentof TransportationFatalityAnalysisReportingSystem(FARS) Asthereportfollows,this mortalityrateisnotimproving,showingsteadyincreaseoverthe2009-2019decade. Additionally, a majority of these deaths have occurred on streets – the exactroads shared by drivers and other vehicles. This leads to two thoughts: Is this number increasingasaresultofanincreasedcyclistpopulation?Oraredriverssteadilygetting worseovertheyears?Botharetrue:thenumberofcyclistsandmotorvehicleson-road hasincreasedsince2009andthisinuxhascausedgreateron-roadliabilityforboth cyclistsandmotorvehicleoperators.1 Additionally,aswithanyincreaseinpopulation, the amount of negligent behavior like rolling stops, failure to completely yield to pedestrians,etc hasincreased;thisbehaviorisbecomingnormalizedindrivingculture

However, while these statisticssupportevidencethatthestreetsarenotsafefor cyclists, it can be observed that cyclists are also at fault at times due to improper conductontheroad.2InthesameFARSreport,over60%ofthesedeathshaveinvolved a cyclist not wearing a helmet and over 20% involved a cyclist riding under the inuence.Thisraisesthequestionofwhetheritisthatthestreetsareindeedunsafefor cyclistsorifcyclistsareputtingthemselvesinharm’sway.

InCaliforniaalone,cyclistdeathscontributedtooverthreepercentoftotalvehicle fatalities in the state 3 While the number may seem negligible, itaccountsonlyfor reportedincidents,thusthetotalactualnumberofdeathsisunknown.Furthermore, during the 2018 –2019year,Californiaobservedanoverallvepercentincreasein totalvehicledeathscomparedtoFlorida,anotherstateconsistingofhighcyclistdeaths, whichobservedatwopercentdecrease California’strendremainslargelytrueforother leadingstateslikeNewYorkandTexas:whileoveralldeathshaveincreased,California

1 Motor(vehicle)operatorsreferstoanynon-cyclistvehicle(ie,car,truck,motorcycle) 18USC § 31(a)(6).

2 73

Pedalcyclistsarecyclists FARSEncyclopedia

observed the largest vehicle death increase 4 It is important to note, however, that compared to the totalcyclistdeathsinCaliforniaduringthesameyear(133),other states’cyclistfatalityratespaleincomparison.

Thus, the question arises why is California leading in the number of sheer deaths?Moststatesnotonlyin2019butevenin2022haverelativelysimilarvehicle codes,ofcoursewithregionalexceptions(e-bikesande-scootersstillremainalargely urbanizedphenomenoncomparedtomoreruralstates)whicharenotsignicantfor this paper. For instance, most states have laws regarding occupant restraints, motorcycle helmets, and appropriate blood-alcohol level.5 Additionally, some US territoriesalsohavesimilarlaws 6 Itisnotnecessarilyadisconnectinlegislationacross thestatesbecausetheselawsarestandardized.

Theheartofthisanalysisisthis:enforcementoflawvariesbetweenregionsandis underenforced in California. One LA Times article states that historically, small infractions by bikersontheroadresultingettingstoppedbylawenforcement,and stopsndthatfewerthantenpercentofallbikersactuallycarrycontraband.7 Inthe samearticle,anunnamedsergeantreinforcedthat,especiallyforrookiecops,makinga successfulbustisanumbersgame:themorestopsandchecksmade,thegreaterthe likelihoodofreportingsomethingactionable Thishaspreviouslycreatedincentivesfor copstoover-policebikers,whichtheynowavoidfortheabovereason Duetothisaw inthesocialworkingsoflawenforcement,bikersnowadaystendtoreceiveasortof “immunity”duetolawenforcementocerswantingthestigmaofcopsvs.bikersto dissipate.

4 FloridaandCaliforniaswitchoforbiggestcontributor.Allotherstatescontributetolessthan5% ofdeathseach FARSEncyclopedia,Nᴀᴛ’ʟHɪɢʜᴡᴀʏTʀᴀғғɪᴄSᴀғᴇᴛʏAᴅᴍɪɴ, https://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx(lastvisitedJul3,2022).

5 By2007,all50statesratiedthe 08BAClimit LegislativeHistoryof 08PerSeLaws,Nᴀᴛ’ʟ HɪɢʜᴡᴀʏTʀᴀғғɪᴄSᴀғᴇᴛʏAᴅᴍɪɴ., https://onenhtsagov/people/injury/research/pub/alcohol-laws/08history/1 introductionhtm#:~: text=Twenty%2Dve%20states%2C%20plus%20the,10%20BAC%20per%20se%20limit(lastvisited June3,2022)

6 TheDistrictofColumbiaandPuertoRicoalsohavea.08BAClimit.Id.

However, while the statistic is that less than 10% of cyclists actually carry contraband,thisdoesnotnegatethefactthattherearecycliststhatroutinelydisobey other laws of theroad,promptinglawenforcementtostopthem.Asstatedbefore, 7

visitedJune15,2022).

9

ENFORCEMENT OF CALIFORNIA VEHICLE CODE PERTAINING TO CYCLISTS

cyclists are not guilt free but rather equally guilty in sharing fault of road hazards accompanyingtheusualmotorvehicles.Whatisneededisforcycliststobeheldmore accountableandmoreliableforthedangertheythemselvesenable.Thisreportaimsto analyze Toscanov.CityofFresno(2015)andBertonv.Cochran(1947)inrelationto CVC21200andCVC21202andproposesapotentialsolutionofstandardizedtesting inconjunctionwithpermitsandlicensingforcyclists

II. CurrentCVCRegardingCyclists

California Vehicle Code or CVC, outlines 42,277 dierent codesrangingfrom general provisions, weight limits of vehicles, accidents, etc. Of this, only two very clearly and explicitly apply tocyclists:CVC21200andCVC21202,whichoutline howcyclistsoughttoconductthemselvesontheroad.Similarguidelinescanbefound ontheCaliforniaDepartmentofMotorVehiclewebsite 8 Thesetwopiecesofcodeas wellasothercodespecictobicyclescanbefoundunderDivision11Article4titled OperationofBicycles.

A CVC21200

Apersonridingabicycleoroperatingapedicabuponahighwayhasallthe rightsandissubjecttoalltheprovisionsapplicabletothedriverofavehicleby this division, including, but not limited to, provisions concerning driving undertheinuenceofalcoholicbeveragesordrugs exceptthoseprovisions whichbytheirverynaturecanhavenoapplication. 9

Veryclearlystated,CVC21200requiresthatallpersonsoperatingabicyclemustobey alltherightsandprovisionsapplicabletothedriver Thersthalfstatesthatanyandall rulesappliedtoadriverofamotorvehiclewithexceptiontothosethatdonotliterally apply(i.e.,codethatspecicallyreferencesmotorvehicles)alsoapplytotheoperatorof abicycle.Thismeansthatsignaling,stoppingatappropriatestopsignsandstoplights, yieldingtopedestrians,etc,allapplytocyclists Infact,theonlyexceptionmadeto cyclistsotherthanthecodesthatdonotdirectlyapplyaretowardspeaceocerson

8

SharingtheRoad,CᴀʟɪғᴏʀɴɪᴀDMV, https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/driver-education-and-safety/educational-materials/fast-facts/sharin g-the-road-dl-37/(lastvisitedJuly10,2022)

Cᴀʟ.Vᴇʜ.Cᴏᴅᴇ§21200(West2022).

duty Law enforcement with the inclusion of a few other civil workers are peace ocers, for examplepoliceocersandmarshals(seefootnote11formorein-depth descriptionofpeaceocer).10

The latter half addressing drugs and alcoholisconsistentwithlawsfromall50 states including a few US territories ratifying the 008 BAC limit Additionally, as mentionedintheintroduction,over20%oftotalcyclistdeathsoccurredduetoriding undertheinuence.20%inthescopeoftheCaliforniamortalityrate(lessthan200 deathsinCaliforniain2019)isbynomeanslarge,however20%inthescopeofasteady incline in cyclist deaths poses a greater issue once dealing with numbers reaching upwardsof200inCaliforniaandupwardsof1,000nationwide 11

B. CVC21202

CVC21202isastraightforwardcodethatstatesthatcyclistsnotridingatthespeed of trac must ride “ as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway.”12 However,therealityofdrivingontheroadprovescyclistsdootherwise. One radio show host Susan Carpenter analyzes CVC 21202 and how the interpretationbythepublicandlawenforcementalldependsonhowyouinterpret California Vehicle Code 21202 13 She goes on to cite that although it is true that cyclistsarerequiredtorideintherightmostpartoftherightmostlane,therulingis morenuancedthanwhatmeetstheeye.SpecicallycitingthestreetsofLosAngelesas substandard,Carpenterstatesthatthisinvokesthe‘roadhazard’ruleinwhichcyclists arethenpermittedtotakethefulllane 14

In the same report, Colin Bogart, LA County Bicycle Coalition Education Director,statesthat“[S]treetshaven’tbeendesignedtoaccommodatebicyclistsvery

14

e-entire-lane/(lastvisitedJuly10,2022).

Substandardstreetsmeasuringlessthan12ft

ENFORCEMENT OF CALIFORNIA VEHICLE CODE PERTAINING TO CYCLISTS

well” Taking his observation into account, this proves to make for potentially numerousavoidableaccidentsbetweencyclistsandmotorvehicles.

C. EnforcementAndAwareness

This section will discuss the impending issue of lack of knowledge and enforcement.AttorneyChrisBurnscommentsonthefactthatit’scommonforpolice ocerstobeunawareofwhichlawsapplytocyclists.15 Thiscanworkbothtowards andagainstthebenetofcyclistsinthatocersmaybelaxerandmorelenienttowards road violations or the exact opposite andaggressivelyticketcyclists Thiscreatesan inconsistencynotonlytofellowocersbutalsothecyclistcommunityandthepublic at largeinthatthereisnoclear-cuttransparencyonwhatisandisnotallowedasa cyclist.

FormerMinnesotapoliceocerKirbyBeckarmsthisnotingthat“Bicyclistsfare bestwhentheyactandaretreatedasdriversofvehicles!Traclawsarecreatedtomake travelsaferandmorepredictableforeveryone.Lawsusedproperlysavelives.Theyare farlesseectiveiftheyaren’treinforced.”16 Beck’scommentheresumsuptheessence of the current issueregardingobeyingtraclawsandassociatedrules:lawsarenot usedproperlyandarenotreinforced

I. EXAMINED CASES

Twocaseswillbeexamined,Toscanov CityofFresno(2015)andBertonv Cochran (1947).Therstcase,Toscanov.CityofFresnodetailshownegligenceofbothcyclist andlawenforcementresultedinanavoidabledeathinvestigatingwherefaultresideson both parties. The second caseBertonv.Cochrandetailshowfailuretoyieldtothru traconthepartofthecyclistleadtoanavoidabledeath Inbothinstances,neither plaintinordefendantisintherightbutratherbothsharetheblameforthecauseof the accident. Applied in both cases are the aforementioned CVC21200andCVC 21202.

15

AdviceforReceivingaBicycleTrafficTicketorCitation,CʜʀɪsᴛᴏᴘʜᴇʀG Bᴜʀɴs,ESQ, https://oridacyclinglaw.com/blog/bicycle-ticket-advice.

16

EnforceBicycleRidingLaws,Iɴᴛ’ʟPᴏʟɪᴄᴇMᴏᴜɴᴛᴀɪɴBɪᴋᴇAss’ɴ, https://ipmba.org/blog/comments/enforce-bicycle-riding-laws(lastvisitedJune3,2022).

A Toscanov CityOfFresno(2015)

i. Background

In2013,plaintisAngelKeithToscano(deceased)andafriendwereridingbicycles inFresnowhenToscanorodethroughatracstopandconsequentlywaschasedby ocer James Lyon, ofwhomwasoperatingamotorvehicle.ToscanoledLyonina chasethateventuallywoundupinanalleywhereLyonbumpedToscano’sbikeand accidentallyranoverhim,killingToscano.

Thefactsofthecaseareasfollows:

1. OcerLyoninitiallychasedToscanoforfailuretostopatastopsignandfor ridingonthewrongsideoftheroad;

2 ToscanoactivelyedfromLyon;

3. OcerLyonconductedthechasewithoutuseoflightsandsiren;

4. Ocer Lyon, despite having knowledge and training regarding protocolon pursuit,stillbumpedToscanowhileonhisbicycle;

5 OcerLyonwasdeemedtheprimarycollisionfactorintheaccident

Theconclusionofthecasewasthatthedefendants’invocationoftheFourthand Fourteenth Amendment rights under intention to harmandnegligenceagainstthe CityofFresnowasgrantedbutdeniedagainstOcerLyon.

ii. Applications

Both Toscano and Lyon had someparttoplayintheoutcome.Lookingatthe initialstartoftheissue,Toscanofailedonthreecounts:failuretostopatatracstop, failuretostopatastopsign,andfailuretorideontherightsideoftheroad

All three of these accounts can be summed up with CVC 21200 which, very briey, paraphrased states that all persons riding a bicycle are subject to the same provisionsasadriverofamotorvehicleexceptthosethatdonotapply Here,itiswell withinreasonthatToscano,assomeoneridingabicycle,wasrequiredtostopatthe conductedtracstop,stopatthestopsign,andrideonthecorrectsideoftheroad. Therearenoexceptionshere.Driversarerequiredtofollowtheserulesandhence,they alsoapplytoindividualsonbicycles.

ENFORCEMENT OF CALIFORNIA VEHICLE CODE PERTAINING TO CYCLISTS

Additionally, the case does not state that Toscano was a peaceocer,thusthe specicexceptionsmadetopeaceocersdidnotapply.Consequently,Toscanowasin thewrongforthosethreecounts,notincludingthefactofevadingauthorityinachase. AccordingtotheCaliforniaDMV,allpersonsmountingabicyclearerequiredtostop atstopsignsaswellasrideinthesamedirectionoftrac

TakingalookonOcerLyon’spartweseethathetooisnotinnocentandinfact brokeseveralcodesincludingbutnotlimitedto:conductingachasewithouttheuseof lightsorasirenandbumpingToscanowhileonhisbike.

WhenlookingintoCVC22350,itisclearthatLyonshouldnothavebeengoing fast enough to ‘accidentally’ run over Toscano; this is a direct violation of CVC 22350.17 It is clear that Lyon violated the law, but he violated them in moreways beyondthescopeofCVC21200andCVC21202.

B Bertonv Cochran(1947)

i. Background

Bertonv Cochranisanothercaseofnegligenceonbothparties,unfortunatelythis time involving the injury of aseven-year-oldminor OnAugust13,1945,Cochran (defendant)wasdrivinghisautomobileonapublichighwayandBerton(plainti),the minor,wasridinghisbicycleonaprivatedrivewaythatintersectedthepublichighway Cochranwasdrivingon.18 Accordingtotestimoniesbythedefendantandassociated parties,itisevidentthatCochranwasabout20feetawayfromtheintersectionwhen herstobservedBerton,fromwhichheimmediatelyappliedthebrakesandcollided withBertonwhoissaidtohavedrivenstraightintothehighwaywithoutmakingaturn eitherleftorright.19

Fromtheplainti’sside,wehavethatBertondidinfactmakeaturntotheright and actually traversed roughly 8 feet before the crash Other testimonies from the plainti’ssideconcurwiththisandaddthatthedefendantwasfurtherback,roughly 60feet,beforeimpactanduponcollisionexplainedthatitwasfaultonhispart.Thisof course,thedefendantrefuted,claimingthathemadenosuchclaims.Thiscaseruledin

favorofthedefendantwhereCochranwasnotheldliablefortheincidentoncountof thelastclearchancedoctrine.20

ii. Applications

Itisrstimportanttodiscussthe“LastClearChance”doctrineanditsrelationto thiscase Thedefendantarguesthatatarateofroughly37feetpersecondandseeing theboyatadistanceof15feet,Cochranintheorycouldhavestoppedtwicewithina 30feetdierence.21 However,hebringsupthefactthatfromtheapplicationofthe brakestothebrakesbecomingineect,thereexistsanintervaloftimeinwhichthe brake mechanic operates, thus making it so that astopwithoutcollisionwouldbe ‘impossible’atthedistanceof15feet Throughthetestimonies,therealsoseemstobea generalagreementthatCochranappliedhisbrakesimmediately.Thus,theLastClear Chancedoctrineobservingfaultonthepartythatcouldhaveavoidedtheaccidentdoes notfallonCochran

The document does not continue on to say that the doctrine not applying to Cochran implies that fault falls onBerton,howeverwecaninferthatCochrannot havingtheLastClearChancetoavoidcollisionmeansthatthereisatleastpartialfault ontheplaintithathecouldhaveavoidedthecollision.

Thataside,itisimportanttorecallCVC21200asitisthemostapplicableofthe two analyzed codes.Withoutgoingintotechnicalities,itisclearthatBertonshould haveavoidedridingintotheintersection,regardlessofmakingaturnornot,asitwas notasafedistancetomergeintooncomingtrac.ByCVC21200,allpersonsridinga bicyclemustadheretotheprovisionstothatofanoperatorofamotorvehicleexcept thosethatdonotapply Knowingthis,thesituationcanbereimaginedwithtwomotor vehicles,oneturningrighttomergeintooncomingtracwithonlythedistanceof roughly20feetbetweenthecars.Alsoconsideringthatthereexistsanintervaloftime betweenapplicationofthegaspedalandaccelerationtomatchoncomingtrac,itis clear that fault does not reside on Cochran but rather Berton here This is also excluding the physiological limitations of a seven-year-old minor in relation to operatingabicycleatthelevelofsafelymergingintooncomingtrac.

CVC21202isoflesserrelevanceasitonlyaddsontotheanalysisofCVC21200 ratherthanbringingnewperspective Berton,clearlynotgoingthespeedofoncoming

20

Thisconsiderswhichpartyhadthe‘lastclearchance’toavoidtheaccidentandobservesfaulton them LastClearChance,LᴇɢᴀʟIɴғᴏ Iɴsᴛ,https://wwwlawcornelledu/wex/last clear chance

21

Caseleequatesthistoroughly25milesperhour.

ENFORCEMENT OF CALIFORNIA VEHICLE CODE PERTAINING TO CYCLISTS

tracwouldneedtorideascloseaspossibletotherightcurbinordertobefollowing suitwithCVC.AssumingBertondidindeedrideasclosetotheright,thisdoesnot negatethefactthatthedistancewouldstillnotbeadequateforCochran’sbrakesto bringthevehicletoacompletestop.Additionally,thisdoesnotnegatethefactthatit was still not a safe distance for Bertontomergeontothehighway Thus,itcanbe concludedthatfaultisnotonthedefendantCochranbutratherBerton

II. TESTING AND LICENSING

It is pertinent that testing and consequently licensing be implemented for all cyclists as with all operators of motor vehicles regardless of age. 22 As can be easily observedinthepastdecade,theentryleveldevicetobeontheroadhasslowlybecome less sophisticated. First were just motor vehicles with occasional cyclists. However, nowadayswiththeintroductionofe-bikes,e-scooters,etc,ithasbecomeincreasingly easierforpeopletoaccesspublicroads,andaccessthemunsafely Asitstands,inmost regionsofCalifornia,youdonotneedalicense,permit,oranyothercerticationof sorts to operate a non-motor vehicle on theroad(bicycle,e-bike,etc.).Thiscauses severalproblems,bothinthepresentandintheforeseeablefuture.

First, the integration and presence of e-bikes, e-scooters, etc isarelativelynew development. In fact, popular adult cartoon South Park plays folly on this phenomenon denoting how “[T]hey just appeared out ofnowhere.”23 Thoughthe episode may have been an exaggeration, it does present asomewhatcorrectreality: driversareunsurehowtonavigatetheroadswiththee-bikepresence Infact,frequent retesting for driver’s licensesisnotrequiredintheStateofCalifornia–assuminga cleanrecord–meaningthatunlessyouareoftheage70oraboveinwhichcaseyouare requiredtoretest,thosedenitionsofpedestrianandotherterminologythatappeared inearliertestsmayhavechangedorbeenexpandeduponincurrenttests 24Thus,there is a gap of knowledge between older test versions and newer test versions, presumptuously that newer tests include information regarding e-bikes and such. Additionally, because licenses are notrequiredforthistypeoftransportation,there alsoexistsagapofknowledgeinthedemographicthatchoosesthesetransportation methodsinhowtosafelyoperatesuchadeviceontheroad Asaforementioned,not

22 ConsiderBertonv.Cochran(1947).Aminornotonlydoesnothavethecapacitytoberesponsible forthemselvesaccordingtoCaliforniaCivilCode17141butalsocannot,forobviousreasons,even remotelymatchthespeedofamotorvehicleinmotion.Cᴀʟ.Civ.Cᴏᴅᴇ§1714.1(West2022).

23

SouthPark:TheScoots(ComedyCentraltelevisionbroadcastOct 31,2018)

24 Cᴀʟ.Vᴇʜ.Cᴏᴅᴇ§313(West2022).

evenalllawenforcementcanaccuratelyrecallvehiclecodethatappliestobicycles;it maybeevenlessaccuratefore-devices.

Second, focusing on a future issue: the entry level device to be on the road continues to get less sophisticated. With e-scooters now on the road as wellasthe occasionale-skateboard,itgetsincreasinglyhardertobothjustifywhyothermodesof transportationcannotbeallowedontheroad(ie,regularskateboardsandscooters) andtodrawthelineofwhatisandisn’tacceptable.Asexplained,itcanbeobserved that the linecontinuestogetpushedfurtherandfurtherback,potentiallymeaning thatinthenextdecade,regularscootersandskateboardsmaybeallowedontheroadas well Thisaddsontotheexistinghazardsontheroadwhichcanbeattributedtothe risinginclineincyclists’deathsnotonlyinAmericaasanationbutinCaliforniaasa singularity.25

Hencetestingandlicensingneedstobeimplementedforthesenon-motorvehicles. As touched upon earlier, there is a gap in knowledge for both motorists and non-motoristsonhowtointeractwitheachother.Thiscanbemitigatedwithtesting onbothparties.Feasibilityoftestingaside,currentCaliforniaDrivingTestsandPermit Testsneedtobeupdatedwithinformationregardingthesenon-motorvehicles.26 This not only will breed a new generationofmotoriststhataremorefamiliarwithlaws regardingnon-motorists,butalsoallowthemtohaveaheightenedawarenessofhowa motoristandnon-motoristshouldinteractontheroad.

Additionally with testing on the non-motorist side, it becomes increasingly importantnowadaysthatnon-motoristsknowthelawsregardinghowmotoristsand non-motoristsshouldinteractontheroad Thisnotonlywillkeepmotoristswhoare unabletopasssaidtestothestreetsbutalsonon-motoristswhoareunabletopass, thus leading to a safer driving and riding experience for both motorist and non-motorist alike. By having such testing, this creates anatmospherewithinboth

25 Asexplained,theroadisalreadydangerousformotoristsandcyclists.Thistakesintoaccountthat e-vehicles,likee-bikes,canreachsomewhatcomparablespeedstothatofamotorvehicle This problemwillonlybeexacerbatedwiththeintroductionofnon-electricnon-motorvehicleslike standardskateboardsandscootersontheroadthatcannotreachcomparablespeedstothatofa motorvehicle.

26

Theentiretyofhowfeasibleregulartestingisnotrelevanttothispaper,howeverseeingasthis solutionwouldmainlybegovernment-sponsored,itisexpensive.Thisisthesamereasonwhyyou arenotrequiredtoretakethedrivingtest–assumingnodrivinginfractionsonyourrecord–until theageof70inCalifornia:theexpensesofregulartestingalldriversforpotentiallysaferroadsare outweighedbythemoneysavedwithnoregulartestingandthecurrentstateof“okay”tounsafe roads.

ENFORCEMENT OF CALIFORNIA VEHICLE CODE PERTAINING TO CYCLISTS

communitiesthatvehiclecodeandrelatedlawsareseriousandexistforareason By nothavingsuchtesting,thelimitofroadsafetywillcontinuetobepushedfurtherand furtherback,potentiallybecomingliketherealitySouthParkpresents.

Coincidingwithtestingislicensing:itfurtherociatesthetestingaspectmakingit so that there is backing behind the testing It is indeed all about theenvironment createdbythesetwosolutionsbecausenon-motoristswillberequiredtohavelicensing foroperatinganon-motorvehicle,therecomeswiththatasenseofresponsibility,less thanorequaltothatofadriver,thatbyridingontheroad,thereistheriskthatserious injuryandevendeathispossible.ThisalsopreventscaseslikeBertonv.Cochranfrom occurring in thefuturewhereyoungminorslikeBertonincurseriousinjuriesfrom ridingtheirbicycle.

