LARC Cardoso Law (Yeshida Univ)
Not a member yet
9951 research outputs found
Sort by
Data Privacy by Contract
Get PDFProtecting consumer privacy rights presents a particular challenge given the prevalence of data breaches. This Article notes that current law is woefully inadequate in protecting the privacy rights of consumers. Notably, the law fails in the following four areas: (1) classification of consumer data, (2) lack of a comprehensive approach, (3) after-the-fact focus, and (4) limited accountability for third parties. Although it may be impossible to eliminate all data breaches, more regulations can bolster protection without restricting technological advancements. This Article proposes a contractual approach to privacy protection for consumers. It argues that the creation of mandatory implied contractual terms of data privacy, regulated by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), is necessary to better protect consumers from data breaches. Part I conceptualizes data acquisition practices, proposes a data reclassification solution, and analyzes trade-offs incurred by further regulations. Part II provides background on the discombobulated state of consumer privacy governance and how implied contractual terms solve the law’s pitfalls by providing a comprehensive solution. Part III provides the following six arguments in favor of the implementation of implied contractual terms: (1) the FTC possesses the requisite authority to regulate implied contractual terms, (2) current precedent’s policy implications align with the proposed contractual terms, (3) the addition of implied terms of data privacy enables a cause of action before a data breach occurs, (4) contractual obligations promote data minimization for businesses collecting consumer information, (5) the focus of the law shifts to holding more parties responsible, and (6) there is a clear path that the FTC may follow to implement the implied contractual terms of data privacy. Part IV addresses anticipated criticisms
The Forever Family’s Legal Loophole: A 50-State Survey on Adoption Dissolution
Get PDFAdoption is said to be “forever”—longing parents fulfill their dream of parenthood and children get a “forever family.” While the legal system intends for adoptive parent-child relationships to be permanent, a happily-ever-after ending is elusive when adoptions are enabled to fail. In the United States, each state can set its own standard for when courts may grant a request to dissolve an adoption, as well as time limits within which a parent may ask the court to vacate the adoption decree. This legal loophole, known as adoption dissolution, has been met with controversy about the permissibility of parents giving up on their adopted child, especially as states do not provide this additional avenue of termination to biological parents. Nonetheless, the fact remains that, sometimes, dissolution could be in the child’s best interests.
This Note surveys how each state approaches adoption dissolution in order to uncover regulatory trends across the country. It finds that while adoption statutory schemes generally seek to effect permanence, many states retain dissolution statutes that vary as to the substantive and procedural ways to terminate the adoptive relationship. As such, this Note proposes a more uniform statutory scheme reframed around the well-being of the child rather than the needs or desires of the adult or the judicial nature of the adoptive relationship. When it comes to the legal procedures surrounding a child, the “best interests” standard should prevail, regardless of the adoptive or biological nature of the parent-child relationship
Gagosian Gallery Walk Through and Talk with Diana Poussin
Get PDFhttps://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/flyers-2023-2024/1152/thumbnail.jp
Join Us For a Conversation with Judge Matthew Solomson: Building a Legal Career, Rising to the Bench, and Defending American Values
Get PDFhttps://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/flyers-2024-2025/1053/thumbnail.jp
Arbitral Reliance on Precedent
Get PDFWe conclude that precedent may not be the most appropriate term for arbitrators\u27 reliance on other awards. While the term precedent might be used loosely in the sense that any past event is a precedent for any future event, the doctrines of stare decisis, collateral estoppel, and res judicata do not apply in labor arbitration. Only if a contract explicitly states or is interpreted by arbitrators to require past awards between the same parties to bind them into the future until a change is negotiated to the contract will these doctrines be utilized by arbitrators. Much more often, including in cases between different parties, arbitrators will treat past awards as persuasive, not in the sense that they should be followed, but that they provide helpful information. While labor arbitrators likely rely on prior awards more often than some other types of arbitrators, our findings indicate that they do so in less than 17% percent of disputes. Most of the disputes involve contract rather than statutory interpretation. And there is no sense that an arbitrator should look for similar cases with similar contract provisions and lean toward reaching the same conclusion as was reached in the prior cases. One hypothesis is that weak precedent is the basis of arbitration, but that does not explain the large majority of cases where no precedent is cited. Some have argued arbitrators may be following known to them arbitral principles without citing to them, but that is not empirically verifiable and, if happening, does not seem equivalent to the use of precedent. The analogy to a civil law system is an apt one. Arbitrators do rely on past awards in certain cases and tend to interpret certain baseline terms or principles, such as just cause, in similar ways. This is not because of any fidelity to the binding nature of past awards but because continuity aids the parties, unions and employers, understanding of and ability to apply the terms for which they have negotiated and agreed
Big Law Event Part II: Kramer Levin
Get PDFhttps://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/flyers-2023-2024/1118/thumbnail.jp
Cardozo Law News Brief: March 8, 2024
Get PDFFeatured Faculty: Jacob Noti-Victor Jessica Roth Alexander Reinert Anthony Sebok
Campus News: Miriam Lacroix Joins Cardozo as Director of Diversity and Inclusion
Events: The 2024 Cardozo Colloquium on Global and Constitutional Theory Cardozo Law Review Symposium on Ethics in the Judiciary and the Legal Profession: Are We in Crisis
