5322 research outputs found
Sort by
The House Always Wins: Deceptive and Improper Conduct Plaguing the Sports Betting Industry and Legislation Congress Must Consider to Sustain the Market
Full text linkCross-Border Limitations and Exceptions to Copyright: “Powered By AI”
No full textBusinesses and institutions that wish to utilize copyright protected works in multiple countries face a multiplicity of national copyright laws; although national copyright laws have been harmonized in accordance with several international treaties and harmonized even more in the European Union member states by European Union legislation, countries’ copyright laws continue to vary. The multiplicity of national copyright laws raises costs of transnational operations, including for businesses and institutions that rely on limitations and exceptions to copyright (“L&Es”) in multiple countries. For example, AI companies might want to rely on L&Es to train and deploy their AI in multiple countries, as the recently adopted European Union AI Act anticipates, but complying with the conditions of numerous national copyright laws on L&Es can be burdensome and complex. This article discusses several possibilities for ensuring that L&Es operate smoothly across national borders; attempts have been made to this end by the Marrakesh Treaty (for accessible format copies for the visually impaired) and the European Union (for example, in its treatment of orphan works), and there are other examples. This article surveys, categorizes, and critically analyzes the examples, and proposes possible solutions to the problems of the cross-border operation of L&Es, including in the AI context
Pizarro v. State of Nevada, 141 Nev. Adv. Op. 44 (Sept. 18, 2025)
No full textCLARIFYING THE STANDARD AND BURDEN OF PROOF FOR ADMISSION TO NEVADA’S GAMBLER’S DIVERSION COURT UNDER NRS 458A.220; THE NEVADA SUPREME COURT HELD THE DISTRICT COURT DETERMINES A DEFENDANT’S ADMISSION INTO GAMBLER’S DIVERSION COURT AND HAS WIDE DISCRETION IN MAKING THIS FINDING. FURTHER, IT IS THE DEFENDANT WHO BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROVING ELIGIBILITY FOR PLACEMENT INTO THE SPECIALTY COURT
The Worker Fight Against Compelled Listening: The Past, Present, and Future of Captive Audience Meetings in the Wake of Amazon.com
No full textBuild, Buy, or Both?: On the Antitrust Laws\u27 Supposed Preference for Internal Growth over Acquisitions
No full textThis Article challenges recent claims by antitrust enforcers that the U.S. antitrust laws embody a preference for “internal” or “organic” growth over external expansion through acquisition. It begins by examining the modern use of this claim in speeches, enforcement actions, and the 2023 Merger Guidelines issued by the Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice. It then considers the legislative history of the 1950 Celler-Kefauver and 1976 Hart-Scott-Rodino Acts, which are frequently cited as showing congressional support for internal growth. Careful reading of these Acts, however, shows that Congress’s central goal was to close a loophole regarding asset acquisitions, and evinced only passing (and disputed) concern about “organic” expansion. Further, the Federal Trade Commission’s own reports at the time, which purportedly justified a hostility toward “buying” rather than “building,” were shown to be flawed and later quietly disavowed by their authors.
Turning to modern economics, the Article highlights the ways in which acquisitions can promote competition through efficiencies, innovation, and dynamic resource reallocation—sometimes spurring more internal investment rather than crowding it out. It concludes that current hostility toward mergers is at odds with both the legislative record and mainstream economic understanding, and that there is no statutory or scholarly basis for an antitrust preference for firms to grow by “building” instead of “buying.
Amazon.com Services, LLC. v. Dwight Malloy, 141 Nev. Adv. Op. 50 (Oct. 30, 2025)
No full textNEVADA WAGE-HOUR LAWS DO NOT INCORPORATE THE FEDERAL PORTAL-TO-PORTAL ACT’S EXCEPTIONS TO COMPENSABLE WORK
Vaughn vs. State, 114 Nev. Adv. Op. 6 (Feb. 6, 2025)
Full text linkA conviction under NRS 239.330(1) requires proof that the document at issue, if genuine, could have been filed, registered, or recorded in a public office under U.S. or Nevada law