Licensingisalsoawaytokeepnon-motoristsmoreaccountabletotherulesofthe road. By carrying specic licenses, the process of stopping non-motorists becomes moreecientforlawenforcementandinfractionscanactuallystackuponaviolator’s record;likearegularlicense,toomanyinfractionsmayleadtoarevocationofalicense. WhiletherewillalwaysbeincidentslikeToscanov.CityofFresnoinwhichbothparties activelyandknowinglyviolatedthelaw,licensingandtestingattheveryleastminimizes thenumberofsimilarcases

Ineect,thismakesenforcingCVC21200andCVC21202easierasitwouldbe common knowledge that certain things apply to certain people on the road while othersdon’t.IwanttomakeclearthatthenatureofCVC21200andCVC21202do notneedtobechanged.Infact,thesearetwoveryclear-cutpiecesofvehiclecodethat canbeaccessedbythepublic Whatdoesneedtobechangedisrathertheenforcement ofthiscodeandclosingtheaforementionedinformationgap.

CONCLUSION

Though the future proves to be unpredictable, statistics point to the same conclusion:cyclists’deathswillcontinuetoincreasethroughthe2020decade.27 And the FARS trend supports this conclusion. This number might even increase exponentially with the popularity of non-motor vehicles rising. Toscano v. City of FresnoandBertonv Cochranarenotuniquecases Therearehundredsofsimilarcases involvingmotoristsandnon-motoristsnotknowinghowtointeractontheroad.

https://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx(lastvisitedJul3,2022).

Testingandlicensingneedtobeimplementedintothecurrentdrivingsituation It seems as though it istheonlysurerewaytomitigatethecurrentmortalityrateof non-motoristsandmorespecicallycyclists.Recallthattheproblemisnotnecessarily inuencedbygeographicaldispositionnorbythelawsthemselves,asthesehavebeen showntohavelittletonoinuenceovermortalityrate Whatistherootoftheissues themselvesistheenforcementofthelaws

A point to consider is the framework forliabilityintheNetherlandsregarding cyclistsandmotorists.“Strictliability”inwhichthemotoristisheldliableinacyclist versusmotoristincidentregardlessoffaultfallsonthemotoristwhointendstoscare drivers into being more cautious around cyclists 28 However, this takes a more consequentialistapproachtothesituationattheexpenseofthemotorists.Yes,drivers willpresumablybemorecautiousaroundcyclistsbutthisgivescyclistslicensetoact intentionallycarelessontheroadknowingthattheywillneverbeliableshouldtheyget intoanaccidentwithamotorist Thecompleteoppositesideisalsounreasonableas motorvehiclesareexpensiveandcompletelybanningnon-motorvehicleslikebicycles andthelikefromtheroadfeedsintoclassism.ThisiswhyIfeelasthoughtestingand licensingisamiddlegroundsolutiontotheaboveissuesasitprovidesaframeworkthat isneitherlaxnordebilitatingtobothmotoristsandcyclists

Asitstands,theroadsarenotsafeforbicycles,andbyinductiontheyarealsonot safefore-bikes,e-scootersandothersuchtransportation.Itisunfairanddangerousto bothmotoristsandnon-motoristsshouldthecurrentstateofaairsremainthesame. Thestandardsarenotacceptableandnoton-parwithcurrentregulationandmodesof transportation Ifnochangehappens,countlessmoreToscanov CityofFresnocases willhappenandcountlessmoreyoungminorswillgetseriouslyinjuredasinthecaseof Berton v. Cochran. While there is hope for change, it seems limited in scope as mentionedearlier,suchtestingandlicensingisnotfeasiblenorpracticalfromalegal standpoint Butitisanecessaryinconvenienceandanecessaryexpenditurenotonlyin California,butinAmericaasanationatlarge

28

CyclingLaw:WouldtheDutchSystemofStrictLiabilityWorkintheUnitedStates?,CBVNLᴀᴡ, https://cvbnlawcom/2012/04/19/cycling-law-would-the-dutch-system-of-strict-liability-work-in-t he-united-states/(lastaccessedMar.5,2022).

THERESARINCKER

Growth and Regulation of Aftermarket Sales in the

Software-EnabledDurableGoodsMarket

ABSTRACT. Software advancesallowfordurablegoodsproducerstoextractmoney from consumers after purchase. Traditionally, durable goods are a one-time large purchase. Byattemptingtoexpanddurablegoodstransactionsintotheaftermarket, sellersaremakingpotentiallydrasticchangestoconsumercostsforthesegoods,and expectheftyprotsfromthemove.Sellerscreateaftermarkettransactionsintwoways: subscriptionsandrepairs,andthisarticlearguesthattheseareasshouldberegulatedin newwaysgivenadvancesinsoftware.First,subscriptionsonsoftware-enableddurable goodsshouldberegulatedalongthelinesoftheRestoreOnlineShoppersCondence Act with special prohibitions for explicit removals of service (instances where companiesusesoftwaretopaywallfunctionality).Righttorepair(RTR)isanissuein theareaofdurablegoodstransactionswheresellersusesoftwaretomonopolizetheir controloveraftermarketsales.Thisarticlerecommendsitshouldberegulatedalong the proposals of RTR groups, which aim to increase competition between independent repair shops and licensed/seller associated repair. By regulating these areas,theFTCcanreducecostsforconsumers,bothbyincreasingsellercompetition andbyprohibitingunfaircharges.

AUTHOR. TheresaRinckerisarstyearPoliticalScience:PublicLawmajorand HistoryminoratUCSD.Sheisinterestedinconsumerprotections,antitrust regulations,andlaborlaws.Sheplanstoattendlawschoolinthefuture.

4

INTRODUCTION

TheaverageAmericanconsumerpays$237permonthonsubscriptions,whichis 197%morethanAmericanconsumersthinktheyarepaying.1Theserelativelyhefty andunexpectedfeesareduetotwoaspectsofthesubscriptionbusiness–theindustry’s massivegrowthinthepastdecade,andthesubscriptionbillingsystem,whichis designedforpassivepayment.Thelattercontributestoasituationthatwe’velikelyall beenin–weforgettocancelafreetrial,westopusingoursubscriptionbutstillpayfor it,orweareunawarethatoursubscriptionservicehasuppedtheirprices.Inthese scenarios,theconvenienceofanautomatedanddigitizedservicenegativelyimpactsthe consumer.Thoughtheseservicesareconvenienttoconsumerswhentheyaredesired, theirdrawbackisintheirrequirementfortheconsumertorejectthetransactionwhen theydon’twantit(asopposedtoarmingitwhentheydo),andthiscanresultin overchargingconsumers Thisparticularbusinessinteractioniscallednegativeoption marketing(NOM),whichisdenedbytheFTC(FederalTradeCommission)as“a categoryofcommercialtransactionsinwhichsellersinterpretacustomer’sfailureto takeanarmativeaction,eithertorejectanoerorcancelanagreement,asassentto bechargedforgoodsorservices.”2Negativeoptionmarketingishighlyregulatedbythe FTC,andbusinesseswhosellunderthesetransactionsarerequiredtofollowstrict guidelinesofdisclosure,obtaininginformedconsent,andoeringeasycancellation.3 Theserulesareintendedtoreducetheinstancesofcustomerspayingformorethan theythinktheyare,andtoincreasefaircompetitionbetweenserviceproviders.When serviceprovidershavestandardsthatareclearandenforced,itallowsforthemto competeontheirmerits.

However,thegrowthofthesubscriptionserviceindustry,theothercauseofthe increaseinsubscriptionfees,isnotquiteaseasytoregulate.Notonlyisitpredicted thatpricesandprevalencewillincreaseinindustrieswhichitcurrentlyisusedin,4but

1 JonathanGrieg,Averageconsumerspending$273permonthonsubscriptionservices:report,ZDNᴇᴛ (2021), https://www.zdnet.com/article/average-consumer-spending-273-per-month-on-subscription-servic es-report/

2 EnforcementPolicyStatementRegardingNegativeOptionMarketing,Fᴇᴅ.TʀᴀᴅᴇCᴏᴍᴍ’ɴ(2021), https://wwwftcgov/system/les/documents/public statements/1598063/negative option policy statement-10-22-2021-tobureau.pdf.

3 15USC §8401

HeatherLongandAndrewVanDam,Everything’sbecomingasubscription,andthepandemicis partlytoblame,TʜᴇWᴀsʜɪɴɢᴛᴏɴPᴏsᴛ(2021), https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/06/01/subscription-boom-pandemic/.

6

5

GROWTH AND REGULATION OF AFTERMARKET SALES IN THE SOFTWARE-ENABLED DURABLE GOODS MARKET

subscriptionsarealsobeginningtobreachnewindustries Thisisseeninthenoveland largelyunregulatedsoftware-equiptdurablegoodsindustry.Cars,tractors,appliances, andotherlargemachineryareincreasinglyenabledwithadvancedsoftwarethatallows producerstoextractmoneyfromconsumersafterpurchase.Currentestimatesshow thatthiswillbecomealargesourceofrevenuefordurablegoodsproducers-Stellantis, theparentcompanyofJeep,Dodge,andChrysler,saidthatitexpectstogenerate$225 billionfromsoftwareandsubscriptionsalesby2030,5andTeslaalreadyhasmultiple subscriptionpackagesavailableforitscustomers,whichmayexceedtheirprotsfrom hardware6-andthat’sjusttheautoindustry.Thismoneyismadethroughremovalof service(ROS)oncertainfeaturesthroughasoftwarepaywallonamechanicalfeature Thiscanbeasingletimeorrecurringfee,andthereforecansometimesbedenedand regulatedasnegativeoptionmarketing.7Advancesinsoftwarealsoallowproducersto monopolizeservicerepairs,asitletsthemwithholdlicensinganddiagnostic informationfromindependentrepairshops Similartonegativeoptionmarketing, thesepracticescanresultinconsumerspayingmorefortheirproductthenthey originallyintended,inthiscasewithhikeduprepairpricesasaresultoflimitedrepair competition,andfeestounlockaproduct’sfunctionality.Negativeoptionmarketing isregulatedforthisreason,andbecausethesoftwareenableddurablegoodsmarkethas similarissues,itshouldfollowsimilarregulations Ideally,theregulationofthe software-equiptdurablegoodsmarketwouldcomepurelyfromthemarketandnot requireanygovernmentintervention,however,governmentregulationisrequiredto makethismarketcompetitive.Thisisbecauseconsumersneedtransparencyfrom sellersaboutfeesandrepaircostsinordertomakedecisionsaboutwhattobuy,and withoutthattransparency,thesellersdonothavetocompetebasedonthesefeatures, despitetheirimportancetotheconsumer.Therefore,thismarketshouldberegulated bytheFTC,whichaimstoincreasecompetitionbetweenbusinessesbothinthe

MichaelWayland,AutomakerStellantisplanstogenerate$225billioninnewsoftwarerevenueby 2030,CNBC(2021), https://wwwcnbccom/2021/12/07/stellantis-plans-to-generate-22point5-billion-in-new-softwarerevenue-by-2030.html.

FredLambert,Tesla(TSLA)couldmakemoremoneyfromsoftwaresubscriptionthanhardware,says analyst,Eʟᴇᴄᴛʀᴇᴋ(2021), https://electrekco/2021/07/20/tesla-tsla-could-make-more-money-from-software-subscription-tha n-hardware/.

7 AaronGordon,CarCompaniesWantYoutoKeepPayingForFeaturesYouAlreadyHave,Vɪᴄᴇ (2021), https://wwwvicecom/en/article/epxzya/car-companies-want-you-to-keep-paying-for-features-you-a lready-have.

primaryandaftermarket Thesimilaritiesbetweennegativeoptionmarketingand RTR/ROSallownegativeoptionmarketingregulationstoprovideaframeworkfor RTR/ROSwhilealsoadaptingindustryspecicguidelines.

I. NEGATIVE OPTION MARKETING

A. Introduction

Negativeoptionmarketingisatermthatmostconsumersareunfamiliarwith–it ismosteasilydenedasasubscriptionplan,butitmaystilldenitionallyincludeother less-usedpaymentplans Negativeoptionmarketinghasmanybenetsforsellers–itis areliableformofrevenuethatgivessellersincreasedstabilityduringalltimesofthe yearandphasesofthemarket.Italsoallowsforsellersofphysicalgoodstostocktheir wareswithmoreaccuracy,sincetheyknowlongbeforeorderswillbeshippedoutthat theyareneeded.Thisinturnhelpswithcustomersatisfaction,becauseitreducesthe chancethattherewillbesupplyshortages,andshippinginadvancecangiveconsumers morereliableandseeminglyspeedydelivery.8

Consumersbenetwhenthegoodtheyhaveasubscriptiontoisonethattheyneed regularly,sotheysavetimebynothavingtoplaceordersatregularintervals.However, whenitcomestopriceysubscriptionsorserviceswhicharelesssuitedtorecurringuse, consumerscanendupaccidentallyoverpayingforservices BeforetheFTC enforcement,whichrequiredcleardisclosureofsubscriptioncostsoninvoices, customerssometimesendeduppayingforsubscriptionsinbundleswithothergoods withoutbeingawarethattheywerechargedforit.9Manyconsumersalsoforgetabout servicesthattheysubscribedto,especiallyinfree-to-paynegativeoptionmarketing, wheretheyredeemedafreetrialtouseaserviceonceandthenforgotaboutituntilthey werechargedattheendoftheperiod.Ultimately,negativeoptionmarketingrequires diligencefromtheconsumerthatmakesinformedconsentaveryimportantpartofthe transaction.

8 NegativeOptions:AReportbythestaffoftheFTC’sDivisionofEnforcement,Fᴇᴅ.TʀᴀᴅᴇCᴏᴍᴍ’ɴ (2009), https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/les/documents/reports/negative-options-federal-trade-commissi on-workshop-analyzing-negative-option-marketing-report-sta/p064202negativeoptionreportpdf

9 15U.S.C.§8401.

GROWTH AND REGULATION OF AFTERMARKET SALES IN THE SOFTWARE-ENABLED DURABLE GOODS MARKET

B CurrentRegulationAndEnforcement

Section5oftheFTCactprohibits“unfairordeceptiveactsorpractices”andthis broadstatementistheregulatorybasisbehindtheRestoreOnlineShoppers CondenceAct(ROSCA),aconsumerprotectionactpassedin2010thatrequires disclosure,informedconsent,andeasycancellationinanyinstanceofonlinenegative optionmarketing 10 ROSCA’sspecicregulationsareasfollows“Itshallbeunlawful foranypersontochargeorattempttochargeanyconsumerforanygoodsorservices soldinatransactioneectedontheInternetthroughanegativeoptionfeature(as denedintheFederalTradeCommission'sTelemarketingSalesRuleinpart310of title16,CodeofFederalRegulations),unlesstheperson

1 providestextthatclearlyandconspicuouslydisclosesallmaterialtermsofthe transactionbeforeobtainingtheconsumer'sbillinginformation;

2. obtainsaconsumer'sexpressinformedconsentbeforechargingtheconsumer's creditcard,debitcard,bankaccount,orothernancialaccountforproductsor servicesthroughsuchtransaction;and

3 providessimplemechanismsforaconsumertostoprecurringchargesfrom beingplacedontheconsumer'screditcard,debitcard,bankaccount,orother nancialaccount.”10Thetwonotablestandardsinthepre-transaction regulationsare

a theclearandconspicuousstandardfordisclosure,which,adaptedfor theinternetmeansthattherearecertainfontandvisibilityguidelines toensurethatthedisclosureisapparenttotheconsumer,and b. informedconsent,meaningthattheconsumermustassenttothe transactionthroughsomearmativeaction,afterreadingtheclearand conspicuousdisclosure CancellationisthethirdaspectofROSCA’s regulations,whichmeanscompaniesmustprovide“simple mechanismsforaconsumertostoprecurringchargesfrombeing placedontheconsumer’screditcard,debitcard,bankaccount,or othernancialaccount”

ROSCAhasbeenthebasisfortheFTC’senforcementofnegativeoption marketing onOctober29,2021theFTCreleasedastatementthatdetailedtheir 10 Id.

regulationsandpromisedgreaterenforcementofROSCA 11Thiscanbeseeninthe casesthattheFTChasbroughtagainstmultiplecompanies,notablyABCMouse, whichpaida$10millionsettlementforlackofclearandconspicuousdisclosure.12 ABCMousefailedtodisclosethatits$59.95yearlymembershipwouldautomatically renew,hadacancellationprocessthatrequiredthecustomertonavigatethrough6to9 dierentwebscreens,andinsomecasesbilledthecustomersaftercancellation Similarly,FTCvs.RemoteResponsewasacaseinwhichconsumer’seortstocancel theirsubscriptionswerethwartedbythecompany,RemoteResponse,amidadditional falseadvertisingcharges.13ThesecasesarerepresentativeofmostintheFTC’scurrent enforcement companiesthatattempttoimpedecancellationandaremisleadingin theirterms(orsimplyfailtodisclosethem)aretheprimarytargets.

ROSCAwasbroughtaboutbythedigitizationofpayment;subscriptionplans existedbeforetheinternet,andbeganinthe1600s,broughtaboutbybookand newspaperpublishers However,digitalmarketingandpaymenthaschangedhow consumersinteractwiththecompaniesthattheypurchasesubscriptionsfrom dramatically,andhaslostconsumercondence.Thisnewtransactiontypemadeiteasy forcompaniestoputinhiddenfees,changepricesafterpurchase,andselldatatothird partycompanies CongressrstpassedROSCAin2013tocombattheseissues, however,therevampedenforcementstatementfrom2021showsconsumercondence inonlineshoppingisstillamajorissuethattheFTCwouldliketocombat.14

Astechnologyadvances,itwillimpactmoreandmoreindustries,broadeningthe areawithwhichtheFTCshouldconcernitselfwithconsumercondence.Online negativeoptionmarketinghasshownregulationisrequiredtomoderatebusiness transactionsthatoccuronline,becausetheyrequirevigilancefromconsumersthathas

11 EnforcementPolicyStatementRegardingNegativeOptionMarketing,Fᴇᴅ TʀᴀᴅᴇCᴏᴍᴍ’ɴ(2021), https://www.ftc.gov/system/les/documents/public statements/1598063/negative option policy statement-10-22-2021-tobureaupdf

12 MichelleSingletary,LearningappABCmousepays$10milliontosettleFTCcomplaintittrapped parentsinsubscriptiontheycouldn’tcancel,TʜᴇWᴀsʜɪɴɢᴛᴏɴPᴏsᴛ(2020), https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/09/04/abcmouse-10-million-ftc-settlement/.

esponse-bogus-advance.

k-patterns-trick-or-trap.

GROWTH AND REGULATION OF AFTERMARKET SALES IN THE SOFTWARE-ENABLED DURABLE GOODS MARKET

notbeenrequiredinanalogsettings Thisisincreasinglyapplicabletosoftwareenabled durablegoods–anindustrywhosepaymentplansborderandoccasionallyobtainthe denitionofnegativeoptionmarketing.Durablegoodsarephysicalgoodssoldto consumersthatareexpectedtobeusedformultipleusesandlastforyears(traditional denitionssay3+yearsisanaverageusageperiodofadurablegood) 15Common durablegoodsareappliances,cars,bicycles,andcertainelectronics Thesedierfrom non-durablegoods,whichareexpectedtobeusedforshortertimeperiodsorsingle uses.Thesaleofdurablegoodsdiersdramaticallyincustomerexpectationsfromthat ofaservicesubscription,becauseconsumersexpectthattheirpurchaseofthedurable goodwillbeaone-timefee,butprovideusabilitylongafterwards However,theusage periodofagoodismoreindicativeofhowlongpaymentwillbeextractedafter purchase;withsubscriptionservices,itisclear(orshouldbe)thattheconsumerwill payaslongastheserviceshouldbeprovided,whilewithdurablegoods,repairand usagefeesmustbepaid Aftermarketexpenseshavetraditionallybeenacommonsense aspectofdurablegoods(ex:whenyourdishwasherbreaks,youhavearepairservicex it).However,astechbecomesintegratedintothesedurablegoods,companiescan extractmoremoneyaftersale.Adishwasherthatcommunicateswithitsproducerafter salecanrequireasubscriptionservicetocontinuerunning,orrequirespecializedand expensiverepairsonthebasisofprotectingitssoftware 16Whilethisseemsfarofor dishwashers,andlikelyis,muchofthisisalreadyarealityintheautomotiveindustry.

III. RIGHT TO REPAIR

TherighttorepairmovementintheUSisdenedbytwodemandsofpro-RTR groups:thedemandforparts,andthedemandforinformation 17Righttorepairisa uniquepartofthisissuebecauseitispartiallyregulated.In2012,Massachusettspassed groundbreakinglegislationthatforcedcarmanufacturerstoreleasemanuals,

15

DurableGoods,U.S.BᴜʀᴇᴀᴜᴏғEᴄᴏɴ.Aɴᴀʟʏsɪs(2018), https://wwwbeagov/help/glossary/durable-goods

16

JaredNewman,Howfridgeanddishwashermakersrestrictrepairs andenablemoree-waste,Fᴀsᴛ Cᴏᴍᴘᴀɴʏ(2021), https://www.fastcompany.com/90670325/home-appliance-makers-right-to-repair-e-waste.

17

WeHavetheRighttoRepairEverythingWeOwn,IFɪxɪᴛ, https://www.ixit.com/Right-to-Repair/Intro.

diagnosticinformation,andpartstothepublic 18However,inthecaseoftractors, electronics,andelectriccars,therighttorepairhasyettobeinstituted.Allconsumers havetherighttoattempttorepairandtakeaparttheproductsthattheyown,regardless oftheproduct.However,manycompaniesmakeconcertedeortstolimithow eectivelythiscanbedonebyplacingcontrolsovertherepairprocessandlobbying 19

A AppleAndRightToRepair

Appleisonesuchindustryleaderinpreventingitsdurablegoodsfrombeingxed byanyonebutthem.Since2007whentherstiPhonewasreleased,Americanshave spent$11billiononrepairsonallproductsasof2017,showingthatApplehasample incentivetocontrolasmuchofthatrevenueastheycan 20Theybuildtheirdevices withproprietarypentalobescrewswhichrequireobscurescrewdriverstoberemoved, anduseexcessiveamountsofadhesiveonbatteriesiniPadsandMacbookstomake themdiculttoremove(batteriescanbesecuredwithsimplescrewsandother reversiblemeans) 20Applealsorestrictstheirchipmanufacturersfromsellingthechips toanyentitybutthem.ButthemostnefariousaspectofApple’snon-competition eortsistheirrepairshops.Onecangotothreetypesofrepairshopswithabroken Appleproduct21:aGeniusBar,Appleauthorizedindependentrepair,orafully independentrepairshop TheGeniusBarisinsideofApplestores,andismoststrongly recommendedbyApple,whoclaimsthatbyusingocialtoolsanddiagnosticsthey canbestrepairpeople’selectronics.RTRgroupsandAppleagreeonthispointmanufacturerscangenerallycreatethebestrepairtools,andthatiswhyRTRgroups wouldliketoexpandaccesstothesetools OnecanalsogotoanAppleauthorized independentshop,whichisthemostexpensive;theyarenot,forpracticalpurposes, “authorized”byApple.AllAppleauthorizedstoresshiptherepairstheyaregiventoa

18

CinnamonJanzer,WhatMassachusetts’NewRight-to-RepairLawMeansforSmallAutoRepair Shops,NᴇxᴛCɪᴛʏ(2020), https://nextcityorg/urbanist-news/what-massachusetts-new-right-to-repair-law-means-for-small-au to-repair-shop.

19

NixingtheFix:AnFTCReporttoCongressonRepairRestrictions,Fᴇᴅ TʀᴀᴅᴇCᴏᴍᴍ’ɴ(2021), https://www.ftc.gov/system/les/documents/reports/nixing-x-ftc-report-congress-repair-restrictio ns/nixing the x report nal 5521 630pm-508 002pdf

20

JoannaStern,Howthe‘RighttoRepair’MightSaveYourGadgets andSaveYouMoney,TʜᴇWᴀʟʟ SᴛʀᴇᴇᴛJᴏᴜʀɴᴀʟ(2021), https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-the-right-to-repair-might-save-your-gadgetsand-save-you-money -11630324800

21 Id.

GROWTH AND REGULATION OF AFTERMARKET SALES IN THE SOFTWARE-ENABLED DURABLE GOODS MARKET

GeniusBar,wheretheyarerepairedandthecustomerpaysshipping Lastly,thereare fullyindependentshops.Theseshops,givennodiagnosticinformation,parts,or manuals,relyonpastdeconstruction,selfdrawndiagrams,andleaksofmanualsfrom Appletorepairtheelectronics.Appleandotheranti-RTRcompaniesarguethat releasingdiagnosticsandmanualswillcompromisethecybersecurityoftheirproducts, butthiswasdebunkedbyanFTCreport22-afterall,othercompaniessuchasDell releasethisinformationandhavenothadresultingsecurityissues.

Anecdotally,independentshopsappeartobemuchcheaper;aWallStreetJournal writerreportedherquoteatanindependentshopwas$450cheaperthantheGenius Barrepair ShealsoreportedthatApplewasmoreinclinedtoreplacelarger,and thereforemoreexpensivecomputerparts,whileindependentshopsdidcheaper, localizedrepairs.Thoughthereisnoconclusiveevidencetoconrmordenythat GeniusBarrepairsaremoreexpensivethanindependentshoprepairs,wecaninfer fromApple’sbusinessmodelwhytheyareabletochargesomuchfortheirrepairs Whenindependent,unauthorizedshopsgointobusiness,theymustprocurevast knowledgeoftheseproductswithnoassistancefromthemanufacturer,andbuy productstodeconstructanduseforpartsintheirrepairs(itismuchcostliertobuy theseproductswholethanitwouldbetobuypartsiftheywereavailable) Thislimits therepairmarketsignicantly,becauseindependentrepairshopsmustovercome incrediblebarrierstobesuccessfulandmakereliablerepairs.InNovemberof2021, Applelaunchedaself-servicerepairprogramtobeimplementedinearly2022,whichis intendedtocertifyshopstodoout-of-warrantyindependentrepairswithcertied parts,butitsimplementationhasyettobeseen 23Ithasalreadybeencriticizedfor excessiverequirementsandaudits,butcouldbeabigwinforindependentrepairshops thatmeetthestandards.ThisprogramstillallowsforAppletohaveneartotalcontrol overthenumberofApplerepairshopsintheUS,retainingtheirpoweroverpricesin theaftermarket Bylimitingthenumberofindependentshops,theydriveupdemand

22 NixingtheFix:AnFTCReporttoCongressonRepairRestrictions,Fᴇᴅ.TʀᴀᴅᴇCᴏᴍᴍ’ɴ(2021), https://wwwftcgov/system/les/documents/reports/nixing-x-ftc-report-congress-repair-restrictio ns/nixing the x report nal 5521 630pm-508 002.pdf.

23 AndrewHeinzman,HellFreezesOver:AppleAnnouncesaSelfServiceRepairProgram,Rᴇᴠɪᴇᴡ Gᴇᴇᴋ(2022), https://wwwreviewgeekcom/103437/hell-freezes-over-apple-announces-a-self-service-repair-progr am/.

andthereforeprices,andthereisnooutsidepressureonthepricingofApplerepairs 24 Theyareabletosetrepairpricesclosetothecostofanewproduct,whichencourages consumerstobuynewinsteadofrepairing,causingunnecessarypurchasesand electronicwaste.

B. AppliancesAndRightToRepair

Intheappliancesectorofthesoftware-equiptdurablegoodsmarket,therightto repairissuepersists.Whenrepairshopsattempttoxappliancessuchasfridgesor dishwashersthataresoftwareenabled,theyneedaccesscodestoxexistingelectronic partsortoinstallnewones.Toobtaintheseaccesscodes,repairershavetoworkfor companiesunderwarranty thismeansthattheywillworkformuchlowerprices thenwhattheycouldusuallycharge,inexchangefordiagnosticinformationandaccess codesfromthemanufacturer 25Iftheydonotgetlicensedtodounderwarranty repairs,whichareusuallyrepairsdonewithinayearafterpurchase,thentheywillbe virtuallyunabletoxanyappliancesfromthesamecompanythatareoutofwarranty, becausetheywillnotknowtheaccesscode.Producerssetlowpricesforunder warrantyrepairsbecauseconsumersrightfullyshouldnothavetopayhighpricestox arelativelynewproduct-butitcomesattheexpenseoftherepairpeople,insteadofthe manufacturers.Producersareabletoexploitrepairpeopleinthiswaybecauseof software-theycanholdaccesscodesovertheheadsofrepairpeople,andthat combinationoflettersandnumbersstandsbetweenrepairpeopleandfairwagesfor theirwork Repairpeoplewhochoosenottogetlicensedtoworkunderwarranty(they oftenhavetopayafeeforlicensing)resorttoonlineforumsandhackingtoxbroken appliances,butitisanunreliablewayofdoingso.

Intuitively,mostrepairsshouldhappenwellafter1yearofpurchase.Home appliancessuchasfridgesanddishwashersareintendedtolast5yearsormore And yet,consumerreportsshowthatappliancesaremuchmorelikelytobreakwithinthe rst5yearsnowthan20or30yearsago in2019,40%ofappliancesneededrepairs withintherst5years.26Applianceproducersmaximizethisshorterlifespanbytrying

24

25

NixingtheFix:AnFTCReporttoCongressonRepairRestrictions,Fᴇᴅ.TʀᴀᴅᴇCᴏᴍᴍ’ɴ(2021), https://wwwftcgov/system/les/documents/reports/nixing-x-ftc-report-congress-repair-restrictio ns/nixing the x report nal 5521 630pm-508 002.pdf.

JaredNewman,Howfridgeanddishwashermakersrestrictrepairs andenablemoree-waste,Fᴀsᴛ Cᴏᴍᴘᴀɴʏ(2021), https://wwwfastcompanycom/90670325/home-appliance-makers-right-to-repair-e-waste

26 Id.

GROWTH AND REGULATION OF AFTERMARKET SALES IN THE SOFTWARE-ENABLED DURABLE GOODS MARKET

toreducethefrequencyandcostofrepairswithintherstyear,whenthewarrantyis stillineect,andthenmakeitdicultforpeopletogettheirappliancesrepairedafter thatperiod.Oncetheappliancesareoutofwarranty,theiraccesscodescannotbeeasily found,andthediagnosticinformationmaybeinaccessible.Theserepairstakelonger andcostmoremoney-encouragingrepairpeopletodomore,cheaper,inwarranty repairs,andencouragingconsumerstobuynewinsteadofrepairingwhentheir applianceisoutofwarranty.

C. ElectronicWaste

Appliancerepairs,likeApplerepairs,generateenormouswaste 50milliontonsof e-wasteweregeneratedin2017,onlylessthanathirdofwhichwasrecycled 27E-waste hasaparticularlyharmfuleectontheenvironmentincomparisontootherwaste, becausetherearemanytoxinspresentinit,suchastheacidinbatteries.Itcanalsopose securitythreats,forpeoplewhothrowawaylaptopsorphoneswhichcanbehacked andcompromised 28Thesolutiontothisissuerequiresrecyclingandrepair Recycling wouldhelptoalleviatetheelectronicreleaseoftoxinsintosoil,encouragepartsresale, andpromotemineralharvestingfrombrokenparts.However,consumersshouldbe abletoxtheirdevicesatreasonablepricestonothavetothrowthemawayintherst place

IV. REMOVAL OF SERVICE

A. Introduction

Removalofserviceisaspecicpracticewhereproducersofsoftware-enabled durablegoodsusetheirsoftwaretolimitthecapabilitiesofthegoodafterpurchase, andallowtheconsumertorestoreitforaprice Thiscanfallintotraditionalnegative optionmarketing,asitsometimesrequiresaregularfee,inwhichtheconsumers’s failuretocanceltheserviceistakenasassenttobecharged.ThisisseenintheToyota remotestartkey,whereuserspay$8amonthfortheircarsenabledwithremotestart

27

SyedFarazAhmed,TheGlobalCostofElectronicWaste,TʜᴇAᴛʟᴀɴᴛɪᴄ(2016), https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/09/the-global-cost-of-electronic-waste/502 019/

28 Id.

capabilitiestoworkfromtheirphone 29Othertimes,however,itisasingletimefee, whichisnotnegativeoptionmarketing,sincethecustomerassentstothefeedirectly.

B. AutoIndustry

Removalofserviceisespeciallyprevalentintheautoindustryasitmovestowards electricvehicles Developmentsintechandenvironmentalsciencehaveopenedupthe largenewsoftwaremarketinauto.Thisisbecauseelectricalcarshavepioneeredcentral processingunitsincars,thatbothpromotegreaterintegrationofmachineand technology,andallowsforsoftwaretobeamonetizedfeatureofacar.Gasvehicles madewithinthepast20yearshavebeenrunwithchipsthatcontrolindividualsystems withinthecar,suchasairconditioningoremissions,butdonotruntoacentral processingunit,thoughtheirsensordatamaybedisplayedonconsoles.Theconsoles havetheabilitytocontroltechbasedfeaturesofthecar,suchasmusicandnavigation, buthavenocapacityforupdates,becausetheydonothavetelematics(electronic communicationbetweenthecarandtheproducer) However,asthegasvehicle industrymovestowardssoftwareandtheelectricalvehicleindustrygrows,wewillbe seeingtwothings:agreaterintegrationofmachineandoperatingsystem,i.e.central processingunits,andthecapacityforcaroperatingsystemstoupgradeandregularly oernewlydevelopedtech-basedfeatures 30Itisimportanttodierentiatebetween tech-basedandmachine-basedfeatures.Atech-basedfeatureisanyfeaturewhichis providedbytheoperatingsystemthatthecarrunson.Thiscanbechangedbyupdates madetothesystemboththroughthecloud,orasoftwaredownloadmadeinashop.A machine-basedfeatureisanyfeaturewhichisenabledintothevehiclebyitsphysical build,asitisatthetimeofpurchase Theonlywaymachine-basedfeaturescanbe changedorupgradedisbyphysicalmechanicalalterations,suchasthosemadeinan autoshop.Astheautoindustryintegratestechnologyintotheirvehicles,theywill arguethatthesefeaturescannotbeseparated,thattheyareintrinsicallylinkedbytheir centralprocessingunit Insomecases,thismaybetrue Therecertainlyisapossibility

29 AaronGordon,CarCompaniesWantYoutoKeepPayingForFeaturesYouAlreadyHave,Vɪᴄᴇ (2021), https://wwwvicecom/en/article/epxzya/car-companies-want-you-to-keep-paying-for-features-you-a lready-have.

30 KeithBarry,WhyYouMightNeedtoSubscribetoGetCertainFeaturesonYourNextCar, CᴏɴsᴜᴍᴇʀRᴇᴘᴏʀᴛs(2021), https://wwwconsumerreportsorg/automotive-industry/why-you-might-need-to-subscribe-to-get-c ertain-features-on-your-next-car-a6575794430/.

GROWTH AND REGULATION OF AFTERMARKET SALES IN THE SOFTWARE-ENABLED DURABLE GOODS MARKET

thatimprovementsinoperatingeciencywouldhavethecapacitytoincreasethe mechanicalfunctionalityofacar,suchasoptimizingbatterylife.However,without transparencyintheindustrythatelucidateswhethertheseupdateshavesubstantive softwareimprovementsoriftheyarepricegouging,consumerswillhavetomake dicultandcostlydecisionsabouttheiralreadycostlydurablegoods Consumershave traditionallybeendistancedfromthesellerafterpurchaseofagascar,buttelematics allowforcontinuedbusinessinteractionsbetweenthesellerandtheconsumer.This incentivizessellerstocreatemoregoodsandservicestobesoldafterthepurchaseofthe durablegoods,butwiththelackoftransparencyintheindustry,consumersinmany caseswillnotbeabletogaugethenecessityorvalueoftheseproducts

Insomecurrentexamples,producersalreadyoertheirconsumersafeetoaccessa paywalledfeatureoftheirgoods.Thisisseenwiththerstexampleofremovalof service-basedsubscriptionsinitseld,the$8amonthremotestartkeyFOBonToyota cars BMWalsooeredafree-to-paysubscriptionwheretheyintendedtochargetheir users$80ayeartousetheAppleCarPlayfeatureontheircars.31Whencarshavethe abilitytoconnecttooutsidetechnology,itallowsforserviceswhicharealreadyenabled inthecartoberemovedandprovidedatafee.Thisissueisespeciallyobtrusivefor Teslausers,whohavetopaythousandsofdollarsfortheircarstoperformatthetopof itscapability Thisislogicalfortechbasedfeaturessuchasselfdrivingsoftware,which areunderstandablycostlytodevelopandwouldn’timpedethecar’susabilityiftheyare notused.ButTeslaalsochargesitsusersformechanicalfeatures,fromhavingtheircars acceleratefastertohavingalongerbatterylife.Bothoftheserequireone-timefeesof $2,000-3,000forafeaturethatisbuiltintothecarthattheconsumerbought When purchased,thecarwillgeta“softwareupgrade,”whichunlocksthecar’sabilityto driveatthespeedsanddistanceitwasalreadyableto.Thistacticisexpectedtobe utilizedbyothercarmanufacturers.Volvohasbeenthersttofollowsuit,chargingits electroniccarcustomersforupgradesinhorsepower

Thisraisesimportantquestionsabouttheusageofautosoftwareastheindustry integratesmorewiththetechindustry.Whiletherearesurelyadvantagestocarshaving advancedsoftware,itgivesthecompanieswhosellthegoodswiththesoftware completecontrolovertheconsumerafterpurchase,andamonopolyofserviceon repairsandupgrades

Whenonedownloadsanoperatingsystemonacomputer,itgenerallycostsafee andthereisanexpectationthattheycangetupdatestothesameoperatingsystemfor free,butpayforanewoperatingsystem.Thepriceonepaysforthesoftwarehas 31 Id.

nothingtodowiththeusabilityofthephysicalcomputer,northefunctionalityofthe hardware.Ifanything,thesoftwareattemptstomaximizeyourhardwaretothefullest extent.Thisdistinctionbetweenthemachineitselfandthesoftwareitrunsallowsfor theseparatepartstobothperformattheirfullestcapacities.Thisisnot,however, wheretheautoindustryappearstobeheading Becausethesoftwareisdevelopedby thecompanywhosellsthemachine,theconsumerhasonlyonechoiceinwhich softwaretobuy.Thisisaproblem-inthemarketofoperatingsystems,competitionis whatencouragessellerstomaximizethefunctionalityofthecomputertheirsoftwareis beingdownloadedon,andtonotrequireextraneousfeesthatwouldpushconsumers totheircompetitors Therefore,onesolutiontotheissueofremovalofservice subscriptionscouldbetointroducecompetition.Thisisnotcurrentlyaviable solution,however.Thoughitmayworkfortractors,puttingexpensiveand complicatednewelectriccarsono-brandsoftwarecouldbedangerous,especially consideringthatcompanieslikeTeslawouldlikelynotcooperateindevelopinga competitorsoftware. Soinstead,theindustrymustberegulated.

V. THE CASE FOR REGULATION

A Introduction

ROSandRTRaretwofeaturesofthesoftware-enableddurablegoodsindustry thatallowthemtomonopolizeorhaveabundantcontrolovertheaftermarket.These issuesallowforproducerstooverchargeonrepairsandmechanicalfunctionality,and limitcompetitionintherepairmarket.ThisissimilartotheproblemsthatROSCA wasintendingtox,becausenegativeoptionmarketingalsoattemptedtoovercharge customersandlimitcompetition.Theimportantdistinctionbetweenthesetwo marketsisthatsoftware-equiptdurablegoodshasanaftermarket,whilenegative optionmarketingdoesnot.ThismeansthatthecancellationaspectofROSCAdoes notapplytosoftware-equippeddurablegoods,howeverthisissueintheapplicationof ROSCAregulationscanbesolvedbyapplyingthesamestandardsofdisclosureand informedconsentintheprimarymarketandtheaftermarket.Anotherkeydistinction isthatthedurablegoodsindustryfacesadditionalchallengesincreatingacompetitive aftermarketincomparisontoNOM,becauseformanyfeatures,itshouldonlybethe supplierthatisdevelopingtheservices

GROWTH AND REGULATION OF AFTERMARKET SALES IN THE SOFTWARE-ENABLED DURABLE GOODS MARKET

B RemovalOfServiceRegulation

Thiscanbeseenintheregulationofremovalofservice,whichdealswiththe primaryendofthemarket.Whileremovalofservicetransactionstechnicallyoccursin theaftermarket,sinceitisafterpurchase,theperiodinwhichsellerscouldcompetein thisareaisduringtheinitialsale ThisisbecausesoftwarelikethatusedtorunTesla carsisnotsafetobereplacedorsubstitutedoutforanothersoftwareduetoitsintegral roleinrunningthecar.Sellersthereforecannotcompeteonwhocanmakethebest softwareforaTeslacar,becauseitwouldbedangerous.Instead,thecarismarketed withitssoftware,andifthereisacarthatdoesnotpaywallitsfeatureswithsoftwareas Teslacarsdo,thenthosecarcompaniescancompeteoverthatfeaturebeforethe consumerpickswhichcartobuy.Thiscanapplytoanydurablegood,because manufacturersofappliancesandmostotherlargemachinerywouldbethebestequipt tomakesoftwarefortheirownproducts;theywouldhavethebestknowledgeofthe specications,buildingprocess,andhowtooptimizemechanicalandtechnological performance.

Thiscomplicateseortstomakethismarketcompetitive,sincetheissueisan aftermarketproductwhereintroducingcompetitionwouldbedangerous However, withclearandconspicuousdisclosureandinformedconsent,companiesthatsellthe samedurablegoodscancompeteagainsteachotheronthebasisoftheirsoftware,and towhatextentitwithholdsthemachine’scapabilities(asopposedtodeveloping competingsoftwareforthesamemachine).Whileamachine’smaximumfunctionality isarguable,sincelongevityandsafetymustbetakenintoconsideration,thereisstilla cleardelineationbetweensoftwarewhichintendstoincreasefunctionalityby compensatingthroughsoftwareforthenegativeeectsofpushingthemachinebeyond itsintendeduse,andsoftwarewhichintendstowithholdfunctionality,andtherefore doesnothavetocompensateforanynegativeeects Whenthisisdisclosed, regulationsshouldmimicROSCA,inthattheyshould“[P]rovidetextthatclearlyand conspicuouslydisclosesallmaterialtermsofthetransactionbeforeobtainingthe consumer 'sbillinginformation.”Thismeansthat,ifapplicable,producersmustspecify whetherthesoftwareupdateswithholdfunctionalityortrulyincreaseit,andwhat pricetheconsumerwillhavetopaytogettheseupdates Itisimportantthatthesefees arenotisolatedfromthesoftwarewhichnecessitatesthem,thereshouldbeaclearlink inthetermsbetweenthetwo.Independentreviewmaybenecessaryinthiscaseto ensurethatasoftware-enabledremovalofserviceisnotportrayedasanupdatewhich simplyincreasestheeciencyofthecar Anupdatewhichincreasesmechanical

eciencyshouldnothaverequireddisclosure,sinceitispurelyasoftwareproduct,but anyandallsoftwarepaywallsshould.Thiswouldensurethatconsumersknow beforehandwhentheyarepurchasingaproductwithfeaturesthatarebeingwithheld bysoftware,andwouldallowthemtomakeabetterdecisionbetweenproductsifthe paywallisanimportantconsiderationforthem Informedconsentshouldalsobe required,andasinROSCAsellersshould,“[O]btainaconsumer'sexpressinformed consentbeforechargingtheconsumer'screditcard,debitcard,bankaccount,orother nancialaccountforproductsorservicesthroughsuchtransactions.”Thiswould ensurethatevenconsumerswhoareindierentaboutthesoftwarepaywallswould knowexactlywhattheymeanforthegoodthattheyarepurchasing,andwouldhave providedtheirinformedconsent.Cancellation,aspreviouslymentioned,isnot relevanttosoftwareenableddurablegoods,buttogetherclearandconspicuous disclosureandinformedconsentcanincreasecompetitionbetweenbrandsbyforcing themtoadapttoconsumers'wantsregardingsoftwarepaywalls Theseregulationscan alsodecreaseoverspendingonthepartofconsumers,who,wheninformedabout softwarepaywalls,maychooseadierentcompanytopurchasetheirgoodsfrom,so therearenofeesafterpurchase.

C. RightToRepairRegulation

JustasregulatingremovalofservicewouldallowtheFTCtoincreasecompetition intheprimarysoftware-enableddurablegoodsmarket,regulatingtherighttorepair wouldhelptheFTCtoincreasecompetitionintheaftermarket Theaftermarketisan importantplacefortheFTCtoencouragecompetition,becausethereisalargepower imbalancebetweenthewellresourceddealerships/manufacturersandindependent repairshops.Durablegoodssellerscanrestricttherepairabilityoftheirproductsand evenmanufacturethemtobreakfaster(sothattheywillgetportionsoftherepair moneyorencourageconsumerstobuyanewproduct),bothofwhichnegatively impactindependentrepairshops.Theseshopsmustalsonegotiatewithallofthe leadingmanufacturerstobeabletorepairtheirgoods,eachwiththeirownrulesand withheldinformation.Thedemandsofrighttorepairgroups,whichwantaccessto information(manuals,diagnostictools,accesscodes)andpartsforthegoodsthatthey arexing,wouldleveltheplayingeldbetweenbigmanufacturersandsmallrepair shops.Whileitisnotthejoboftheproducersthemselvestoensurethattheirproducts canberepairedeasily,itisthejoboftheFTCtoensurethatsmallbusinessesareableto

GROWTH AND REGULATION OF AFTERMARKET SALES IN THE SOFTWARE-ENABLED DURABLE GOODS MARKET

conducttheirserviceswithouttheundueanti-competitiveinuenceoflarge corporations.

Therighttorepairisintheprocessofbeingestablishedfordurablegoods,with25 statelegislaturesconsideringbillsregardingit.Somelegislationhasalreadybeenpassed; alandmarkbillpassedinMassachusettsin2012thatforcedmanycarmakerstorelease theirmanualstothepublic However,thisbilldidnotgofarenough,ascompanies suchasTeslawereabletocircumventthislawbyclaimingthattheydidnothaveany realdealerships;theyarguedthatbecausetheyselltheirproductsonlineonlymarket theminstorefronts,thattheydonothavedealershipsinthetraditionaldenition 32It alsodoesnotcoverabroaderrangeofsoftwareequippeddurablegoods,suchas appliancesandelectronics,bothofwhichcausechronicissuesforindependentservices thatrepairthem.Ifthesebillspassandregulateabroaderrangeofdurablegoods,it coulddecreasethecostofrepairsforconsumers,makerepairsmoreavailable(given thatitwouldlikelyincreasethenumberofshops),helprepairsgetfaster,anddecrease theamountofwastecreatedbybroken,unrepairedgoods.

32 ElonMusk,TheTeslaApproachtoDistributingandServicingCars,Tᴇsʟᴀ(2012), https://www.tesla.com/blog/tesla-approach-distributing-and-servicing-cars.

Data Breaches in an AgeofTechnology:AnEvaluationof ArticleIIIStandingandExpectationsofPrivacy

ABSTRACT. ThisessaywilldiscussArticleIIIstandinginregardtodatabreachesand expectationsofprivacy.Thetopicofstandingisintroducedincontextwithprecedent courtcasesClapperv.AmnestyInternationalandSpokeo,Incv.Robins,whichhighlight the limits of legitimacy of injury These casesarethencomparedandcontrastedto otherdecisionsinrecentcircuitsplits,showingthatthereisalotofgrayareaonthe typeofinjurysustainedinadatabreach.Thisarticlethenlooksatthecurrentstateof privacydomestically,comingtotheconclusionthattheU.S.needsastrongernational policy for privacy regulation to protect the consumer Finally, such legislation is discussed, along with proposed solutions that consider the pros and cons of these discussions.

AUTHOR. TracyTruongisarisingthird-yearstudentatUCSDmajoringinComputer ScienceandminoringinLiterature/Writing Shethankshereditor,RishabhRaj,for hismeticulouseditsandconstructivefeedback.

2

1

DATA BREACHES IN AN AGE OF TECHNOLOGY: AN EVALUATION OF ARTICLE III STANDING AND EXPECTATIONS OF PRIVACY

INTRODUCTION

Whiledatabreachesarenotanewphenomenon,thegrowthintechnologyinthe last century has given people more reasons to fear the unethical exposure of their condentialinformation ManystatesintheUnitedStateshavedieringlawsonhow to handle the aftermath of data breaches, but thediscrepanciesbetweentheselaws prevent the creation of a uniform standard on data privacy. There is currently no national law regarding the consequences of data breaches, and the reluctance of corporationstoabidebycertainregulationsoerslittlestabilityforindividualswho rightfullywishtoprotecttheirprivacy Inthecasethatindividualsndthattheirdata hasbeenexposedinadatabreach,theycantakelegalactionandhavetheirconcernsbe representedincourt.Theabilitytosue,however,leadstothedebateoverwhethersuch individualshavestandingundertheConstitution,whichisdescribedintheCaseor ControversyClauseinArticleIII,SectionII,ClauseI Thiscanbenotedinnumerous casesregardingdataprivacyanddatabreaches

UnderArticleIII,therearethreeconditionsthatplaintismustdemonstrateto have standing:1)theyhavesueredactualinjury,2)theinjurycanbetracedtothe defendant,and3)theinjuryislikelytoberedressedbyafavorabledecision.1 Therst condition, while simple in concept,isthechiefsourceofconictingrulingsamong courtsonwhetherindividualshavestandingindatabreachcases.Adatabreachoccurs when “[T]here is a loss or theft of, or otherunauthorizedaccessto,otherthanan unauthorizedaccessincidentaltothescopeofemployment,datacontainingsensitive personal information, in electronic or printed form, that results in the potential compromise of the condentiality or integrity of thedata.”2 Therstconditionof standingtypicallyonlyrequirespresentingproofofinjuryifaplaintisuersspecic damage,suchasthetheftofmaterialpossession(s).However,theftofdatainthedigital ageislessstraightforwardbecauseoften,theplaintidoesnotknowmuchmoreabout theirsituationotherthanthefactthatsomedataoftheirsmayhavebeenstolen,which mightormightnotbedetrimentalfortheminthefuture.

Thisdescribesthebeginningsofthefutureharmprinciple.Despiteprecedentsthat dealwiththesamesubjectmatter,thereisnoclearroadmapforwhatcourtsshoulddo

SubstantialInterest:Standing,JᴜsᴛɪᴀLᴀᴡ, https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-3/20-substantial-interest-standing.html#: :text=%E2 %80%94Although%20the%20Court%20has%20been,can%20fairly%20be%20traced%20to(last accessedJune25,2022).

38CFR§75113-DataBreach,LᴇɢᴀʟIɴғᴏ Iɴsᴛ,https://wwwlawcornelledu/cfr/text/38/75113 (lastaccessedJune25,2022).

here The question of whether future harm should count for the rst criteria for standinghasbroughtaboutdierentinterpretations,asitisdiculttoprovethatan individual’sleakedinformationhasbeenorwillbemisused.

Clapper v. Amnesty International USA (2013) introduced the notion offuture harm in Article III Standing In this case, numerous petitioners consisting of journalists,attorneys,andhumanrightsorganizations challengedformerDirector ofNationalIntelligence,JamesClapper,forauthorizinggovernmentsurveillanceon non-U.S. citizens contacting U.S. citizens. Theyarguedthattheamendmenttothe ForeignIntelligenceSurveillanceAct(FISA),whichallowedClappertosurveilthem, violatedtheirFirstandFourthAmendmentsrightsbyinfringingontherightagainst unreasonablesearches.3 Theplaintisclaimedthattheirinjurywasboththeviolation of privacy and additional costs in seeking more condential methods when communicating internationally. However, the case was dismissed in a 5-4 majority opinion JusticeAlitodeniedstandingforthepetitionersbecause“byinictingharm onthemselvesbasedontheirfearsofhypotheticalfutureharm,”theydidnotdisplay an injury that was “certainly impending.”4 Rather, their claims of harm were manufactured by fear, andfeardoesnotequatetosolidevidence.Thoughthiscase establishedthatconcreteproofmustbeprovidedtoprovethelegitimacyofinjury,itis alsoimportanttoconsiderJusticeBreyer’sdissentinClapper,wherehestatedthatthe petitioners had standing because it was highly likely that their international communicationswouldbeintercepted,astheywerecontinuouslybeingmonitored.5 Thus the controversy that Clapper introduced was whether or notcertaintypesof evidencepresentedincourtcouldactuallyproveimpendinginjury6Inthecircuitsplit casesexploredinSection3,thisarticlewillexamineanddeterminetheapplicabilityof Clapper’sdecisionagainstrecentcasesofdatabreaches.

WhereasClapperintroducedageneralstandardofwhatisrequiredforstanding, thedetailsofwhatconstitutedinjury-of-factwereexploredinthe2016SupremeCourt case Spokeo,Inc.v.Robins Inthiscase,ThomasRobinsattemptedtosueSpokeo,a websitethatsuppliesdataaboutindividualsviaapeoplesearchenginefromonlineand oinesources,forpublishingfalseinformationabouthimonthesiteasheclaimed thatitviolatedtheFairCreditReportingAct’s(FCRA)policyto“followreasonable 6 Id. 5 Id 4 Id. 3 Clapperv AmnestyInt’lUSA,568U S 398(2013)

8

DATA BREACHES IN AN AGE OF TECHNOLOGY: AN EVALUATION OF ARTICLE III STANDING AND EXPECTATIONS OF PRIVACY

procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of” consumer reports 7 In his opinion, the false information published by Spokeo damaged Robins’ image. But despitethis,theCourtruledthatRobinsdidnothavestandingbecausehisconcerns didn’tstemfrom“actualorimminent”harm.RobinsstatedthatSpokeo’sfalseclaim thathewaswealthywouldhurthisfutureemploymentprospects,butthecourtdenied himstanding,ashisinjury-of-factwasnot“concreteandparticularized”8 Evenso,the CourtremandedthecasetotheNinthCircuitCourt,wheretheyunanimouslyruled thatRobinsdiddisplaysucientproofofinjuryundertheFCRAwithaprivateright of action.9 Instead of approachingthecasedirectlywiththeaspectoffutureharm, RobinshadthechancetoarguethatthemisinformationabouthimonSpokeoviolated his statutory rights, and “[t]he statutory right at issue protects against individual, rather than collective, harm.”10 This opened conversation about whether or not a violationofaprivaterightofactionwassucienttoproveinjuryfordatabreachcases. The Ninth Circuit decided that because statutory rights defend anindividual,and because the harminictedonRobinswasindividualizedandnotcollective,Robins hadstanding.11 ThislineofreasoningdidnotrequireClappertobeconsideredinthis caseastheCourtavoidedtheideaoffutureharm.

9

7 FederalCreditReportingAct,15U S C §1681e(b)

Spokeo,Inc.v.Robins,578U.S.330(2016)

Spokeo,Inc v Robins,Hᴀʀᴠ L Rᴇᴠ (2016), https://harvardlawreview.org/2016/11/spokeo-inc-v-robins/.

Thesetwocasesattemptedtoplacerestrictionsonwhatconstitutesenoughharm undertherstcriteriaofArticleIIIStanding However,thelinehereisblurrybecause there is still no solid method of determining whether a plainti’s harm is merely speculative orlegitimate.WhileRobinswastheonlypersonharmedinhiscaseand couldseekaprivaterightofaction,databreachesleaksensitiveinformationatalarger scaleandcanaectmanymorepeople TheSupremeCourtdidnotthinkthatRobins’ accusations were sucientenoughforstandingbecausehisinjurieswereintangible, and therefore dicult to measure. While Robins was a lone individual who experienced something personal, those who suer from a data breach harbor a collective fear Data breaches can result in numerous severe consequences for consumers,asstolencreditcardnumbers,stolenemails,orexposureofsocialsecurity numbers can leadtoidentitytheft.Thisharm,ifgiventangibleproof,wouldlikely qualify for injury in standing. However, without tangible proof, it is signicantly hardertogainstanding,eventhoughthefearoffutureharmislegitimate 11 Id. 10 Id

Furthermore,withtechnologicaladvancements,datahasbecomemuch“bigger,” meaningthatcompaniescontrollargeramountsofit.12 Italsomeansthatindustries haveexpandedthewaysinwhichtheycanuseandanalyzeconsumerdata,buttheystill strugglewithorganizingsuchalargecapacityofdata.Thisopensthedoorformore dangerous practices aside from data breaches thatconsumersmightbeunawareof Also, since data is not property, sharing it becomesanagreementunboundbyany currentlaw.13 Therefore,stolendatacanonlybeproventhroughdirectviolationsof generaldatabreachguidelines.Thismakesitverydicultforplaintistoarguethat they have been harmed because current data breach lawsarenotstrongenoughto provide “proof”toconsumers Corporationsbenetfromthisarrangementbecause they only have to disclose how they use and share consumer data if a breach is signicantenoughtowarrantaninvestigation.Thus,currentlawssurroundingdata privacyinregardtodatabreachesarehighlybiased,andunjustlyso.Inanincreasingly technological world and in light of a collectively heightened apprehension of the strengthandethicsofinternetanddataprivacy,theconditionsthatcomprisetherst criteriaofArticleIIIStandingshouldconsiderfutureharmandattemptsatprevention offutureharmasfactorsinananalysisofinjury-of-factlegitimacy.

AnewtestforArticleIIIStandingthatidentiescasesthatfavorthepartywhose data has beenleakedwouldbestimplementthisidea Part3ofthisarticlediscusses several circuit court decisions that suggest exceptions to the necessity of concrete evidenceforprovinginjury.Butbecausethesedecisionsweremadeonacase-by-case basis, tocreatemorecertaintyforfuturecases,astandardfordatabreachcasesthat shouldqualifyforstanding Part4andPart5ofthisarticlediscussthecurrentstateof data privacy and conclude that there are laws that eectively hold companies accountableforleakingconsumerinformationwithoutconsentbutsuchlawsdonot currently exist nationally. Part 6thenconcludesthatpreventativemeasures,suchas havinggovernmentorganizationsliketheFederalTradeCommission(FTC),aswellas privatethird-partycompanies,placerestrictionsondatausageincompanies,shouldbe

12 WhatIsBigData?,Oʀᴀᴄʟᴇ, https://wwworaclecom/big-data/what-is-big-data/#:~:text=The%20denition%20of%20big%20d ata,especially%20from%20new%20data%20sources(lastaccessedJune25,2022)

13 CameronF KerryandJohnB Morris,WhyDataOwnershipIstheWrongApproachtoProtecting Privacy,Bʀᴏᴏᴋɪɴɢs(June26,2019), https://wwwbrookingsedu/blog/techtank/2019/06/26/why-data-ownership-is-the-wrong-approa ch-to-protecting-privacy/

DATA BREACHES IN AN AGE OF TECHNOLOGY: AN EVALUATION OF ARTICLE III STANDING AND EXPECTATIONS OF PRIVACY

implementedtokeepatighterleashonthemalpracticethatisoftendetectedindata breachcases.

I. ARTICLE III STANDING: CIRCUIT SPLITS

WhileClapperv AmnestyInternationalUSAandSpokeo,Inc v Robinsdeniedthe aspect of future risk in consideration of Article III Standing, recent circuit split decisionsimplyalackofcertaintysurroundingthetopic.

BeforeClapper,a2010casecalledKrottnerv.StarbucksCorp.establishedthatthe riskofidentitytheftwasaviablereasonforimpendingriskorharm Itfollowedacase ataStarbuckslocationwherealaptop“contain[ing]theunencryptednames,addresses, and social security numbers of approximately 97,000 Starbucks employees” was stolen.14 Theplaintis LauraKrottner,IshayaShamasa,andJosephLalli were Starbucks employees who had their information in thestolenlaptop,andappealed their case after the district court dismissed their claims that “Starbucks acted negligentlyandbreachedanimpliedcontractunderWashingtonlaw.”15 TheCircuit Court, however, decided that although no proof was provided that whatever information found on the laptop was misused, the plainti qualied for standing becausetherewasariskofidentitytheft ItwaseasyfortheCourttosidewiththe plaintis’privacyconcernsbecausethestolenlaptopactedasatangiblerepresentation of the stolen data. The theft itself implied the intention and high possibility of exploitingdata.

EvenwiththedecisioninClapperafewyearslater,the2018caseStevensv Zappos reinforcedthattheriskofidentitytheftposedabigenoughriskforstanding,despitea lackofconcreteevidence.Zappos,therefore,hadsimilarlinesofreasoningasKrottner. Inthiscase,TheresaStevensledsuitagainstZappos.com,anonlineretailer,whenher account on thesitegothacked ManyotherZapposusersalsoexperiencedasimilar situation and claimed that the risk of identity theftfromthehackwasenoughfor proofofinjury.Afterthebreach,whenZapposadviseduserstochangetheirpasswords on other sites or programs iftheyutilizedthesamepasswordonZappos.com,they indirectlyconrmedtheriskofinjury.Thisalsoconrmedthatthenatureofthestolen datacouldplaceconsumersatrisk,openingthepossibilityofidentitytheftcrimessuch

14 HanleyChewandTylerNewby,AppellateCourtFindsRiskofIdentityTheftSufficienttoEstablish Standing,CircuitSplitWorsens,JDSᴜᴘʀᴀ, https://www.jdsupra.com/post/contentViewerEmbed.aspx?d=103ed29e-81b0-494b-bebe-61019a 920be4(lastaccessedJune25,2022)

15

Krottnerv.StarbucksCorp.,628F.3d1139(9thCir.2010).

as “pharming”16 or “phishing”17 WhiletheSupremeCourtdeniedthiscasecertiorari, the Ninth Circuit agreed with the Sixth, Seventh and D.C. Circuits that “in an analogouscontext”toKrottnerv.StarbucksCorp.,theplainti’sfearoffutureharm “suciently alleged standing based on the risk of identity theft.”18 This oered a loopholearoundtheholdinginClapper,acknowledgingthatproofofinjurycouldbe extracted from the context of a scenario not necessarily provided by the plainti; Zappos’sactionsfollowingthebreachshowedthattheplaintisfacedsomesortofrisk. WhilethisbenetedStevens’argumentforhercase,italsoshowshowintheeventofa breach,companiesarethemostawareofwhathappenstotheleakeddata.Despitethis, under the current doctrineofArticleIIIstanding,consumersareexpectedtoshow prooffortheirinjurywhentheyaresomewhatblindtowhatishappening.Underthis currentsystem,consumersarguablydon’thaveanyreasontobelievetheyhavebeen harmed,andthereforedon’thavestanding,iftheydon’tknowwhathashappenedto theirdata However,thisissynonymoustosayingthatifcompaniesdon’tdiscloseany malpractice,thentheyhavenotdoneanythingharmful.Butthisisnottrueinmany databreachcases,andthus,thecurrentdoctrineofstandingheavilyfavorscompanies indatabreachcases.

AsopposedtotheseCircuitCourtcasesthatsidedwiththeplainti,recently,Tsao v.CaptivaMVPRestaurantPartners(2021)rejectedtheideaoffutureharm Inthis case,arestaurantchain,PDQ,sueredadatabreachandadmittedhackers“mayhave. ..accessed”creditcardholdernamesandaccounts.19 Tsao,aPDQcustomer,argued that he and other customers had “been placed at an imminent, immediate, and continuingincreasedriskofharmfromidentitytheftandidentityfraud”20Tsao’sfear drove him to “voluntarily [restrict] access tohispreferredpaymentcards.21 Andby canceling his cards, he voluntarily spent time safeguarding his accounts.”22 The

16

Pharmingentailstheactof“directinginternetuserstoaboguswebsitethatmimicstheappearance ofalegitimateone,inordertoobtainpersonalinformationsuchaspasswords,accountnumbers, etc.”Pharming,NewOxfordAmericanDictionary(3rded.2010).

17

Phishinginvolves“thecreationoffalsedigitalresourcesintendedtoresemblethoseoflegitimate businessentities,suchasawebsiteoremail”toinvokefraud.Phishing,LᴇɢᴀʟIɴғᴏʀᴍᴀᴛɪᴏɴ Iɴsᴛɪᴛᴜᴛᴇ, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/phishing#: :text=Phishing%20is%20a%20type%20of,via%20emai l%20or%20URL%20to(lastaccessedJune27,2022)

Id. 21 Id 20 Id. 19 Tsaov CaptivaMVPRestaurantPartners,LLC,986F3d1332(11thCir 2021) 18

Krottnerv.StarbucksCorp.,628F.3d1139(9thCir.2010).

DATA BREACHES IN AN AGE OF TECHNOLOGY: AN EVALUATION OF ARTICLE III STANDING AND EXPECTATIONS OF PRIVACY

Eleventh Circuitfeltthatbecausetherewasnoimmediateortargetedthreat,Tsao’s claims and actions were based upon “ a nonparanoid fear.”23 The Eighth Circuit additionally reasoned that since aGovernmentAccountabilityOce(GAO)report claimedthatcreditcardinformationaloneisnotenoughtoraisetheriskofidentity theft, Tsao’s claims of imminent harm were faulty24 While the GAO states that “unauthorizeduseofastolencreditcardnumber”isacomponentofidentitytheft, “compromised credit or debit card information, without additional personal information” cannot damage an individual without additional information.25 Ultimately,“becausehe[couldn’t]demonstratethatthereisasubstantialriskoffuture identity theft or that identity theft [was] certainly impending and because he [couldn’t]manufacturestandingbyincurringcostsinanticipationofnon-imminent harm,”Tsaodidnothavestanding.26

ContrastingKrottner,andlaterZappos,withTsao,itcanbeconcludedthatina data breach, risk of identity theft, even with no solid proof, may be enough for standing. This means that what Clapper determined was not denitive; rather, it providedagrayareawheredierentcasescouldyielddierentresults.Withthecontext ofthecasesfollowingClapper,injurybyfutureharmcanbedenedbywhetherornot certainleakedinformationissubstantialenoughtocauseimmediateharm InKrottner andZappos,theriskofidentitytheftwasconsideredtobesignicantlyhighduetothe natureofthedatathatwasreleased.ThoughTsaoreasonablybelievedthathecouldbe atriskoffraudornancialruingiventheexposureofhiscreditcardinformation,there wereprecautionsthatcouldhavegreatlylessenedtherisk.Thesecasesseemtodrawa linebetweenwhatconstitutesimminentharmandwhatdoesn’t,buttheystilldonot addresstheactualissueoffutureharminregardtostanding.ForTsao’scase,though creditcardinformationalonedoesnotleaddirectlytoidentitytheft,thereisalsono tellinghowhardthehackerswillpursuetheinformationtheystole.Becausethecourts dismissedTsao’scase,notagreeingtohisclaimsofharm,itgivesreasonforcompanies tobelievethattherearenoconsequencesifinformationthatisnotassociatedwitha directindicationofidentitytheftisstolenbyhackers.AnotherquestionthatTsao’s caseraisesiswhichpartyisresponsibleformitigatingtheharmdoneinadatabreach. Becausetheydeniedhimstanding,Tsaohadtheresponsibilitytoensurethathisdata wouldnotbemisused Iftheygrantedhimstanding,thenthePDQrestaurantchain 26Id. 25Id 24Id. 23Id 109

would havehadthisresponsibility Thus,theissueofstandingextendsfurtherthan solelydeterminingwhetherornotplaintissueredharmfromadatabreach.Thelack of a mechanism to hold companies accountable for breaches puts consumers at a dangerousdisadvantage.

According to the Federal Trade Commission, identity theft is possible when someone obtains information regarding an individual’s address, bank information, medical insurance, account numbers, or Social Security number.27 For someone to knowiftheiridentityisstolen,theywouldneedtoproactivelymonitortheirbillsand bankaccountstatementstodetectfraudulentactivity.EvenifTsaohadstanding,he wouldstillhavetodothis,ashedoesnotknowwhetherhisstoleninformationisbeing usedforfraud.However,becausethecourtconcludedthathisclaimsofharmwerenot imminent,theydiscreditedthepossibilitythathewassusceptibletoidentitytheftand sidedwiththePDQrestaurantbusinessovertheconsumer.Additionally,theEleventh Circuit,alongwithothercourtswithsimilaropinions,didnotexplorethescenarioof whatwouldhappeninthefutureifTsaofoundoutthatallalong,hackersdidindeed usehisinformationandengagedinidentitytheft.Thecourt’sopinion,then,wouldbe inconsistentbecausetheydidn’tconsiderthefactoffutureharmasheavilyasinthe KrottnerorZapposcasesuponseeingTsao’slackofevidence Conversely,ifthecourt granted Tsao standing, and Tsao in the future nds that his information was not misused,thenthecourtwouldhavestrongerreasontobelievethatfutureharmshould notqualifyforArticleIIIstanding.Thisuncertaintyisonethatisyettobeexplored further.Whileoneoptiontoresolvethiswouldbetocurateatesttomoreaccurately dene “imminent harm,” another option is to approach the issue from adierent standpointwheretheconsumerdoesnothavetostruggletoprovetheircase.Amajor factormissingfromthesecasesisanemphasisontheresponsibilitycompanieshavein protectingtheirconsumers’information.Databreacheswouldoccurfarlessoftenif companiesenactedreasonablesecuritymeasures Insteadofplacingtheburdenonthe consumertomonitorthestatusoftheirsecurity,thestandardshouldbeforcompanies tofollowstrictersecurityguidelines.Theseguidelinesmustcomeintheformofrules, notmerelyrecommendationsfromorganizationsoragenciessuchastheFTC.

BecauseArticleIIIStandingisvagueinitscriteria,itstillmakessensetoconsider the correlation and attachment of future harm to an analysis of injury-of-fact Additionally, since Clapper, technology has grown so rapidly that the conclusions madeinthecaseareoutdated.Strongerregulationstoensurefairnessinprivacyshould

27

AmyHebert,WhattoKnowaboutIdentityTheft,CᴏɴsᴜᴍᴇʀAᴅᴠɪᴄᴇ(2022), https://consumer.ftc.gov/articles/what-know-about-identity-theft.

DATA BREACHES IN AN AGE OF TECHNOLOGY: AN EVALUATION OF ARTICLE III STANDING AND EXPECTATIONS OF PRIVACY

beconsideredinlightofthesignicantdamagedatabreachescause Alongwiththis, consumerswhohavebeenharmedbycompanieswithdatabreachesshouldbeableto sueandholdcompaniesaccountablefortheirmistakes.Thiswillforcecompaniesto valuedataprivacyandtakeFTCguidelinesondataprivacymoreseriously.

II. CURRENT STATE OF DATA PRIVACY

Because there are no federal dataprivacylaws,thereisnonationalstandardfor privacy expectations.Becauseoftherelationshipbetweendatabreachesandprivacy, currentdataprivacylawsshouldbeexaminedtoestablishacorrelationtostandingand legitimacyofinjury.

AgoodmodelforrigorousprivacypolicyistheEuropeanUnion’sGeneralData Protection Regulation (GDPR) of 2018. Replacing its predecessor, the Data Protection Directive, the GDPR’s primary goal was to more strongly protect consumersagainstcompanieswhousetheirpersonaldatainlightofthepastdecades’ worth of technological advancements. The GDPR emphasized accountability and consent, explicitly stating guidelines that companies must follow when processing consumerdata.Theserulesareoutlinedinsevendetailedprinciples,whichthoroughly createastandardforprivacyexpectationsandlimitthefreedomthatcompanieshavein dealingwithconsumerdatainternally.28 Itassumesaprivacy-by-defaultsituationfor consumer and company relationships. The GDPR is comparable in this attitude towardsprivacytotheCaliforniaConsumerPrivacyAct(CCPA),alsoputintoeect in2018

A. AnalysisoftheCCPA

Before the CCPA, California legislation that dealt with data breaches mainly consistedofonelaw,theCaliforniaDataBreachNoticationLaw,whichrequiredany company“thatownsorlicensescomputerizeddatathatincludespersonalinformation” to “disclose anybreachofthesecurityofthesystem”toCaliforniaresidents.29 This applied only to unencrypted data or encrypted data that hadbeenleakedwiththe encryption key because encrypted data on its own is nearly impossible to access withoutanencryptionkey.

28 ChristianWigand,GuillaumeMercer,andKatarzynaKolanko,PressCorner,EᴜʀᴏᴘᴇᴀɴCᴏᴍᴍ’ɴ (2020),https://eceuropaeu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/qanda 20 1166

29 CACodeCIV.§1798.82(2011)

Itwasbecauseofthislawthatthe2017Equifaxdatabreachwasbroughttolight, as it reportedly “aected consumers[totalling]toover147millionU.S.consumers, approximately 15.8 million of whom were California residents. Social Security numbers, birth dates and addresses had been compromised, as well as in some instances, driver's license numbers, credit card numbers; and credit dispute documents”30 The breach stemmed from an overlooked and ignored, but easily preventable,vulnerabilityinthecorporation’snetworkandultimatelycostEquifaxa $575milliondollarsettlementtotheFTCandotheragenciesinvolvedinthebreach.31 Had the CCPA been enacted during this time, however, Equifaxwouldhavebeen muchmorecompromised SinceEquifaxisanimportantcreditreportingcompany,the breachsettlementwouldhavebeenevenmorecostly,somewhereinthebillions,which wouldhavelikelyterminatedthecompany.WhiletheprospectofEquifaxterminating wouldnotundothedamagesofthedatabreach,itsetsaclearstandardforprivacy.The strengtheningofdatasecuritylaws,therefore,areforthebenetofcitizens

It was also because of the California Data Breach Notication Law that Uber Technologieswascaughtandseverelyreprimandedbythepublicfortryingtocoverup theirhackanddatabreachin2016.They“revealedthat[thecompany]acquiescedto thehacker’sdemandsbypayingthe$100,000ransomandthenengagedinaplanto cover-up the hack for more thanayearwhereinUber’scustomersanddriverswere neverinformedthattheirpersonalinformationhadbeenstolen.”32 Uber’sattempted cover-uprevealsjustoneofthemanyunethicalpracticesthatcompaniesmayengagein to avoid public backlash from a data breach. Companies would rather protect themselves instead of their workers and consumers because admitting fault could severely damage their reputation. Companies who fear this, yet continue to refuse transparency,showhoweasilytheytakeadvantageofthelackofnationalprivacylaws tocontinueandevennormalizetheirunethicalpracticesofusing,analyzing,oreven

30 145millionSocialSecurityNumbers,99millionaddressesandmore:EverytypeofPersonalData Equifaxlosttohackers,bythenumbers,TʜᴇWᴀsʜɪɴɢᴛᴏɴPᴏsᴛ, https://wwwwashingtonpostcom/news/the-switch/wp/2018/05/08/every-type-of-personal-data-e quifax-lost-to-hackers-by-the-numbers/(lastvisitedJune4,2022).

31 JacquelineConnorandTianyGeorge,EquifaxtoPay$575MillionasPartofSettlementwith FTC,CFPB,andStatesRelatedto2017DataBreach,Fᴇᴅ.TʀᴀᴅᴇCᴏᴍᴍ’ɴ(Sept.18,2021), https://wwwftcgov/news-events/news/press-releases/2019/07/equifax-pay-575-million-part-settle ment-ftc-cfpb-states-related-2017-data-breach.

32 CyberSecurity:WhentheCoverupIsWorsethantheCrime:Uber&theConsequencesofHidinga DataBreach,Pᴏᴏʟᴇ&SʜᴀғғᴇʀʏLLP, https://wwwpooleshaerycom/news/2017/december/cyber-security-when-the-cover-up-is-worse-t han-t/(lastaccessedJune25,2022).

DATA BREACHES IN AN AGE OF TECHNOLOGY: AN EVALUATION OF ARTICLE III STANDING AND EXPECTATIONS OF PRIVACY

selling consumer data behind their backs After they were caught, Uber agreed to increasetheirsecuritymeasuresandprovidequarterlysecurityupdatestothestatesfor thenexttwoyears.33 ThoughthiswaspartofUber’splantomoveforwardandlearn fromtheirmistakes,italsoseemedlikeawayforthemtoearnbacktrustfromthose whowereharmedbythebreach Whileitwasunlikelythattheywouldhaveanother breach inthesamemanner,italsodidnotguaranteethatUberwouldn’tengagein other unethical practices in the future. Though there is no evidence that the preventativemeasuresthatUbertookfollowingthebreachwereorwerenoteective, afterthebreachwasbroughttolight,Uber’sformerchiefsecurityocerJoeSullivan stillattemptedtopushthenarrativethattheincidentwasnotacoverup Rather,he statedthatthebreachcamefromUberusingtheirbugbountyprogram34 toidentify securityweaknesses.35 UberredSullivanforhispoorhandlingofthebreach,buthis defense of Uber’s unethical security practices shows that without stricter privacy guidelines for data breaches, companies can freely interpretwhattheybelievewhat propersecurityshouldlooklike.WhiletheCCPAprovidedstrictenforcementondata breaches,ontheissueofprivacyitself,enforcementisinadequate.MaryStoneRoss,a co-authoroftheinitiativefortheCCPA,statesthat“inthelegislativecompromise[of theCCPA],onlytheattorneygeneralcanenforcetheCCPA(exceptfordatabreaches) Unfortunately, the California attorney general’s oce predicts that even with additionalresources,theywillonlybeabletobringthreeenforcementactionsayear, rendering the CCPA largely toothless.”36 Although the CCPA does handle data

33 BillChappell,UberPays$148MillionoverYearlongCover-upofDataBreach,NPR(Sept 27, 2018), https://www.npr.org/2018/09/27/652119109/uber-pays-148-million-over-year-long-cover-up-of-d ata-breach

34

Abugbounty“isasupportingfunctiontoanexistingVulnerabilityDisclosureProgram(VDP) [that]encouragesthereportinganddisclosureofsecurityvulnerabilitiesfoundinsoftwareand/or infrastructurebyincentivizingvulnerabilityreporterswithrewardsorcompensation.”DeanaShick, Chapter1:WhatisaBugBountyProgram?,BᴜɢBᴏᴜɴᴛʏCOI(May4,2021), https://bugbountycoi.org/2021/05/04/chapter-1-what-is-a-bug-bounty-program/#: :text=Simply %2C%20a%20Bug%20Bounty%20program,reporters%20with%20rewards%20or%20compensation

35

TomMcClellandandAustinMooney,UberCriminalComplaintRaisestheStakesforBreach Response,JDSᴜᴘʀᴀ(Sept 1,2020), https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/uber-criminal-complaint-raises-the-98984/.

36 KatharineSchwab,IHelpedDraftCalifornia'sNewPrivacyLaw Here'sWhyItDoesn'tGoFar Enough,FᴀsᴛCᴏᴍᴘᴀɴʏ(Dec.30,2019), https://wwwfastcompanycom/90444501/i-helped-draft-californias-new-privacy-law-heres-why-itdoesnt-go-far-enough.

breacheseectively,withoutadequateenforcement,companieswillcontinuetoengage inunethicalpracticesbecausetheywilllikelyavoidsevereconsequences.

TheoutcomesoftheEquifaxandUberdatabreachesprovedtheeectivenessof existingdataprivacylaws,butalsoraisedthequestionofwhatwouldhappenifthe notication law didn’t exist Likely, these companies would have gotten awaywith malpractice, putting consumers at risk Thisreinforcestheconclusionfoundinthe previous section, where it was found that emerging privacy laws must hold corporationsaccountableinsomestandardway.

Theseconclusionsmightsuggestthatdatacouldbethoughtofasproperty.Ifso, cover-ups such as the one done by Uber could be considered as validevidencefor concretetheft.However,ifdatacouldbeownedandsold,itthenfollowsthatalltypes ofdata,includingindividualdata,wouldhaveaprice.Butthisisnotreasonable,asdata shouldnotbeconsidereda“commodity.”37Itissimplyimpracticaltocommodifydata, astheonlywaytopreservedataisforittobeshared Whiledatacanbesoldorshared by companies (such as through consumer information they receive viatheironline cookies),consumersarenotsellingthisdatathemselves.Withanopt-inpolicy(usually a ‘sellmyinformation’or‘donotsellmyinformation’toggle),sellingdataisanalogous toparticipatinginasurvey Privacycanbeconsideredaright,butpersonaldatacannot Thus,ifdatashouldnotbeconsideredasproperty,butrather,asentailingtheactof sharing information, then consumers still cannot reliably gauge how and for what corporationsusetheirdata.TheseconcernswerereectedinthecreationoftheCCPA, which took an eective stepforwardinthestrengtheningofprivacyprotectionsby setting clearer limits on what can and cannot be done with data and by giving consumersthetransparencytheyshouldhave.

B. PrivateRightofActionintheCCPA

One of the most crucial aspects of the CCPA that is not in the GDPR is its inclusion of an explicit but limited private right of action, which allows private plaintistosuecompaniesdirectlyintheeventofadatabreach.Ifaconsumerproves that a company leakedtheir“nonencryptedandnonredactedpersonalinformation”

37 CameronF KerryandJohnB Morris,WhyDataOwnershipIstheWrongApproachtoProtecting Privacy,Bʀᴏᴏᴋɪɴɢs(June26,2019), https://wwwbrookingsedu/blog/techtank/2019/06/26/why-data-ownership-is-the-wrong-approa ch-to-protecting-privacy/.

DATA BREACHES IN AN AGE OF TECHNOLOGY: AN EVALUATION OF ARTICLE III STANDING AND EXPECTATIONS OF PRIVACY

the consumer has the right to press charges for statutory damages 38 This sets a minimumstandardofsecurityforcompaniestoenact,withpenaltiesifthecompany doesnotcomply.Theexistenceofthisprivaterightofactionthereforeplacesabigger responsibility on the government to ensure that consumer data is protected by enacting “reasonable securitymeasures”39 Notonlydoesthisprovidemoredetailed regulationsthatholdcorporationsaccountable,italsogivesconsumersmoreoutletsto bring cases to court. In fact, “[I]n 2021, 281 federal court cases were led in, or removed to, federal court and referenced either the ‘CCPA’ or the ‘California Consumer Privacy Act,’” which “represents a 44.10% increase in litigationlings.” ThisimpliesthatsincetheCCPAwentintoeect,CCPAclassactionlawsuitshave highlyincreasedinnumbers.40

39 CACodeCIV§179882(2011) 38 CACodeCIV.§1798.82(2011)

40

However, even if statutory damageisprovenunderaCCPAclaim,standingtosue needstobeevaluatedseparately.ThecaseArifurRahmanv.MarriottInternational, Inc (2021)demonstratedthis Inthiscase,theplainti,ArifurRahman,wantedtosue a franchise in Russia for the Maryland-based Marriott International hospitality companyforacybersecuritybreachthatviolatedtheCCPA.Inthisbreach,“names, addresses,phonenumbers,emailaddresses,genders,birthdates,andloyaltyaccount numbers without authorization” were leaked However, the US District Court dismissedthecasebecause“sensitiveinformation”wasnotleaked,andthereforedid notfullltherequirementsfortherighttosue.Theoutcomeofthiscaseissimilarto manyotheronesregardingdatabreaches.41Plaintisoftenhavetorelyoncommonlaw causesofactiontoprovesubstantialriskorimminentharm. TheholdinginRahmanwasthereforesimilartoTsao,wheretheCourtalsodenied standing due to the supposed lack of sensitive information exposed during PDQ’s breach.Thesecases,then,seemtoconcludethatbreacheswhichdonotcreateapparent riskofidentitytheftwillnotbeasrigorouslyconsideredincourt.Whilecertaintypes ofdataaremoresensitivethanothers,itwouldbewrongtosaythatonetypeofdatais morevaluablethantheother Thisraisesthequestionofwhetheritisfairtodecide harmbasedonthetypeofinformationleakedinabreach.Withtechnologycontinually advancing,dierenttypesofcomplexdataarearising,whichimplicatesotherpractical 41

concerns regarding privacy and security, outside of just identity theft By denying plaintisstandingbecausetheirleakedinformationwasnotsensitiveenough,recent courtcasessetadangerousprecedentforthefuturebydismissingviolationsofprivacy, whentheycanbejustasharmfulasdatabreaches.

C. ThirdPartiesandImprovingDataPrivacyLaw

Both the GDPR and the CCPA value transparency between companies and consumers. While the GDPR requires citizens’ consent prior to any sort of data processing,42 theCCPAhasanopt-outpolicy,43 allowingcompaniestoaccessdataby defaultunlessotherwisechosenbytheconsumer.

TheCCPAoverallprovidesmorefreedomtoconsumersregardingtheirdata,such astherighttoknowhowtheirdataiscollected,usedorshared,therighttodeletethe datatheyhaveshared,andtherighttoopt-outonthesaleoftheirdata 44Althoughthis islimitedtojustCaliforniaandnottherestofthenation,itmarksthebeginningof progressinprotectingconsumerdataandstandardizingexpectationsofprivacy.Italso calls into question whether precedent policies should change to reect these expectationsgiventheemergingimportanceoftechnology

TheUnitedStateshashistoricallyexpectedindividualstoberesponsibleovertheir data,ratherthanhavingcompaniesabidebycertaindatarestrictions.Thisconceptcan beseenthroughthethirdpartydoctrineincasessuchasUnitedStatesv.Millerand Carpenter v. United States. But looking at these cases, it is clear that the opposite should be true: companies should enact privacy policies to protect consumer data becausethecultureofdatasharinghaschangedsignicantly.

In1976,theSupremeCourtcaseUnitedStatesv.Millerestablishedthethirdparty doctrine, whichstatesindividualsdonothavea“reasonableexpectationofprivacy” overinformationtheygivetoathird-partydatacollector 45 Inthiscase,MitchMiller was accused of leasing an undocumented whiskey distillery, which the sheris of

DATA BREACHES IN AN AGE OF TECHNOLOGY: AN EVALUATION OF ARTICLE III STANDING AND EXPECTATIONS OF PRIVACY

Housten County, Georgia proved through acquiring Miller’s bank transactions 46 While Miller claimed that this seizure of bank transactions violated his Fourth Amendment right to privacy, the Court held thatsincebanksarethirdparties,the sheris could legally obtain Miller’s information because he no longer had a “reasonableexpectationofprivacy”withthosedocuments 47

However,in2018,Carpenterv.UnitedStatesmadeanexceptiontothisdoctrine ThiscasefollowsTimothyCarpenter,whowaschargedforinvolvementinarobbery. EventhoughCarpenterwasnotoneofthefourpeopleoriginallytargetedassuspects, transactionalrecordsofcellphoneserviceofthefoursuspectstracedthepolicebackto him 48TheCourtheldthatalthoughtherecordsofcellphoneservicewereinthehands of a third party, Carpenter still had a reasonable expectation of privacy with that information and seizing it violated his Fourth Amendment rights, Carpenterwasa landmarkdecisionforholdingthatexploitinglocationdatawasaviolationofprivacy, even though it was retrieved through third-party data collectors, because it acknowledgedtheshiftintechnologyinregardtoprecedent.

WhileMillerdealtwiththird-partyinformationinregardtobankrecords,holding that they were not protected under the Fourth Amendment, Carpenter dealt with location data When Miller was decided, data was thought of as tangible, as information in Miller was in the form ofpaperworkandtechnologyhadrelatively weakcapabilitiesduringthetime.ItwasthereforelogicaltoconcludethatsinceMiller willinglygavethebankhispaperworkhehadnoreasonableexpectationofprivacywith thatinformation.However,yearslater,CarpenterheldthatGPSlocationtrackingwas forbidden,despitethethirdpartydoctrine,becauseGPSlocationtrackingdataisnot tangible. Only technology can be capable of collecting such data. After her concurrenceinU.S.v.Jones,anothercaseregardingthird-partydata,JusticeSotomayor statedthat“[I]tmaybenecessarytoreconsiderthepremisethatanindividualhasno reasonableexpectationofprivacyininformationvoluntarilydisclosedtothirdparties This approach is ill suited to the digital age, inwhichpeoplerevealagreatdealof informationaboutthemselvestothirdpartiesinthecourseofcarryingoutmundane tasks.”49

48 Carpenterv.UnitedStates,585U.S. (2018). 47 Id 46 Id.

49

JohnVillasenor,WhatYouNeedtoKnowabouttheThird-PartyDoctrine,TʜᴇAᴛʟᴀɴᴛɪᴄ(Dec 30, 2013), https://wwwtheatlanticcom/technology/archive/2013/12/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-thir d-party-doctrine/282721/.

This evolution in ideology must also happen with data breaches and standing Whilethecurrentagreement thatanindividualisdeniedstandingiftheycannot proveimminentharm mayhavebeensuitableforatimeofsimpledata(asisevident inUnitedStatesv.Miller),today’stechnologicalcapabilitieshavemadecertaintypesof data more complex through additional processing This issue extendsbeyondmere paperwork,andcanbringimminentharminthecaseofdatabreaches Datacollected onalargescaleandanalyzedthroughcomplexcomputeralgorithms,isdescribedtoday as “Big Data.” Additionally, given the increaseinsensitivedatasincetheageofthe Internet,itisunreasonabletoexpecttheaveragepersontonothaveexpectationsof privacyabouttheirdata Manyeverydaytasksnowrelyonnon-physicalformsofdata, makingitinfeasibleforpeopletoconstantlykeeptrackofalloftheirdata.Inlightof theincreasingamountofpersonalriskindatabreaches,Courtsshouldnolongerdeny fearasafactorintheArticleIIIstandingcriteria.

III. STRENGTHENING PRIVACY LAWS

In many cases, individuals who give their information do so without realizing exactlywhattheyaredoing 一 forinstance,agreeingtotermsandconditionsbefore using an application Most information used to be transferred tangibly, such as throughpaperwork(aswasthecaseinUnitedStatesv.Miller),buttoday,information is mainly transmitted through technology and the internet. Data sharing has transitionedfrombeingvoluntarytobeingaroutinenecessity.Toreectthischange, and prevent companies from exploiting citizens’ privacy, new policies akin to the GDPRandCCPAmustbeenactedtostrengthenregulationonthetypesofdatathat companiescancollectandincreasetransparencyaboutwhattypesofdatatheycollect.

Just as the lack of concreteness in future harm exists in the criteria of Article III Standing,thereisalackofregulationinhowcompaniescanuseconsumerdata,and bothdiscrepanciesharmconsumersmorethancompanies

This was seen in the 2018 Cambridge Analytica-Facebook Scandal, where “Facebook allowed a third-party developer to engineer an application for the sole purposeofgatheringdata.Andthedeveloperwasabletoexploitaloopholetogather informationonnotonlypeoplewhousedtheappbutalltheirfriends withoutthem

DATA BREACHES IN AN AGE OF TECHNOLOGY: AN EVALUATION OF ARTICLE III STANDING AND EXPECTATIONS OF PRIVACY

knowing”50 This data ended up in the hands of Cambridge Analytica, a political consulting rm working with the Trump campaign. This incident highlights the conictingintereststhatcompanieshaveinprotectingconsumerdata.Becausealotof technologycompanies’protscomefromtheirsoftwarebasedonuserdataanalysis,it is dicult for them to bar themselves from having access tosuchdata,despitethe privacyinterestsofusers Thus,thisscandalexposedFacebook’spreferenceofprot overuserprivacy,evidencedbytheirlackofpoliciesforprotectingusers.Theimpactof thisscandalreachesfarbeyondthereputationofFacebookandCambridgeAnalytica, becauseitbringstolightissuesofcompaniesndingloopholesinthelawtouseand exploit consumers ’ data Facebook faced many lawsuits following coverage of the scandal.D.C.attorneygeneralKarlRancineledoneofthebiggestlawsuitsregarding thescandalintheUnitedStates.AllegationsweremadethatFacebookwasawarethat CambridgeAnalyticawasusinguserdata,andthereforemisledmorethan87million users 51 Incaseslikethis,consumersandcompaniesareplacedatunequalfooting,with companies almost always having theupperhand.Whilestandingwasn’tthecentral issueinthiscaseduetohowlarge-scaleitwas(RacinesuedFacebookforviolatingthe District’s Consumer Protection Procedures Act, D.C. Code §§ 28-3901, et seq. (“CPPA”),52 thesameprincipleappliesthatconsumersarehighlydisadvantagedindata breachcases

50 AlvinChang,TheFacebookandCambridgeAnalyticaScandal,ExplainedwithaSimpleDiagram, Vᴏx(Mar.23,2018), https://wwwvoxcom/policy-and-politics/2018/3/23/17151916/facebook-cambridge-analytica-tru mp-diagram.

51 NicholasConfessore,CambridgeAnalyticaandFacebook:TheScandalandtheFalloutsoFar,Tʜᴇ NᴇᴡYᴏʀᴋTɪᴍᴇs(Apr.4,2018), https://wwwnytimescom/2018/04/04/us/politics/cambridge-analytica-scandal-fallouthtml

52

Thiseventalsobringstolightthequestionofwhat“imminentharm”canmeanin termsofdatacollection.Inthiscase,consumerdatawasusedtomanipulatethetypes ofpostsandadvertisementsuserssawonFacebook,whichheavilyaectedvotesinthe 2016 United States election 53 While consumers weren’t harmed in the sense of personalinjury,theirinformationwasexploitednonetheless.Consumerinformation 53

can also be leaked by Big Datapractices,astheyhavetheabilitytouseconsumers’ current data to predict future data, thus taking away some freedoms in the way companiescanchangetheirpoliciesaccordingtosuchdata.Datacannotbecontained as easily as property. Once given or shared, data cannot be given back because informationcannotbeowned Thoughpeoplecanhaveownershipandprivacyrights for data located in a database, most data transmitted through the internet is not protected.Formalviolationsdon’texistinmostcases,astherearenofederallawsfor privacy.Thus,itisunfairthatcourtsgettodecidewhethersomebodyelse’sinjuryis signicant enough for standing Furthermore, what is not deemedimminentharm todaymightnotnecessarilybetrueinthefuture Therefore,thereshouldbeafederal standard,similartotheCCPA,toreectthegrowingprominenceofdatabreachesand theirdamagingeects.

A CurrentDiscussions

InaCommerce,ScienceandTransportationCommitteeSenatehearingonfederal data privacy legislation, commissioner and acting chairman of the Federal Trade Commission(FTC)MaureenOhlhausenstatedthat“[A]federalprivacylawneedsto beastrongone Federalprivacylegislationshouldsupportrobustenforcementbythe FTC, allowing the agency to obtain meaningful results.”54 Strictly enforcing such privacylegislationwouldholdbusinessesaccountableandalsodenealimitforhow data can be handled. Given the GDPR’s success in Europe, America should also implement its own national privacy law Ohlhausen also suggeststhat“[T]heFTC needstobeabletonecompaniesforrsttimeviolationsofthenew[privacy]lawand CongressmustalsoprovidetheFTCwithnewresources.”Thesespecications,along withtheFTC’scurrentpoliciesregardingfairbusinesspractices,wouldsetupasystem ofpolicingtopreventcompaniesfromabusingtheuseofconsumerdata Furthermore, anewgovernmentagencythatfocusesspecicallyonhelpingconsumersmakethebest decisionstoprotectthesecurityoftheirdatashouldbeestablished.This,alongwith giving the FTC more power, would better prevent privacy violations and protect sensitiveconsumerdata.Thisnewagencycouldfollowthestructureandintentionsof theConsumerFinancialProtectionBureau(CFPB)which“isanindependentbureau within the Federal Reserve System that empowers consumerswiththeinformation

54

ProtectingConsumerPrivacy,HearingBeforetheS.Comm.onCommerce,Scienceand Transportation,117Cong 9(2021)(statementofMaureenOhlhausen,FormerActingChairofthe FederalTradeCommission).

DATA BREACHES IN AN AGE OF TECHNOLOGY: AN EVALUATION OF ARTICLE III STANDING AND EXPECTATIONS OF PRIVACY

theyneedtomakenancialdecisionsinthebestinterestsofthemandtheirfamilies”55 Theirmaingoalis“fairnessandtransparency,”whicharecharacteristicspertinentin therealmofdataprotection.

Inmanydatabreachcases,companieshavebeenfoundatfaultfornotproperly protectingdatathattheyaretrustedtokeepsafe ThoughOhlhausenopposesafederal privaterightofaction,formerAttorneyGeneralofCaliforniaandcurrentSecretaryof Health and Human Services Xavier Becerra believes that “[C]onsumers need the authoritytopursueremediesthemselves.”Ifafederallawwasintroducedsothatmore consumerscouldhavetheabilitytoprotectthemselves,itwouldleadtoaninuxof investigationcases Becerrasaysthataprivaterightofaction,liketheoneprovidedby theCCPA,would“complementandfortifytheworkofstateenforcers.”Additionally, itwouldvalidatetheconcernsthatconsumershaveinadatabreach,astheywouldhave therighttosuecompaniesdirectly.Thus,strongerprivacylawswouldactas“afederal privacyprotectionoor,notaceiling”

B. SolutionsinContextWithCurrentDiscussions

Despitethedierentargumentspresentedthroughoutdierentcircuitsplitcases, the Second Circuit court claried in McMorris v. Carlos Lopez & Associates, LLC (2021)thatallcourtshavebeenopentothepossibilityofincreasedriskassucient justication for standing, but no cases have been strong enough to act on that possibility.56 Therefore, while it is worthlookingattheaforementionedcontrasting circuitcourtdecisions,thereisageneralconsensusthatincreasedriskgenerallydoes demonstrateharm.

Insummary,therearethreegeneralscenariosfordetermininginjuryindatabreach cases. The rst is whether or not concrete evidence has been presented: this is demonstrated most clearly in Krottner, where the laptop was physical evidence of stolendata Thesecondiswhetherornotthenatureoftheleakeddataissubstantial enoughforinjury:thisisseenmostclearlyinZappos,wherethetypeofdataleakedby theretailercouldeasilyleadtoidentitytheft.Thethirdiswhetherornotincreasedrisk canimplyinjury.AccordingtotheSecondCircuitinMcMorris,thislastsituationis notoutofthequestion,butthereisyettobeacasetocontradictthecurrentpolicy thatincreasedriskcanbedirectlycorrelatedtoinjury.Thesecondandthirdscenarios

55 TheFederalRegister,Fᴇᴅ.Rᴇɢɪsᴛᴇʀ::RᴇǫᴜᴇsᴛAᴄᴄᴇss,accessedJune26,2022, https://wwwfederalregistergov/agencies/consumer-nancial-protection-bureau

56 McMorrisv.CarlosLopez&Associates,LLC,995F.3d295(2dCir.2021).

presentthemostcontroversy,butcouldberesolvedbyatypeofgeneraltest Similarto theprivaterightofactionintroducedintheCCPA,thistestwouldconsiderwhether ornotthedataleakedinabreachisunredactedorunencrypted.Ifso,itshouldbea factor heavily considered for heightened risk, substantial risk or injury, and thus, standing

C. AStrongerTestforStanding

Testingthefeasibilityofthisapproachwouldconcerncourtcasesinwhichdatais leakedfromacorporation,regardlessofthemannerinwhichsuchdataisleaked In Krottner, the laptop’s data was both unredacted and unencrypted. In Zappos, the specic type of data was not specied, but a database wasbreached,implyingthat sensitiveandunprotectedinformationwasleaked.InTsao,thecreditcardinformation leakedbytherestaurantchainwaslikelyunprotectedaswell Inthesethreecases,alot ofthedisagreementsregardingthequalicationsforstandingwererootedinwhether ornotthedataleakedwasharmfulornot,buttheapproachsuggestedhereplacesthe focus on whether ornotgeneraltypesofdataarelikelytobemisusedornot.This allowsinjurytobemoredeterminedbytherelationshipbetweenthecorporationand thedatatheyweremeanttoprotect,asopposedtotheconsumerandthedatatheylost Thus,inKrottner,thisapproachrecognizesthattheinformationonthelaptopwasnot meant to beplacedinsuchanaccessiblelocation,makingStarbucksresponsible.In Zappos,thedataleakedwasunprotected,makingtheZapposcompanyresponsible.In Tsao, unlike how the case was actually decided, because the data leaked was unprotected,thePDQrestaurantchainshouldhavebeenheldresponsible.Thesethree casesshowthatwhetherornotdataleakedinabreachisunprotectedshoulddetermine whetherornotcorporationshavedonedamageandshouldbeheldresponsible.This approachdoesnotalterthedenitionofstanding,butitprovidesastandardforwhat is expected of corporations who placetheirconsumersatrisk Althoughthistestis admittedlyineectivefordatabreachcasesthatinvolvebreachesofprotecteddata,itis almostimpossibletodevelopacomprehensivetestthatcanbeappliedtodatabreach cases of all types. As previously mentioned, theconceptof“BigData”involvesthe constantly evolving process of storing and handling large amounts of data in complicateddatabases.Thus,standingfordatabreachcasesmustbeevaluatedinthe contextofabreachitself.Thisiswhattheapproachpresentedinthissectionismeant for,aslawssuchastheCCPAhaveaddressedbreachesinthesamecontext.Whilethe

DATA BREACHES IN AN AGE OF TECHNOLOGY: AN EVALUATION OF ARTICLE III STANDING AND EXPECTATIONS OF PRIVACY

test is gearedtowardasmallbandofcases,itcanstillgreatlyhelpcourtsdetermine legitimacyofinjury.

D. GovernmentActionandPrivateRegulation

Awiderapproachtotheproblemofdatabreachesasawholeistointroducelaws forsupportingprivateregulations,bothwithingovernmentsectorsandorganizations independentfromthegovernment(toreducepoliticalconictandbias).LikeMaureen Ohlhausensuggested,givingmorepowertoagenciessuchastheFTCtokeepaleash oncompanies’datahandlingpracticescanlowerthefrequencyofdatabreaches As Uber’s cover-up suggests, however, new laws alone may not be sucient because companies will inevitably ignore or nd a loophole around them. Instead, regular checks to ensure that companies ethically handle their consumers ’ data is more eective Sincethisregulationisimportant,executionforthemeanstodosoisalso crucial. Recent developments with Articial Intelligence can serve as a tool for advanced security measures, with some data analytic tools being created through machinelearningpracticestoperformtaskslikepredictingcyberattacksthroughdata processing Thisareaofanalyticshasyettobeperfected,especiallysinceitbecomesless ecientasdataareasgrow,butitiscurrentlybeingdeveloped Alongthesamelinesof dataanalysisisdataprovenance,whichtracestheactionsthroughoutthelifespanof certaindata,fromitscreationupuntilitscurrentstatus.Forexample,dataprovenance cantraceallactivityofale,includingitscreationdateandwherethedataoftheleis propagated to By constantly running audits on data systemsanddataprovenance, threats of data being misused can be easily detected. Verizon data breach reports57 suggestthatmostdatabreachesoccurduetohumanerrorandincreasesinransomware attacks.58 This shows that data breaches are often preventable and highlights the importance of taking steps for data protection Through private policies, constant enforcement of cybersecurity practices would motivate companiestobetterprotect consumerdataandavoidnegligentpracticesfromcausingdatabreachesinthefuture. Notonlywouldthisbenanciallybenecial,asdatabreachesareveryexpensive,italso perpetuates trust and comfort surrounding the expanding uses of technology.

57 2022DataBreachInvestigationsReport,VᴇʀɪᴢᴏɴBᴜs (2022), https://www.verizon.com/business/resources/reports/dbir/.

58 Ransomwareisatypeofmalicioussoftware(malware)thatthreatenstopublishorblocksaccessto dataoracomputersystem,usuallybyencryptingit,untilthevictimpaysaransomfeetothe attacker WhatisRansomware?,Pʀᴏᴏғᴘᴏɪɴᴛ(2022), https://www.proofpoint.com/us/threat-reference/ransomware(lastvisitedJune28,2022).

Companiescontinuetousetechnologytoperformcomplicatedanalysesondatathey collect from consumers, but regulation is still key in preventing companies from malpractices in their data collecting. Therefore, the combination ofstricterprivacy standards and regular checks using technology tools would hold companies accountable and prioritize consumer safety, lessening the errors that cause data breaches,suchasnotencryptingsensitiveinformation

Testingthefeasibilityofthissuggestioncanbedonebyapplyingittopreviousdata breachesfromcorporations.Becausetheapproachisfocusedonpreventionitself,it createsastandardforwhatisacceptableforhowcorporationsstore,accessandprotect consumer data and information This suggestion can follow the structure of institutionsthatalreadyhaveinternalsecurityprotocolstoprotecttheconsumer,like bankingcompanieswhoarerequiredtohaveregulationssuchassecureinfrastructure andauthentication.59 Thisfollowsthemindsetofan“opt-out”policy,whichdefaults toprivacyunlesstheconsumerdecidesotherwise Thus,whileprivateregulationsmay notdirectlyimpacthowinjuryoffactisdeterminedincourt,theycanaddprotection notyetincludedindatabreachlawssuchastheCCPA.IntheUberbreach,Uberwas required to generate security updates after the breach to prove that they were improvingtheirsecuritymeasures Whilesomethinglikethisisnotnecessarilyenforced withthisapproach,generatingregularreportsisimplied BecausetheEquifaxandthe Uber breaches were caused by weaknesses in security systems, it is not enoughfor companiestoreassurethepublicthattheydointernalchecks,asthereisnotruewayof verifyingthatthesechecksareeective.Thus,withtheactiveroleofprivateregulation byathirdpartynotaliatedwithacorporation,claimsofeectivesecurityarelikelyto bereliable.Notonlywouldthisreducetheamountofdatabreachesthatoccurdueto carelessness, it wouldalsoprovidecorporationscredibilitywhenhandlingconsumer data.

CONCLUSION

Databreachesintoday’sdigitalagearegrowingincreasinglycommon,yetthereis littleprecedentforhowtomanagetheiraftermath.WiththecriterialistedforArticle IIIStanding,itisdicultforcitizenstosuccessfullypursuelegalactioniftheirdataor

59 DavidSmith,5WaysinWhichBanksSecureTheirData,EɴᴅᴘᴏɪɴᴛPʀᴏᴛᴇᴄᴛᴏʀBʟᴏɢ(2022), https://www.endpointprotector.com/blog/ways-banks-secure-data/.

DATA BREACHES IN AN AGE OF TECHNOLOGY: AN EVALUATION OF ARTICLE III STANDING AND EXPECTATIONS OF PRIVACY

informationhasbeenleaked Clapperv AmnestyInternationalwasthemostsignicant SupremeCourtcasetointroducetheinabilitytousefutureharmtoproveconcrete harm.However,itisfoundinananalysisofrecentcircuitsplitsthatthismethodof thinking is awed because the risk of future identity theft is widely regarded as legitimateharm Additionally,analysisofhowlawsandprecedentcasesregardingdata privacy have changed to dene a standard for what citizens should expect from corporations who collecttheirdatarevealstheneedforanationalstandardfordata privacy.Giventheissuesregardingstandinganddataprivacy,solutionsareproposedto benetconsumers Mainlyemphasizedisthefactthatastricterleashneedstobeplaced oncorporationssothatconsumerscanfeelmoreateasewhenprovidingtheirpersonal information.Currently,thelawsthatexistarebiasedagainstconsumers,andthuswhile stricterpoliciessuchastheCCPAarestepsintherightdirection,alotmorestillneeds tobedone.

JOANNEMA AreFan-MadeTextsFairUse?

ABSTRACT. Writtentextsareabletoqualifyforcopyrightprotectionsthathelpserve aslegalprotectionsandownershipsfortheauthor.However,oftentimesthesewritten textscanbecomeaninspirationforanothertextderivative.Thesetextderivativesare consideredcopyrightinfringementiftheyareinterpretedassobyjudicialcourtsunder fourfactors.Theprecedentofthesefourfactorsarethattheyaretreateddierentlyby dierent courts as seen through court cases such as Dr. Seuss Enterprises, L.P. v. Penguin Books USA, Inc. and WarnerBros.Entertainment,Inc.andJ.KRowlingv. RDRBookswherecourtsshowcompellingandyetdierentinterpretationsofthefour factors This article highlights how there should be a better understanding and a multi-tieredmethodologyforinterpretingthefourfactors.Ultimately,derivativetexts shouldbedeemedtransformativeenoughinnatureregardlessofwhetheritsatisesany of the other three factors and should be able to satisfyoneoftheremainingthree factors Thishelpsprotecttheauthor(s)oftheoriginalcopyrightedworkwhilealso allowingforcreativityandprofoundbenetstosociety.

AUTHOR. JoanneMaisasecond-yearstudentatUCSDstudyingPoliticalScienceand PublicHealth OutsideofUndergraduateLawReviewsheistheincomingVice PresidentforKappaAlphaPiandisinvolvedwiththeBasicNeedsHuboncampus Sheplansonattendinglawschoolandisespeciallyinterestedinhumanrights, immigrationlaw,andfair-usedoctrine.

INTRODUCTION

Twentyyearsafteritspublication,theHarryPotterseriesbyJ.K.Rowlinghassold ve hundred million copies worldwide, in eighty languages, and in bothprintand eBook formats 1 In the rst half of 2020, Rowling made $60 million on books, amusementparksbasedafterthepopularseries,andotherventuresmadepossibleby thecopyrightssheretains.2 Althoughit’sbeenmorethantenyearssincethelastbook’s publication,thepopularfranchiseisstillprotable.Becauseofthelargefanbaseand immense potential forprot,therearemanywhodecidetomakewrittenfan-made works Examplesofsuchworksincludereferencebooks,websites,blogs,etc,thatcan beusedforbothprivateandcommercialpurposes.Thesefan-madeworks,specically those that are textual media, must follow specic copyright guidelines in order to ensure fair use oftheoriginalwork.Iftheydonotfollowthesecopyrightlaws,the oendermayfacemonetarypunishmentsupto$150,000 3

Inorderforworkstoqualifyasfairuse,theymustmeetfourcriteriathatwillbe discussed in this article. The criteria are that they have to be of non-protand/or educationaluse,bedistinctfromtheoriginalwork,haveaninsignicantamountofthe original text copied, and avoid underminingthemonetaryvalueofthecopyrighted literarywork Thefairusefactor,alsoknownasFactorOne,orthefactorofwhatis “transformative”inthisarticle,isthemostimportantwhenitcomestofan-madetexts. This is because if the work is transformative, it is distinguished from the original copyrightedworkandcanbetreatedasitsownwork.Thisfactorisoftendebatedand complianceisdeterminedbasedoneachcourt’sowninterpretation

Eachcaseofcopyrightinfringementiscurrentlyinterpretedonanindividualbasis astheterm“transformative”isvague.Eventhoughthereissomegeneralconsensusof what is “transformative,” as we will see inthisarticle,thereisstillnoconcreteand betterworkingsystemofwhatqualiesas“transformative”work

Inthisarticle,wewillreconstructthe“transformative”qualicationintoamore concreteideathatallderivativeworkssuchasfan-madeonescanadhereto.Wewilldo

1 500millionHarryPotterbookshavenowbeensoldworldwide,WɪᴢᴀʀᴅɪɴɢWᴏʀʟᴅ(Feb 1,2018), https://www.wizardingworld.com/news/500-million-harry-potter-books-have-now-been-sold-worl dwide

2 ProfileforJ.K.Rowling,Fᴏʀʙᴇs(June3,2020),https://www.forbes.com/prole/jk-rowling/.

3 CommenttoWhataretheconsequencesandpenaltiesforcopyrightinfringement?,BYULɪʙʀᴀʀʏ (May1,2019), https://libbyuedu/faq/244777/#:~:text=In%20general%2C%20anyone%20found%20guilty,to%20 %24150%2C000%20per%20work%20infringed.

sobyrstdeningtheconceptspertinenttotheissue:fan-madeworkinSectionI,and existingcopyrightconditionsforderivedworksinSectionII.InSectionIVweoutline thecurrentfourcriteriaandgiveexamplesoftheirapplications,andintherestofthe articleexplainwhythereshouldbeanewwayofconsideringwhatisfairandlegaluse. Wewillconcludewiththecurrentfourcriteriaandhowtomakethemmorecohesive and applicable to multiple diverse situations This can be done by making the transformativefactortheprimaryfactorthatmustbesatisedandinsteadonlyhaving tosatisfyonemorecriteriaoutoftheremainingthree.

I. WHAT IS FAN-MADE WORK?

Thetermfan-madeworkdoesnotnecessarilymeanthatithastobewrittenbya “fan.”Rather,afan-madeworkisaproductofsomebodywhotookinspirationfrom, copied, or manipulated, etc aspects of an author’s copyrighted work, which may include but is not limited to, plot,words,chapters,characters,andsoforth These workscanbeforbothcommercialand/orprivateuse.Whileprivateworksmayseem harmless, private uses can also be damaging to the author if they devalue their copyrightedwork.Inthisarticle,wefocusontextderivatives.Derivativesinthisarticle refertowrittenwordsthatarederivedfromanothercopyrightedsource The“amount copiedorinuenced”isaconvolutedissuethatwewilldiscussfurtherinSectionIV whendiscussingFactorThree.Movies,music,merchandising,etc.arenotincludedin thisanalysisthoughtheycouldpossiblybeapplied.

II. COPYRIGHT PROTECTIONS

Even though we focus on copyright terms in this article, trademarks are also sometimesrelevant,especiallywhenthecharactersorspecicplacesareuniquetothe piece of literature According to the United States Patent and Trademark Oce,a trademark isapplicableto “aword,phrase,design,oracombinationthatidenties your goods or services distinguishesthemfromthegoodsorservicesofothers,and indicatesthesourceofyourgoodsorservices”while“artistic,literary,orintellectually created works, such as novels, music, movies, software code, photographs, and paintingsthatareoriginalandexistinatangiblemedium,suchaspaper,canvas,lm, or digital format” qualify for copyright. Federal protection for trademarks include protecting “the trademark from being registered by others withoutpermissionand helpsyoupreventothersfromusingatrademarkthatissimilartoyourswithrelated goods orservices”Federalprotectionforcopyrightsprotect“yourexclusiverightto

4

reproduce,distribute,andperformordisplaythecreatedwork”,andprevent“other people from copying or exploiting the creation without the copyright holder’s permission.”4

Thekeydierencebetweenatrademarkandacopyrightisthatatrademarkrefers tothingsthatarenotoriginalinnaturebutareuniqueanddistinctforaspecicbrand, company,image,etc,whileacopyrightreferstosomethingoriginallycreatedbythe ler.Botharediscussedwhenreferencingderivativeworksandtheirlegality.

Inliterature,anexampleofsomethingthatisabletobetrademarkedincludesthe characters,titleofthetext,etc.whilethecopyrightappliestotheverbatimofthework. Howmuchoftheverbatimthatshouldbeallowedtobecopiedwillbediscussedlater oninthispaper.

Understanding trademarks and copyrights is essential to understanding how a literaryworkmaybedeemedfairuseornot.Inliterature,theworkasawholeissubject tocopyrightbutcharacternames,places,etc canbesubjecttotrademarks Thismakes itdicultforalotoffan-madetextstobeconsideredfairuseastherearetrademark protectionsonaspectsofliteraryworkssuchascertaincharactersandlocations.

III. COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT QUALIFICATIONS IN LITERATURE

The United States Copyright Oce states, “As a general matter, copyright infringementoccurswhenacopyrightedworkisreproduced,distributed,performed, publicly displayed, or made into a derivative work without the permission of the copyrightowner”5

Inordertoqualifyforcopyrightprotection,apieceofliteraturemustberegistered withtheU.S.CopyrightOce.67

Unlessgivenpermissionfromthecopyrightowner,noonecanrecreatetheoriginal work in any way Books cannotbereprinted/reproducedwithoutconsentfromthe copyright-holdingpartieswhetherthatistheauthorsthemselvesorpublishinghouses Blogsandotherreferencebooksthereforecannotcopysubstantialamountsofthetext

Trademark,patent,orcopyright,UɴɪᴛᴇᴅSᴛᴀᴛᴇsPᴀᴛᴇɴᴛᴀɴᴅTʀᴀᴅᴇᴍᴀʀᴋOғғɪᴄᴇ(Mar 312021), https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/basics/trademark-patent-copyright.

5 Definitions,US CᴏᴘʏʀɪɢʜᴛOғғɪᴄᴇ,https://wwwcopyrightgov/help/faq/faq-denitionshtml (lastvisitedApr.25,2021).

6 LiteraryWorks,US CᴏᴘʏʀɪɢʜᴛOғғɪᴄᴇ,https://wwwcopyrightgov/registration/literary-works/ (lastvisitedMay23,2021).

7 FormTX,US CᴏᴘʏʀɪɢʜᴛOғғɪᴄᴇ,https://wwwcopyrightgov/forms/formtxpdf(lastvisitedMay 23,2021).

asthetextfallsundercopyrightterms Theamountallowedtobeincludedbasedon fairusewillbediscussedlater.

IV. FAIR USE OF LITERATURE

A. ALAFairUseGuidelines

TheAmericanLibraryAssociation(ALA)detailshowfairuserelatestoliterature throughTheLibrarian’sGuidetoIntellectualPropertyintheDigitalAge:Copyrights, Patents, and Trademarks by Timothy Lee Wherry.8 In it, Wherry describes how normalcopyrightlawsmakeithardforworksofliteraturetobeusedineducational settings,thusleadingtospecic“fairuse”termsforliterature

In1978,copyrightprotectionswereextendedfrom28yearsto47yearsandhad newcopyrighttermsadded.Then,theDigitalMillenniumCopyrightAct(DCMA) wasintroducedin1998forfairusetobeappliedinthedigitalsetting.Theinternet changed how thingscouldbereplicatedandthustheneedfornewcopyrightterms ensued

The Librarian’s Guide to Intellectual Property in the Digital Age: Copyrights, Patents,andTrademarksalsogoesontostatethatinordertouseacopyrightedpiece ofworkunderfairuse,itmustapplytofourfactors.Inallcourts,thesefourfactorsare considered to determine whether or not a fan-made work of acopyrightedliterary workfallsunderthefairusestandard 9

B. RestructuringTheFourFactors

ThisarticlewillarguethatinsteadoftreatingthefourfactorsequallyintheUnited States, courts should adopt a hierarchy of factors in which Factor One, the transformativefactor,shouldbeprioritizedandrequiredwhenmakingaderivedwork. Theotherthreeshouldbetreatedequallywiththederivedwork’sauthoronlyhaving tosatisfyoneofthem Insummary,authorsofderivedworkhavetosatisfyFactorOne andthenanyoneoftheotherthreefactors.Whilethishierarchyandpick-and-choose argumentmayseemrestrictive,therearecertainelementstothisthatwewillshoware

solvedoncethetransformativefactorisclearlydenedbytheauthorsthemselvesand placedonahigherlevelofimportance.

Oeringthisconcretesolutiontothevaguelawsinplaceforcopyrightedliterature helpscourtsmaintainaconsistentstanceoncopyrightthatisbothrmandeasyto understand It allows for both the author of the original copyrighted work or the authorofthederivedworktoknowexactlywhattypeofprotectionstheyareentitled to. From both a legal and logical standpoint, having a moreconcretedenitionof copyrighthelpscreatemoredependablecopyrightpoliciesonwrittentext.

C. FactorOne

Most courtsreviewcopyrightinfringementonacase-by-casebasis,withalotof debatefocusingonthenatureofusage Thisisbecauseeventhoughthefourfactorsare supposed to be equal, courts often placeahigherimportanceonsomefactorsover others, ruling the copyright cases by thespecicfactorstheychooseforthecaseto focus on. Even if the author experiences monetary loss, other justication for the piece’spurposemaystillconstituteitasbeingfairuse Wherrydescribesthisfactoras whether or not the piece of literature is used for educational purposes and is non-commercial.Ifitisusedforeducationalpurposesandnotdemeaningtheauthor’s original work, then the use should be considered fair use as long as it is also “transformative”

Worksthatarecopiedforeducationalpurposescanincludebutarenotlimitedto copying something already in thelibraries’reservesorfortheclasstouseonetime. Wherry also mentions that if the professor incorporates the material into his curriculumandplansonusingitformanyterms,hemustsecurepermissiontodoso fromtheauthor

Something is considered transformative if it adds something new or serves a dierent purpose than the original work. This can include adding new characters, makingsatirepiecesaboutit,etc.Theterm“transformative”isverybroadandthus manydefensesliketoutilizeitanddebateonwhat“transformative”entails

Havingauthorsdenewhattheywouldconsideratransformativeuseoftheirwork would not be unreasonable since authors already have to complete paperwork to obtaincopyrightsfortheirworkintherstplace.Thismeansallowingauthorstolist outwhattheyconsiderasnottransformativeuseontheircopyrightpaperworkmaybe feasible and allows for a rmer understanding of the contextual denition of transformative.Thiscancomeintheformofashortsectioninthepaperworkwhere

theauthorsthemselvesmusthighlightwhattheyconsiderfairuseoftheirworkand whatisnot.Theycanevenchoosetoprotecttheirworkfrombeingreplicatedand/or usedinanyshapeorform.

Furthermore,thisnewformatwouldallowfortheretobemorecreativederivatives thatcanresultfromtheoriginalworkwhilealsomaintaining theauthor’sprotection oftheirproperty

RegardingthecommercialusagepossibilitiesofFactorOne,mostfan-madetexts, suchasblogsandfreereferencebooks,aremadeforprivateuseamongfans.However, theycouldstartprotingotheblogsandsellingthereferencebooks.Inthatcase,the natureofthetextbecomescommercial

Thisfactorshouldbetheonethathastobesatisedbecauseitisabletoprotectthe original author’s work by makingsurenooneelsebutthemisprotingfromtheir work.Furthermore,byhavingtheoriginalauthorlistouttheirtermsforwhatisnot “transformative”useoftheirwork,thissolutionallowsderivativestostillbeusedfor commercial purposes but none that would be consideredtoomuchoftheoriginal author’sworktotheextentwheretheyfeelasiftheyshouldbetheonesproting.

In the next few sections we will be using examples to explain why the transformativenaturefactorshouldcomerstandthederivedworkshouldonlyhave tosatisfyoneoftheremainingthreefactors

1. CasesRegardingTransformativeNature

InTheAuthor’sGuildv Hathitrust,allfourfactorswereconsidered However,it was the argument that the work was transformative that secureditsfairusestatus. Courts look at the other factors, but there is a precedent of emphasizing how transformativetheworkis.AsmentionedinPartIV.C,iftheauthorsthemselveswere allowedtointerpretwhattransformativemeansfortheirwork,thatwouldeliminate theneedtointerpretthetransformativestatusofawork Furthermore,thecontinuous emphasisonhowtransformativeaworkisemphasizestheneedtorestructurethefour factorsintoone,withFactorOnebeingthemainfairuseguidelineofliteraryworks andtheotherthreeassupplementaryfactors,onlyhavingtosatisfyatleastone With FactorOnealsobeingthesamefactorthattheauthorsthemselveshavetospecifyon copyright applications, it would allow for a morespecicinterpretationthatisstill basedonacase-by-casebasisbasedontheoriginalcopyrightapplication.Byhavingto onlysatisfyoneoftheotherfactors,authorsoffan-madeworkswillbeallowedmore

leeway of what theycanmake,whilealsomakingsureitistransformativeandthus culturallyimportant.

2. TheAuthor’sGuildv.Hathitrust

Hathitrust Digital Library (HDL) was a shared digital repository with digital copiesofmorethantenmillionbooksatthetimeofthecase.Itsmembersincluded eightycolleges,universities,andothernonprotinstitutions.10ThroughtheHathitrust DigitalLibrary,anyonewasabletolookupspecictextfromaworkofliterature It alsomadeliteraturemoreaccessibletopeopleofdisabilities

The courts ruled the ability to search up words of a text as “quintessentially transformative” because “[T]he result of a word search is dierent in purpose, character,expression,meaning,andmessagefromthepage(andthebook)fromwhich it is drawn”11 They also determined that looking up words of a text also did not impose monetary losses towards the authors. This also takes on another form of transformativenatureinwhichtheuseitselfisdierentfromwhattheoriginaltextwas capableof.

The nature of using the database to print disability accessible texts was also determinedbythecourtsasfair Thenatureofhowthedatabasewasbeingusedwas important to the court in determining their ruling because they cited the level of accessibilityintheliteratureindustryatthetime.Furthermore,thecourtsalsostated thatuseofsuchtextcanbeinvaluableandthereforeimportanttosociety.Forthese reasons,Hathitrust’suseswereruledasfairuse 12

Fan-madetextsalsomaketextsmoreaccessibleforthosethatareunabletoaordit. Literarybookscanbeexpensiveandfan-madetextcanhelpdedicatedfanswithoutthe monetarymeanstoaccesscertainaspectsofthebooks.Furthermore,fan-madetexts canbeconsideredamonetaryissue However,blogs,referencebooks,andfanction help spread the literary franchises even more, resulting in monetary gain for the originalauthorratherthantheopposite.

10

AuthorsGuild,Inc.v.HathiTrust,755F.3d87(2dCir.2014),U.S.CᴏᴘʏʀɪɢʜᴛOғғɪᴄᴇ, https://wwwcopyrightgov/fair-use/summaries/authorsguild-hathitrust-2dcir2014pdf

11 Id.

12 RichStim,SummariesofFairUseCases,SᴛᴀɴғᴏʀᴅLɪʙʀᴀʀɪᴇs, https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/cases/(lastvisitedApr.26,2021).

The transformative use of the text can also be part of how a text can be transformativeandthereforebythecourtsrulingthiscaseasfairuse,13wecaninferthat theusageitselfbeingtransformativecanmakethetextfairuse.

3 Dr SeussEnterprises,LP v PenguinBooksUSA,Inc

Somethingcanbetransformativeoftheoriginalliteraryworkifitbringstolighta new meaning of the work. For example, satire can change the perspectives that audienceshaveofthework,makingitatransformativetakeontheoriginalwork.

InDr.SeussEnterprises,L.P.v.PenguinBooksUSA,Inc.,abooktitled,TheCat NOTintheHat!AParodybyDr.JuicethattoldthestoryoftheO.J.Simpsontrials wanted to use some elements from the children’s bookTheCatintheHatbyDr. Seuss 14 The Cat NOT in theHat!AParodybyDr Juiceincludedthesamerhyme schemes,thematicandnarrativeelements,andcertainchiefcharacteridentierssuchas theclassredandwhitestripedhatthatthecatwears.15Thecourt’smainchallengewas determiningifunauthorizedcopyingofanoriginalwork’sartisticstyle,plot,themes, andcertainkeycharacterelementsqualiedasfairuse 16Ifitwasconsideredfairuse,it wouldbeconsideredsoonlyifsuchusewastransformative

Other than whether The Cat NOT in the Hat! A Parody by Dr. Juice was transformative, the NinthCircuitfoundthatitviolatedtheotherfactors.Sincethe stylingandnatureoftheworkwassomuchliketheoriginalbookbyDr.Seuss,itdid not count asfairuse Manypartsoftheoriginalbookwerealsocopiedandthefan workitselfwascreatedforcommercialuse.Allthesefactorsledthedecisiontobenot fairusealongsideiftheworkwastransformativeornot.17

TheCatNOTintheHat!AParodybyDr.Juicewaswrittenasaparodybutthe courts deemed it satire (however, not one that would defame the character of Dr Seuss)thatusedcharactersandplotsfromDr Seuss’sworks

13

AuthorsGuild,Inc v HathiTrust,755F3d87(2dCir 2014),US CᴏᴘʏʀɪɢʜᴛOғғɪᴄᴇ, https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/summaries/authorsguild-hathitrust-2dcir2014.pdf.

14

15

Dr SeussEnterprises,LPv PenguinBooks,109F3d1394(9thCir 1997)

Dr.SeussEnters.,LPv.PenguinBooksUSA,Inc.,109F.3d1394(9thCir.1997),U.S.Cᴏᴘʏʀɪɢʜᴛ Oғғɪᴄᴇ,https://wwwcopyrightgov/fair-use/summaries/drseuss-penguinbooks-9thcir1997pdf

16 Id.

17 RichStim,SummariesofFairUseCases,SᴛᴀɴғᴏʀᴅLɪʙʀᴀʀɪᴇs, https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/cases/(lastvisitedApr.26,2021).

The Ninth Circuit did not ndtheusetransformativeasitmade“noeortto createatransformativeworkwith"newexpression,meaning,ormessage."18TheNinth Courtinthiscasespecicallypointsoutthatinordertoqualifyastransformative,it musttakeonanewexpression,meaning,ormessage.Thiscasegivesaclearerviewon whatcancountastransformativeasitcouldonlyruleonthisfactor Thisdenition helps set a precedent of what should count as transformativeinallcopyrightcases moving forward. The Ninth Circuitndingareasontodenewhattransformative natureisfurtherreectstheimportanceofatextbeingtransformativeandwhatthat entails.

Ifafan-madeblogsorotherpoststhatincludedsimilarstructuretotheoriginal work but changed the context, it would be considered copyright infringement. Multiple posts made on social media may also fall under this protection. This is becausethatwouldnotbeconsideredtransformativeenough.However,thenatureitis beingusedinisnon-commercialandthuswillstillberuledasfairifjustconsidered underFactorOne.

4. Salingerv.Colting

JD Salingeristheauthorofthepopularbookpublishedin1951,TheCatcherin theRye.Anauthorhadwrittenabookcalled60YearsLater:ComingThroughtheRye (60YearsLater)inEnglandonMay9,2009,andsetitsU.S.publicationdatefor September15,2009.Sincethebookswereconsideredverysimilarinmanyaspectssuch ascharacter,setting,andstyle,thecourtsruledthattheauthorof60YearsLater: ComingThroughtheRye(60YearsLater)wasintentionalofitsusetousethebook’s charactersandotheraspectsofthebookthatalsofallunderSalinger’scopyrightterms forTheCatcherintheRye.19

TheuseofcharactersfromSalinger’soriginalliteraryworkwasconsidered infringementeventhoughthecharacterin60YearsLater:ComingThroughtheRye(60 YearsLater)wasaltered,madeolder,andevenplacedinadierenttimeperiod.This casedeterminesthatchangingthecharacter’sfeaturesisstillaviolationofcopyrights.If thepurposeofcopyingthecharactersinanyshapeorformwasintentionalanddoes notaddanythingnewtotheoriginalcharacter,itcanpotentiallyalterthestory,which wouldmakeitineligibleunderthefairusestandard.Thiscanbeusedbyauthorsto

18

Dr SeussEnterprises,LPv PenguinBooks,109F3d1394(9thCir 1997)

19 Salingerv.Colting,641F.Supp.2d250(S.D.N.Y.2009).

preventtheirworksandcharactersfrombeingcopiedastheycanarguethatsimple alterationsoftheircharactersarestillappropriatetotheircopyright.

InSalingerv.Colting,thenewworkwasnottransformativeenoughtobe consideredfairuse.Thiscasesetprecedentbyhighlightingwhat“transformative” actuallyentails Weknowthroughthiscasethatinorderforaworktobeconsidered “transformative”fromtheoriginal,itmustcontainsignicantchangestotheplotsand characterseveniftheauthorisjustusingthemasinspiration.Simplealterationslike changingthetimeittookplaceandageofthecharactersdoesnotmakeit transformativeenough.20

Thiscasecanbeappliedtovariousfan-madetextssuchasfanctions Fanctionis ctionwrittenbyafanofsomething,puttingwhattheyareafanofinsidethectional story.Thiswouldmeanthatfanctionitselfhastobecompletelytransformativeand unliketheoriginalplotforittoqualifyasfairuse.Simplyusingthesamecharacters andsettingbutinadierentcontextwouldstill subjectfanctiontocopyrightlaws Someauthorsmightviewfanctionsastooclosetotheirownwork,sinceit borrowscharactersandsometimesplotsfromtheircopyrightedwork.Inthisspecic instance,theauthorbeingabletoestablishinthebeginningoftheircopyrightterm whatisnotfairusewillprotecttheauthorsfromfanctionitdeemsinappropriate whilealsoallowingfanstomakefanctionthatistruly“transformative”accordingto theauthor.IfthiswascreatedduringSalingerv.Colting,theideaofwhatis “transformative”wouldhavealreadybeenestablishedanditwouldbemoreclearifit wasorisn’tfairuse,whichinthiscase,itwasn'tfairuse.

D FactorsTwoThroughFourHavingSameSignificance

WhilethereisanemphasisonFactorOneinvariousCircuitsofAppealCourts, The signicance ofFactorsTwothroughFourtendstobejudgedonacasebycase basis Furthermore,insomeexamples,althoughsomeoftheworksdonotqualifyas oneofthefactors,theyarestillconsideredfairuse.Thisdisproportionatevaluingof whataresupposedtobeequalfactorsbringstolighttheneedforanewsystemwhere creatorsoffanworksonlyneedtosatisfytherstfactorandoneoftheotherthree factors Wewillfurtherexplorethisconceptbygoingintodepthaboutfactorstwoto four

20

Salingerv Colting,607F3d68(2dCir 2010),USCᴏᴘʏʀɪɢʜᴛOғғɪᴄᴇ, https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/summaries/salinger-colting-2dcir2010.pdf.

E FactorTwo

Howtheworkisdesignedtobeusedisimportant.Wherryargues, Nonctionworkshavereceivedmoreleewayinfairusethanctionincourt cases involving fair use Theissueseemstobethatnonctionsimplyrelates factswhereasctionreectstruecreativeinspiration.Ahealthworkbookwith tear-outpagesfordoingassignmentswouldnotbeagoodcandidateforfairuse ifateachermadecopiesoftheconsumablepages.Anarticlefromatextbook wouldbeagoodcandidateforfairuse Audiovisualworksorsoftwarearenot goodcandidatesforfairuse.21

Whendescribingsomethingasfairuseornot,youmustlookatthetransformative natureespeciallywhenitisactioncopyrightedtext Byusingthetranformivityfactor asthemostimportant,courtswillbeabletoaddressthisissueofthenatureofusageas ifitisnottransformativeenough,itwillbeconsideredaviolationofthenatureof usageasitwillthenbecopyingthecreativeinspirationthatisownedbytheoriginal author Inthisstatement,Wherryexplainsthatsincenonctionworksarefact-based andareintendedtobeusedforeducationalpurposesoraredesignedtobecopiedand learnedbythereader,theirfairusetermsarebroader.However,sincetheyarederived fromsomeone’sownideasandcreativity,theyaresubjecttocopyrightprotection.

Howapieceofliteratureisusedisalsoimportantandrelevanttowhetherornotit fallsunderfairuse Whenwetalkaboutthenatureofusage,wearetalkingabouthow theintendedliteraturepieceisgoingtooriscurrentlybeingused.Mostcourtsreview copyrightinfringementonacase-by-casebasis,withalotofdebatefocusingonthe natureofusage.Eveniftherearemonetarylossesontheauthor,howtheliterarypiece isbeingusedmaystillconstituteitasbeingfairuse

Thisfactorisnotusedasmuch,asmostcasesthatgotocourtdosobecausethey concernliteraryworksmadeformonetarypurposesandtheplaintisaresuingfor economicdamagesandincentives.Assuch,thisfactorshouldnotbegivenequal importanceasFactorOnebecauseitisrarelyrelevant.Furthermore,byaddressing whetherornotatextistransformativeenough,alreadysolvestheissueofhowmuchof natureofusageasiftransformativeenough,thereisnoneedtodiscussnatureofusage

sinceitwillbeconsideredtoodierentfromtheoriginalworktobeabletoanalyzedby howitisusedandhowmuchofitis.

Fan-madebooksarederivativesofbookssuchasHarryPotter,whicharection booksthataremadeforprot.AsweseelateroninWarnerBros.Entertainment,Inc. andJKRowlingv RDRBooks,authorsoffan-madeworksgetsuedastheyareseenas takingprotawayfromtheauthorwhowrotethebookforprot-driven, non-educationalreasons.Evenso,WarnerBros.Entertainment,Inc.andJ.KRowlingv. RDRBooksstilldeemedthereferencebookasfairuseaslongasitdidn’tcopyasmuch oftheoriginaltextasitdid.EvenwithoutthechaptersRDRBookshadcopiedintheir referencebook,itstillshouldnothavepassedFactorTwoasHarryPotterwaswritten byJ.K.Rowlingforcommercialuse.Thisshowshowcertainfactorsarenotgiventhe sameimportanceasotherfactors.Assuch,thereshouldbeanewrestructuringofthe importanceofthefactors.Furthermore,thiscasealsoshowshowcommercialuseof fan-madetextshouldbepermittedaslongasitsatisesFactorOneofbeing transformativeandsatisesoneoftheotherfactors,notcopyingsubstantialamounts oftheoriginalwork.

F FactorThree

Onlyasmallportionoftheentireworkcanbeused.Thisincludesusefor educationalpurposesorotherpurposeslistedinFactorOne.Thisfactorisnot necessarilyaboutthenatureoftheworkbeingusedbutabouthowmuchisusedandif thatpartusedisimportanttotheworkitself Thismeansthatwhilethereisnota certainpercentage/percentageceilingofhowmuchyoucanreproduceofliterary works,onecannotreproduceasignicantamountofthework.Sometimes,thepart usedcanbeconsideredanimportantpartoftheliterarywork,andthusfairuseisnot permitted

Thisfactorisoftensubjecttothecourt’sowndiscretion,asexempliedin CambridgeUniversityPressv.Patton.

1. CambridgeUniversityPressv.Patton

Thiscasehighlightshowfairuseofliteratureappliesineducationalsettingsand/or purposes.TheEleventhCircuitCourtofAppealsinCambridgeUniversityPressv. Pattonsettheprecedentofcopyrightedliteratureworksbeingsubjectto“fairuse.”In

CambridgeUniversityPressv Patton,thecourtsruledthatGeorgiaStateUniversity wasnotinfringingonintellectualpropertyin70outof75cases.22

ThecaseexploresthefourfactorsdescribedinPartIVandusesthesecondand fourthfactortodeterminethatthemajorityoftheworksusedwasfairuseasthenature oftheworkwassubjecttofairuse Italsodidnotaectthemonetaryvalueofthe works Thecourtsarguedforfairuseforeducationalpurposesbutthatcertain restrictions,suchasnotbeingabletocopytheentirework,shouldbeinplaceinorder fortheretobeeconomicincentivesforauthorstoproduceandpublishworksof literature.Thecourtsalsoruledthatinregardtothethirdfactor,theamountofwork usedshouldbedeterminedonacase-by-casebasisandnotbasedonanoverallset amount.Inthiscase,70outof75oftheliteraturecopiedwerenotconsideredtohave copiedtoomuchoftheoriginalwork.Thiscasesettheprecedentofworksbeingused asfairuseundereducationalsettingsaswellasexploringthefourfactorsequally.

CambridgeUniversityPressv Pattonwassignicantbecauseitevaluatedthenature oftheworkbeingused.Sincethenatureofhowtheworkwasgoingtobeusedwasfor educationalpurposesanditwasonlyexcerptsoftheoriginalthatwascopied,itis consideredfairuse.Theuseoftheworksisbenetingsocietyandthusthecourts consideritfairuse 23

Inthisinstance,thoughtheyunderstoodthepotentialmonetarylosstothe author(s),theyruledaccordingtoanemphasisonthenatureoftheworkbeingused andwhyitisalsojustasimportantasmonetaryconsiderations.Thecourtsalsodidnot setanamountthatcanbecopiedfromaliteraryworkandfallunderfairusebutthatit shouldbedeterminedonacasebycasebasis

Asmentionedearlier,itisimportanttonotethatwhileallfourfactorsare consideredtobeofequalimportance,sometimesacertainfactorcantakeprecedence andsetthecourtstodecidebasedonthatfactoralone.Weseeacaseofthisinthiscase asthemonetarylossestotheauthorsthemselvesisonlybrieytoucheduponwhen discussingthatauthorsshouldhaveeconomicincentivestopublishworksofliterature Evenso,thecourtsstillruledintheschool’sfavor.

ThishighlightshowFactorOne,thenatureoftheusage,isgivenmoreimportance thantheotherfactorsalreadyincourts,suchasintheEleventhCircuitCourtof Appeals ByrestructuringthefactorswhereonlyFactorOneandoneoftheotherthree

22

CambridgeUniversityPressv Patton,769F3d1232(11thCir 2014)

23 CambridgeUniversityPressv.Patton,769F.3d1232(11thCir.2014),AᴍᴇʀɪᴄᴀɴAss’ɴᴏғUɴɪᴠ. Pʀᴏғᴇssᴏʀs, https://www.aaup.org/brief/cambridge-university-press-v-patton-769-f3d-1232-11th-cir-ga-2014.

factorshavetobemet,itallowsformoreeducationalandsociallybenecialusesof literaturetobeallowed.

2. WarnerBros.Entertainment,Inc.andJ.KRowlingv.RDRBooks

InWarnerBros.Entertainment,Inc.andJ.KRowlingv.RDRBooks,theUnited StatesDistrictCourtfortheSouthernDistrictofNewYorkarguedonfairuseofJ.K. Rowling’scharacterandtextfromthepopularfranchiseHarryPotterinaRDRBook, “TheLexicon.”“TheLexicon”wastobeanencyclopediaaboutHarryPotter charactersandcontainedalargenumberoftext,characters,andideasfromthebooks J.K.Rowlingherselfwishedtopublishasimilarbookandthus“TheLexicon”would causenancialdamagetoher.Thecourtsruledthatreferenceguidesandcompanion booksaboutliteraryworksarenotconsideredanextensionoftheoriginalliterary work However,sincethebookscontainedanextensiveverbatimuseofHarryPotter’s textswherecertainchapterswerecopied,itisconsideredcopyrightinfringementof J.K.Rowling’sproperty.

Itwasconsideredsimplyareferencebookthatretoldtheoriginalandnota derivativebook Thisallowsreferencebookstobepublishedwithouttheauthor’s consent However,oncepartsofthetextarecopied,itisinfringement Userscancreate booksandotherworksofartinuencedbyandreferencingcopyrightedliteraryworks butcannotcopyamassamountofthetext(thereisnospecicamountspeciedby thisfactorbutitisrelativetohowmuchoftheworkitis) thatfallsundercopyright legislation 24

“TheLexicon”wasconsidered“transformative”enoughoftheoriginalwork, HarryPotter,eventhoughitincludedallthecharactersofthefranchiseasitplaced thesecharactersunderonebookwhichwasneverdonebefore.However,thisusagewas notenoughtosatisfyalltheotherfactorssuchasFactorThree Itcanalsobeargued thatsince“TheLexicon”waspublishedformonetarygainswhilecontaininga signicantamountofJ.K.Rowling’stext,itwouldbeinfringementonJ.K.Rowling’s ownintellectualpropertyasshewouldnotbecompensatedfortheusage.Thisisone ofthereasonsthatJ.K.Rowlinghadmentionedintheoriginalstatementbutwasnot usedbythecourtindeterminingfairuseorinfringement Thecommercialnatureof

24

WarnerBros.EntertainmentInc.v.RDRBooks,575F.Supp.2d513(S.D.N.Y.2008).

usageensuredthatthecreatorwouldreceivemonetarycompensationwhilenotgiving anytoJ.K.Rowlingwouldnot.25

Inthisinstance,boththenatureoftheusageandhow“transformative”the purposeof“TheLexicon”wasimportantindeterminingthedecision.Byusingthe samecharacters,plots,andmostimportantlytextfromtheoriginalHarryPotter books,itwasnotfairuse Thecourt’srulingof“TheLexicon”beingtransformativeis important;itarmsthatbyrepurposingthebookinadierentway,itisfairuse. Thisspecicexamplehighlightshowreferencebooksareallowedaslongasit doesnotborrowtoomuchfromtheoriginalwork.Thiscasealsoarmsreference booksareconsideredtransformativeaslongastheauthorsthemselveshavenotreleased oneyetordonotintendonreleasingone.

InWarnerBros.Entertainment,Inc.andJ.KRowlingv.RDRBooks,itwas armedthat“transformative”useofcopyrightedandtrademarkedmaterialinliterary worksmustshowthematerialinanewlightthathasnotbeendonebytheauthor themselves.Largepartsoftheworkcannotbecopiedverbatimbutthecharacters themselvesandplotscanberearrangedinawaythatisnew,likethatofareference book.

RDRlaterpublishes“TheLexicon”afterremovingthepartsofthebookthatwere consideredheavilycopied 26Thisgoestoshowthatwhilethisfactor,FactorThree abouttheamountofthebookcopied,isimportant,FactorFour,whichdealswith monetaryvalues,isgivenlessimportance.EventhoughJ.K.Rowlingwantedto publishareferencebookherselfformonetarygainandthusthepublicationofRDR Books’referencebookwouldcausehermonetarylosses,thetransformativenatureof thebookallowedforRDRBookstopublishtheirreferencebookunderfairuse.

25

Rowlingv.RDRBooks,SᴛᴀɴғᴏʀᴅUɴɪᴠᴇʀsɪᴛʏ, http://cyberlawstanfordedu/our-work/cases/rowling-v-rdr-books(lastvisitedApr 25,2021)

IfJ.K.Rowlingwasallowedtolistoutwhatisnotafairuseofherownworkunder hercopyrightclaim,thiscouldhaveeasilybeenavoided.Ontheotherhand,thiscase showshowFactorOneisconsideredwaymoresignicantthantheotherfactorsand shouldbetheonlyfactorthathastoberequiredforfairuse Whilethereisany argumentthateventhoughonefactorisconsideredmoresignicantthanothers,there isafairargumenttobemadethatcertainfactorssuchasthetransformativeusageof theworkisadeningfactorinwhetherornotitiscopyrightinfringementandthe degreeofseverity 26 Id.

G FactorFour

Itisnotfairuseiftheuseoftheliteratureimpactsthemonetaryvalueand/orprot ofthepieceofliterature.Ifateachermakescopiesofabookorworkthatthenresults inlossofrevenueforthebookortext,thatisconsideredamonetarylossandissubject tocopyrightterms

1. SonyCorporationofAmericav.UniversalCityStudios,Inc.

Thiscasedescribeshowoneworkmaybeconsideredfairuseevenifitis copyrightedworkbecauseitwascopiedforprivateuseandthustherewasnomonetary loss.ThiscaseisimportantinunderstandingFactorFourwhichisconsideredagreater emphasisthantheothersforitseconomicunderstandingofcopyrightterms.

InSonyCorporationofAmericav UniversalCityStudios,Inc,otherwiseknownas theBetamaxCase,theSupremeCourtruledthatsincethetelevisionsetstapedwere notdoneforprot,itwastobeconsiderednoninfringement.

WhileSonythemselvesarguedthatthevideotaperecordersweremarketedto reproducetelevisionprogramming,thecourtsarguedthatthemainissuewashow muchVTR(viewthroughrate)recordingisaninfringementandthatitselfwasnota liabilityofSony,whomadethevideorecorders.VTR,viewthroughrate,iswhena videowasviewedbasedonpayingasetamountoneachepisodeorsometimesbythe minute.Theyalsoarguedthatprivateviewersaremorelikelytorecordthingsfortheir ownuse,thusnotcontributingtomonetarylossesforUniversal Theserecordings weretobeusedforpersonalmattersandnotsharedordistributed.27

Itisimportanttonotethatinthiscasethecourtalsoarguedthatprivateuserscan berecordingpublicbroadcastswhowouldnotobjecttotherecordings.Thesepublic broadcastseducatethepublicandaretypicallysponsoredbythepeoplethemselvesor thegovernment,thusmakingthempublicpropertyandsubjecttofairuse Regardless ofwhetheritwasapublicorprivatebroadcast,itmostlikelydoesnotchangethe monetaryvalueoftheoriginalbroadcast.

Asseenbythisdecision,mostcasesofworkreproductionarearguedonthebasisof whethertheycausemonetarydamageorchangethevalueofthatarticleofwork The

27

SonyCorp ofAmericav UniversalCityStudios,Inc,464US 417,104S Ct 774,78L Ed 2d 574(1984).

SupremeCourtsetaprecedentthatmonetarydamagesaretobefactoredintofairuse duringawork’scopyrightlengthinordertoconstituteinfringement.28

Inthisspeciccase,nothingwas“transformed”butduetothelackofmonetary lossforthecreatoritwasconsideredfairuse.Thenatureoftheusageitself,whichwas forpersonalandnotmonetaryreasons,wasthemainfactorusedtodeterminethatit wasfairuse WhileUniversalhadarguedonbehalfofmonetarylosses,Sonywonthe casebasedonthenaturethattherecordingswereused.Inthiscase,thenatureofusage wastiedintomonetarydamagesandinterpretedthenatureofusagebasedon monetaryvaluingofthebroadcaststhemselves SonyCorporationofAmericav UniversalCityStudios,Inc showsthatifthenatureoftheusageisprivateandthe authoritselfmadeitforpublicuseoritispartofthepublicdomain(seeSectionIV) thenitcanbeconsideredfairuse.

Iffan-madetextscausemonetarylossesorareforcommercialuse,itwouldbe consideredcopyrightinfringement However,fan-madetextsthatarewrittenfor privateandnon-commercialusewouldbeconsideredfairuseunderthisfactor. However,fan-madetextscanalsobesoldformonetaryvalueandconsideredfairuseas weseeinWarnerBros.EntertainmentInc.v.RDRBooks.Thetwofactorscontradict courtsinWarnerBros EntertainmentInc v RDRBooksdecidedtoplace disproportionateweightonthenatureofusage

InSonyCorporationofAmericav.UniversalCityStudios,Inc.,FactorOne regardingthenatureofuse,andFactorFourwereimportant.Eventhoughsome individualscouldhaverecordedentireepisodes,FactorThreewasnotconsidered importantinthisconsideration Thishighlightsevenmoresupportfortheneedto restructurethefactorsintofairusebeinghavingtoonlysatisfyFactorOneandoneof theotherthree.

Althoughthecontextofthiscasewasnotaliterarywork,thesameconclusionscan beappliedtoliteraryworksbecauseliteraryworkslikevideoscanbecopiedforboth privateandcommercialuse Thiscasemakesitclearthatprivateusesofcopyrighted worksarelegalwhereascommercialusewouldnotbe.

28

SonyCorporationofAmericav UniversalCityStudios,Inc,Oʏᴇᴢ, https://www.oyez.org/cases/1982/81-1687(lastvisitedApr25,2022).

H ConclusionOnTheFourFactors

Allfourfactorsaresupposedtobeconsideredequalindeterminingfairuse.In mostcases,allfourcasesarenotsatised,butthefan-madeworkisstillconsideredfair use Wherryalsostatesthatdamageawardsintheformofmoneycanonlybeawarded ifthereisproofofsignicanteconomiclossonbehalfoftheauthororsignicant economicgainonbehalfofthepersonwhocopied/usedthecopyrightedliterarywork. Therefore,thereisnotnecessarilyapunishmentforallofthefactorsunlessittiesinto monetaryconcerns Thepossiblepunishmentsforoendingtheotherfactorswould besimplybeingtoldtostopandifthereareanyotherlegalcosts

Bynothavingseveremonetarypenaltiesforviolatingtheotherfactors,manyworks arecopiedandnotviewedseriouslybycourts,leadingtobroadanddierent interpretationsbydierentcourtsincludingtheSupremeCourtandcircuitsof appeals Amoreconcreteunderstandingofwhatisconsidered“transformative”bythe author’sstandardseliminatestheneedtovieweachcasecarefullyanddecideona denitionfortransformativeeachtimeacopyrightcaseisled.

Bymakingthetransformativefactorthemainreasonforcopyrightinfringement, theissueofmonetarydamagestothecopyrightedwork’sauthorisfactoredin Accordingtotheirowncopyrightpaperwork,theallowedtransformativeusagewould beenoughtosatisfythenewworkasanewpieceofworkandthusnotofmonetary valuetotheauthor.Thisalsoprotectstheauthorsofthenewworksbecauseifthey adheretothecopyrightedwork’sspecictransformativecopyrightguidelinesaslisted outbytheauthor,itwouldallowfornewinterpretationsofworksthatotherwise wouldhavebeenruledascopyrightinfringementduetomonetarygainsnotgivento theoriginalauthor.Itallowsfornewcreationsthatcouldpossiblybeculturally impactful.

Whilethismayseemlikeitisuptothecourt,Ithinkplacingthefactorsona hierarchysuchasapyramidwillallowcourtstoeasilybeonthesamepageaboutwhich factortoplaceabiggeremphasison.Asofrightnow,courtsdonotviewthefactorson ahierarchicalscalebutnonethelesscourtsandjudgesassignimportancetocertain factorsoverothers.Weseethisinallthecasesmentionedsuchasin WarnerBros. Entertainment,Inc andJKRowlingv RDRBookswherethecourtsassigned monetaryvalueandtheamountcopiedtobeofthemostimportantfactorwhen analyzingcopyrightinfringement.Thishierarchyideacanalsofactorinhowmuch eachfactorqualiesforinfringement.ThecourtshouldbeabletolookateachFactor Onebyonegoingdownthepyramid,withthetransformativefactorontop,followed

byifitviolatesoneoftheotherfactors Byplacingthetransformativefactorontop,it wouldallowthecourttoeasilyprocesscopyrightinfringementclaimswithouthaving tolookatallthefactorsanddecidingifitviolatesoneofthefourandtowhatdegree.If thereismoreofanemphasisonthetransformativefactor,mostauthors'concerns wouldbeaddressed Italsoallowstheauthorstostillbeprotectedunderthedierent factorsonlyiftheworkisdeemednottransformative Ifthederivedworkis transformative,theotherfactorsarenotlookedat.Eventhoughthederivedwork mightmakemoney,itiscreativeanddierentenoughtobethederivedworksauthor’s ownoriginalwork,thereforecompensatingthemfortheiroriginalwork

Ifitviolatesonemoreoftheotherfactors,itshouldbeconsideredcopyright infringementastheothersdealwithmonetarydamagesandthatisthewholereason copyrightexists.However,itshouldbethatifitistransformativeenough,theother factorsdonotmatterasthatwouldmeanitisacompletelydierentpieceoftextthat doesnotaectthemonetaryvalueorgainoftheauthor’scopyrightedwork Thisis realisticastheauthorthemselvesmustlistwhattheydeneastransformativeintheir copyrightapplicationaswellasprovideawayfortransformativenaturetobe quantied.

Furthermore,byputtingmoreemphasisonthetransformativefactor,thefans wouldalsobeprotectedasthentheyareallowedtoexchangederivedworksamongst themselvesthathelpdrivereadershipfortheoriginalworkandalsobuildcommunity. Theauthorsofthederivedworkwouldbeabletocontinueexchangingthesederived workswithoutthethreatoflegalactionagainstthemwhilealsostillbeingabletocreate theseworksaslongastheydonotcopywordforwordtheauthor’soriginalwork

However,thereshouldalsobelimitationstohowmuchofanemphasisthereison justthetransformativefactor.Iftheworkistransformativebutdoeshavemonetary value,itshouldbeaddressedusingthetrademarksofthework.

I. ChangesThatShouldBeMadeToTheLaw

Usingthefourfactorsasourmainfocalpoint,wewilldiscusshowtofurther enhancethesefactorsinordertoprotectbothauthorsandtheirfans.

Ifauthorsoftheoriginalcopyrightedworkwereabletoincludewhattheydeemas notfairuseoftheirworkintheircopyrightclaims,itwouldbetterprotecttheauthors. Sincethereisalreadypaperworkthathastobesubmittedtogetacopyrightled,this couldbesomethingthatiseasilyimplemented.Thiswillprotectnotonlytheauthors

themselvesandwhattheydeemasappropriatebutthefansandauthorsofderivative andinuencedtexts.

Furthermore,authorsofderivativeworksshouldnothavetosatisfyallfourequal factorsoffairuse,butthesingleone,ifthederivativeworkistransformativeandin whatnatureisitusedandhavingtosatisfyatleastoneoftheotherthreefactors Thisis becausemostworksarearguedbasedonwhetheritisa“transformative”use,evenif theydonotsatisfyanotherfactor.Assuch,havingspecicguidelinesbytheauthorof whatisfairuseofhis/herworkandthenrulingeverycasebywhetheritis “transformative”ratherthanwhetheritsatisesallfourdierentfactors,willresultin betterprotectionforboththeoriginalcopyrightedwork’sauthorandthefan-made texts’authors.

Thisiswouldprovetobeofbetterprotectionaseventhoughtheotherfactorsare stillimportant,thetransformativenatureoftheworkistheutmostimportantcriterion andbeingabletosatisfythatrequirementshouldallowotherstorecreate/reusecertain aspectsoftheworkinordertobenetsocietyandtheworldandfanbasesurrounding theoriginalwork,addinganewmeaningtotheoriginalwork.

V. TRADEMARKS OF CHARACTERS

Whilethefourfactorsbrieygointodiscussingthetrademarks,thecharacters, nameofthebooks,etc.,Ibelievethataslongasthetrademarksthemselvesarenot beingabusedinawaysimilartoviolatingthefourfactors,inwhichtheauthorofthe derivedworkisnotprotingand/ordevaluingthetrademarkholder’swork,they shouldbeallowedtousethetrademarkundergoodconscience.

Itisimportanttodiscusswhenitisappropriatetousetrademarkedcharactersas theyarewhatismostoftenusedandrepeatedinderivedworks.Whilethismayseem likeitiscontrarytowhatatrademarkisintendedtodo,similartothefourfactors alreadyinplaceforcopyrightinfringementandWarnerBros Entertainment,Inc and J.KRowlingv.RDRBooks,thereisaveryclearindicationthatiftheworkis transformative,theauthorshouldbeabletosueforcopyrightinfringementbutshould beabletoifthereisastronguseoftheirtrademarks.Forexample,referencebookssuch asRDRbooks,thoughruledasnotcopyrightinfringement,Ithinkshouldhavebeen consideredtrademarkinfringement.Theauthorofthereferencebookveryclearlytook charactersthatareownedbyJ.K.Rowlingundertrademarkandassuchauthors shouldbeprotectedfromhavingpiecestheydonotwantouttherewiththeir trademarks,especiallywhenmadeformonetarygains

ARE FAN-MADE TEXTS FAIR USE?

Thestatutefortrademarkliteratureworksshouldbethatifthepieceisheavily basedontrademarksfromonespecicbook/franchiseandalsopublishedformonetary gains,itshouldbesubjecttotrademarkinfringement.Thiswouldalsoalignwiththe fourfactorsforcopyrightsasitdealswithifitistransformative,formonetarygains, howmuchofitiscopied,andifitimpactsthemonetaryvalueoftheauthor’soriginal trademarkedwork

Whileitmayseemlikeahassletoaddresscopyrightandtrademarksseparately,itis importanttorememberthattheyexistfordierentpurposes.Furthermore,bymaking itmoreclearwhatisprotectedundercopyrightforderivedtextsfromcopyrightedtext, youwillhavetoseparatethetwoconcepts Ifyouarelookingatcopyrightsas trademarksincluded,youcreateabroadandvaguestatutethatdoesnotaddressthe twoconcernsconcretelyandwithdetail,leadingtodierentinterpretations.

VI. WHY ALLOWING TRANSFORMATIVE WORK IS IMPORTANT

Someworksunderthenewguidelineswehavecreatedwouldhavebeenconsidered copyrightinfringementbecauseofthemonetarygainstothenewauthorandnotthe onethatholdstheoriginalcopyright.Insomecases,thiscouldbeharmful,butifitisa trulytransformativeworkasithastobeunderthenewguidelineswecreatedwherethe authorsthemselveshavetoindicatewhatistransformativeontheircopyright application,itcanbecomeculturallysignicant.Weseeinstancesofthisinthepublic domain.

VII. WHAT THE PUBLIC DOMAIN TEACHES US ABOUT FAIR USE

A WhatIsThePublicDomain?

TheStanfordLibrariesdenethe“publicdomain”as“creativematerialsthatare notprotectedbyintellectualpropertylawssuchascopyright,trademark,orpatent laws Thepublicownstheseworks,notanindividualauthororartist Anyonecanuse apublicdomainworkwithoutobtainingpermission,butnoonecaneverownit”29 Anyworkcanenterthepublicdomainafterasetamountoftime.Factorssuchaswhat theworkis,whereitwaspublished(boththeyearandlocation),ifitwaspublishedand registered,whatnationalitythecreatoris,canallaectthelengthsofthetimebefore

29

RichStim,SummariesofFairUseCases,SᴛᴀɴғᴏʀᴅLɪʙʀᴀʀɪᴇs, https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/cases/(lastvisitedApr.26,2021).

thecopyrightsexpireanditbecomespartofthepublicdomain Forexample,ifawork ispublishedbetween1926through1963withacopyrightclaimled,andthe copyrightwasrenewed,itissubjecttocopyrighttermsfor95yearsafterthe publicationdate.However,ifitwaspublishedduringthesametimeframe,1926 through1963,withacopyrightclaimledbutthecopyrightwasnotrenewed,itis nowapartofthepublicdomain 30Copyrighttermshavechangedovertheyears,most recentlyin1998whenawork’scopyrightclaimwasextendedfrom47yearsto95years.

Manyworks,suchasTheGreatGatsbybyF.ScottFitzgerald, famouslyenteredthe publicdomainin2021,resultingintransformativeandnewinterpretationsofthe workofliteraturebyfans

Thepublicdomainandtheworksthathavecomeoutofitcangiveaglimpseinto whatunilateralfairuseofliteraturewouldlooklike.Thisisspecicallyimportant whenitcomestounderstandinghow,when“transformative”usageistheonlyfactor neededtodeterminefairuse,“transformative”usesofcopyrightworkscanresultin culturallysignicantpieces.AnexampleofthiswouldbeFrankenstein.

B. Frankenstein

SimplychangingtheageandtimelinelikeinSalingerv.Coltingdoesnotqualifya workastransformative,butUniversalStudios’ownFrankensteinfallsundercopyright protectioneventhoughMaryShelley’sbookitderivesfromisinthepublicdomain.

MaryShelley’sFrankensteinisoneofthemostwell-knownpiecesofliterature. Sinceitwasoriginallypublishedin1818,itisnowpartofthepublicdomainandcan berepublishedandreproducedincludingcharactersorideasfromthebook.In1931, UniversalStudioscameoutwiththemovie,Frankenstein,bringingnewlighttothe belovedclassic.ItwasallowedtodosoasFrankensteinwaspartofthepublicdomain. UniversalStudios’interpretationofFrankensteinisnotallowedtobecopiedeven thoughMaryShelley’sFrankensteinispartofthepublicdomain Itisimportantto notethatUniversalStudioshadmadeenoughchangestotheirFrankensteinmoviethat itwasconsidereddistinguishablefromMaryShelley’s,givingitindependentcopyright protections.31ThelookofFrankenstein,especiallythewayhisfaceisconstructed,is

30

CopyrightatCornellLibraries:CopyrightTermandthePublicDomain,CᴏʀɴᴇʟʟUɴɪᴠ Lɪʙʀᴀʀʏ, https://copyright.cornell.edu/publicdomain,(lastvisitedMar17,2022).

31

DavidKluft,FrankensteinandCopyright:5ThingsYouShouldKnow,Tʀᴀᴅᴇᴍᴀʀᴋ&Cᴏᴘʏʀɪɢʜᴛ LᴀᴡBʟᴏɢ(2018), https://wwwtrademarkandcopyrightlawblogcom/2018/10/frankenstein-and-copyright-5-things-y ou-should-know/.

considerablydierentfromMaryShelley’sFrankensteindescriptioninherbook In thisinstance,UniversalStudioshadcreatedtheirown,essentiallynew,characterthat canbeeasilyrecognizableasUniversal’sandaculturalphenomenonthatiseasily recognizableinbothappearanceandreferences.

Frankensteinshowshow“transformative”worksofliteratureasdescribedbyfactor 1insectionIIIB,canleadtoculturalphenomenonsthatbringnewlightand interpretationstoworksofliteraturethatwouldhavebeeneasilyforgotten.While worksundercopyrightsmayseesuchinterpretationsassubjecttomonetaryvalue, UniversalwouldhaveincreasedthemonetaryvalueofFrankensteininsteadof decreased,haditstillbeenundercopyrightterms

Frankensteinalsoallowsustounderstandthat“transformative”workscanexistin aformthatmakesthementirelytheirown.IfMaryShelley’sFrankensteinwasstill undercopyrightterms,itwouldprobablynothaveallowedUniversalStudiostocome outwiththeirversionunlessMaryShelleywascompensated However,its transformativeandculturalnaturewouldmakeitanimportantadditiontosociety. ThisisfurtheremphasizedbythefactthatUniversalStudios'versionisconsideredso transformativethatitfallsunderitsowncopyrighttermsthatarerelevanttoday.

FanscanlookatUniversalStudios’interpretationofFrankensteinasanexampleof whatwouldmakeacopyrightedpiecetrulytheirownandprotectedunderfairuse whileaddingtoasociety’sculture.

C. HowAuthorsOfCopyrightedTextsApplyFairUse

Byallowingfreeuse,theauthor'sworksareinterpretedinanewlightthatbrings newmeaningandvaluetotheauthors.Someauthorsdoallowtheircopyrightedworks tobeused“freely”asmanyturnablindeyetothefan-madetextsoftheirliterature work Theythenonlyreportworksthatareharmfultothemonetaryvalueofthework whileallowingthosethatfosterafanbasearoundtheirworktoslide

Whilethisconceptofturningablindeyehasbeeneective,aswesawthroughout thisarticle,itisnotfeasibleifboththeauthorsandcourtsareturningablindeyeand notagreeingonasingularresponsetocopyrightthatisnotvagueandlledwith loopholesforauthorsonbothsides Furthermore,thiscurrentprocessalsomeansthat authorsthemselvesmustinvestsubstantialtimeandmoneytowardsdecidingwhich workisdevaluingtheirworksandwhichonesarenot.

Placingthetransformativefactorontopcreatesaconcreteruleinwhichtheauthor ofthefan-madetextisawarethattheirworkmustbedierentfromtheoriginalandto

whatdegree Ifthederivedworkistransformativeenoughfromtheoriginal,itshould notbeabletodevaluethecopyrightedworkasitwouldbeconsideredacompletely dierentpieceofwork.

CONCLUSION

ThefairuseofliteraryworksshouldbeanalyzedunderanewsystemwhereFactor One,thenatureofusage,whetherforprivateorcommercialuseandifitisa “transformative”usage,shouldbegiventhemostsignicanceovertheotherthree factors Furthermore,onlyoneoftheotherthreefactorsshouldhavetobesatised In ordertomakesurethisisnotabused,authorsshouldbeallowedandhavetolistout whattheydeemasnotfairuseoftheirworkswhenlingtheircopyright.Thisisableto bothprotecttheauthorsthemselvesandthefan-madeworkauthors.

Thisallowsforauthorsandpublisherstocontinuebeingincentivizedtocreate worksofliteraturewhileallowingconsumerstobeabletodiscusssuchworksfreely andhowevertheywishtousethem.Aslongastheuseisnon-commercialandprivate, itqualiesasfairuseasweseethroughSonyCorporationofAmericav.UniversalCity Studios,Inc.andTheAuthor’sGuildv.Hathitrust.Whileonemayarguethata fan-madetextcansometimescauseeconomiclosses,suchcasescanbearguedunder defamationlaws.

Intermsofanalyzingifsomethingistransformative,itmusttakeonanew expression,meaning,ormessage.Thismeansthatsimplyrepurposingcharactersand plotsisnotenoughbutinsteadtheworkhastobeanentirelynewpiecethathasits ownidentityseparatefromtheliteraryworkitself.Suchanexampleofthiswouldbe theFrankensteinmovie.WhilederivedfromMaryShelley’sbookFrankenstein, UniversalStudios’sversionofFrankensteinisdistinctanduniquetotheir interpretationandthussubjecttoitsowncopyrighttermsseparatefromMary Shelley’s

Referencebookssuchas“TheLexicon”arealsoconsideredtransformativebut suchworkscanalsobesubjecttocopyrighttermsduetothespecictrademarksand copyrightsitviolatessuchastheverbatimcopied.Ifreferencebooksdonotinclude largeamountsofverbatimfromtheoriginalwork,theyshouldbeallowedtobe publishedevenifitisforcommercialpurposesasitsintentistoeducateotherfans.

Inallofthecasesmentionedinthisarticle,weunderstandthat“transformative”is anewidentityfromtheoriginalwork.Awork’scharactersandplotcannotsimplybe rewrittentotanewcircumstance therehastobeintentionalandseeableeort intotransformingacertaincopyrightedworkintosomethingnewtobedeterminedas

ARE FAN-MADE TEXTS FAIR USE?

fairuse Allofthesetermsmustbesatisedinorderforaworktobeconsideredfair use.However,insomecircumstances,certainimportantfactorssuchasitseecton societymaytakeprecedenceovertheothersuchasifitisbeingusedprivatelyand non-commercially.

Foralongtime,fairuseonthebasisofwhatisconsideredtransformativeandhow theworkisusedishighlydependentonthecourtitisbeingarguedin Thereseemsto beamoresharedviewnowthattransformativemustmeanthatthereisaseparate identitythatmakesaspecicworktransformativeandrecognizableonitsownin conjunctionwiththeoriginalwork Iftheoriginalworkisvastlyreferenced,itisnot transformativebutaretellingthatissubjecttocopyrightterms

Intermsofusingspeciccharacters,ifthecharacteruseiscommercialandnot transformative,itisconsideredcopyrightinfringement.Tobeabletouseacharacter underfairuse,itmustbereconstructedandhasitsownidentitysuchasFrankenstein. However,referencebooks,aslongastheydonotresultinmonetarylossestothe authorsthemselves,arefairuse.

Thesubjectofwhatistransformativeandwhatisanimportantusetosocietyisstill dierentonacase-by-casebasis.However,thisarticlemakesitclearthatfansshouldbe allowedtomaketextssuchasblogs,fanction,referencebooksastheyspreadthe author’sbookstonewreaderswhilekeepingthebooksthemselvesalivewhilestill adheringtospeciccopyrightguidelinesthatprotectbothauthors.Withoutanactive community,thesebookswouldnothavecausedmonetarygainstotheauthors themselvesintherstplace.Thesefan-madetextsarejustasimportantastheoriginal booksthemselves

Editor Biographies

Joseph Cumming isaPhilosophymajorwhograduatedfromUCSDin2022 Heisnow attendinglawschoolatUCI.

Elliott Legaspi isafourth-yearwithadoublemajorinPoliticalScienceandPsychology. HeispartoftheResearchandDevelopmentteamfortheCommunityBenetNetwork, creatingalternativestoincarcerationthrougheducationalandserviceprogramsinLos Angelescounty.Heplansonattendinglawschooltopursueacareerincriminaljustice.

Clara Pham isasecond-yearHistorystudentatUCSD.Inadditiontoherinvolvement withtheUCSDUndergraduateLawReview,sheistheLeadCopyEditorforthe independentstudentnewspaperTheTriton,VicePresidentoftheUndergraduateHistory Network,andtutorwithSchoolonWheels.Sheplanstoattendlawschoolandisprimarily interestedinbusinessandcivillaw.

Sparky Mitra isaUCSDstudentstudyingbioengineering Shehasbeeninvolvedin multiplepoliticalandSTEMresearchinitiativesandprojectsthroughoutherhighschool andcollegecareerthathavebeenrecognizedbypoliticalguresandcommunitymembers alike.SheiscurrentlyUCSD’sagshipnewspaper’sOpinionEditorwhileholding positionsinotherpre-professionalandadvocacyorganizations Hereortshave culminatedinheradvocacyworkatOTTAUnitedandCollegeDemocrats,andher geneticengineering/syntheticbiologyworkattheJ.CraigVenterInstitute.Additionally sheactivelyengageswithorganizersinCaliforniaandherhomestateofTexas,building rallyingcriesbehindcausesthatmattertoherandthecommunitiesaroundher

Blake Johnson isathird-yearAerospaceEngineeringmajorandisaBoeing-IDEAScholar intheJacobsSchoolofEngineering.HeisminoringinPoliticalScienceandEnglish.

IN PURSUIT OF GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS ACCOUNTABILITY: THE FILARTIGA AMENDMENT TO THE ALIEN TORT STATUTE

Mykalle Tran isathird-yearstudentmajoringinPoliticalScienceatUCSD Sheplansto attendlawschoolinthenearfutureandisinterestedinadvocatingforhumanrightsand civilliberties.Sheisalsointerestedinstudyingfamilylaw.Sheisgratefultohavehadthe opportunitytoworkwithsuchhardworkingandinspiringpeoplewhomakeupthe UndergraduateLawReviewandwouldliketothankherwriter,CalvinManahan,for workingwithher

Rishabh Raj isathird-yearstudentatUCSDstudyingpoliticalsciencewithaminorin LawandSocietyandplansonattendinglawschool.Thisishis2ndyearaspartofUCSD's UndergraduateLawReviewandhis1styearasanEditor Heisalsocurrentlyamemberof UCSD'sEthicsBowlteamaswellasitsMootCourtteam.Hewouldliketothankhis writer,Tracy,foranamazingexperienceinworkingonthisarticle.

Valentina Du Pond isathird-yearwithseniorstandingatUCSDmajoringinPolitical Sciencewithafocusinpubliclaw Hermajorinterestsincludeconstitutionallaw,civil liberties,andentertainmentlaw.