8700 research outputs found
Sort by
The Ghost of Jim Crow: The Human Right to Housing, Generational Wealth, The Neighborhood Homes Investment Act, and The American Legal System
Full text linkLeveling the Playing Field: Navigating the ‘name, Image, And Likeness’ Rules for International Student-Athletes in the United States
Full text linkThis Note analyzes the NCAA’s new ‘Name, Image, and Likeness’ (“NIL”) guidelines and their impact on international student-athletes. The NCAA’s NIL guidelines allow student-athletes to profit off of their own name, image, and likeness, a benefit that would have made them ineligible to maintain their amateur status and compete in the NCAA two short years ago.1 While the NCAA’s NIL guidelines can generate substantial compensation for some of the NCAA’s most prolific student-athletes, international student-athletes are limited in the NIL opportunities they can enjoy based on various immigration restrictions.2 If an international student-athlete is found to be in violation of their employment restrictions, their student visa status will be terminated and they will be required to leave the United States immediately.3 This Note explores and recommends possible solutions to level the playing field among NCAA student-athletes, including expanding 8 C.F.R § 274a.12(b)(6) and defining NIL generated income as passive income for the purposes of 26 U.S.C. § 469(c
Attributing AI Authorship: Towards a System of Icons for Legal and Ethical Disclosure
Full text linkOver the past year, the pervasive role of large language models (LLMs) and artificial intelligence (Al) in text generation has precipitated concerns about ethical usage, authorship, and transparent attribution. This has been true in legal practice, academia, and the corporate world, as well as in countless other arenas. In this Article, we identify the gap that has opened between those demanding proper disclosure (we should know when and to what extent Al is an author) and those struggling to respond to these demands. Part of the problem is that there is no system in place, no lingua franca, no set of norms for such disclosure. In the early aughts, a similar gap threatened copyright law, and legal scholars forged a solution in the Creative Commons. Now, with a similar form but distinct substance and function, we introduce the AIA (Artificial Intelligence Attribution), a system that properly and seamlessly attributes Al text authorship. The system involves the use of badges that delineate the nature of Al involvement from research to writing to editing. In addition to filling the fundamental gap identified above, the benefits of the AIA vis-a-vis generative Al are at least threefold: (i) minimizing legal risk attendant to AI\u27s use (i.e., legal exposure stemming from contracts, consumer protection, and intellectual property); (ii) managing public perception of Al use; and (iii) facilitating ethical behavior. We discuss these benefits from both theoretical and empirical lenses. By \u27empirical, we are referring to original experimental research that we conducted to vet the AIA. Our findings suggested that use of the AIA, which enhanced attribution of Al authorship, may improve public perception and reduce legal risk. After discussing these benefits, we present three examples as to how AIA badges would look in practice. First, we explore the AIA in the law, a sector in which unacknowledged use of generative Al has already caused consternation and legal action. Then, we explore the AIA in academic (scholarship) and corporate (institutional speech) settings. These real-life applications enable us to illustrate the merits and potential challenges of adoption. In the ever-changing realm of human-AI cooperation, this Article establishes a framework for synergistic collaboration and integration. The AIA promises much-needed transparency, authenticity, and accountability in joint human- AI authored works while allowing for and promoting continued technical innovation
The Acquisition of Twitter: The Legal Interplay Between Elon Musk, Shareholders, Employees, and the Government
Full text linkThis article examines the acquisition process of Twitter by Elon Musk. It will analyze the legal validity of Musk’s initial claims for rescinding his offer, as well as Twitter’s defense arguments. It will consider questions such as: Did Twitter cause a material adverse effect to its operations that would be a basis for Musk to avoid the deal? Did Musk run afoul of any regulatory requirements under the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) regulations? What impact did the ultimate sale of Twitter have on other stakeholders, such as corporate executives and non-executives, shareholders, employees. The paper further examines some of the resulting pre and post-acquisition issues that emerged, why they may remain nagging issues, and the lessons learned from the Twitter purchase debacle for the future of corporate governance
College Athlete Employment Model: An “Amateur” Attempt to Resolve the Exploitation Created by the NCAA
Full text linkThe college sports industry is deeply rooted within the culture of the United States. Its popularity has only grown, which has led to business opportunities and vast economic wealth for many within the National Collegiate Athletic Association (“NCAA”). This wealth is mainly distributed among, but not limited to, NCAA executives, conference commissioners, university presidents, coaches, and athletic directors. The individuals actually taking part in the athletic contests, the college athletes, are excluded from this list. Specifically, looking at Division I college athletes, the harsh reality is that these young men and women are participating in a billion-dollar industry and not being adequately compensated for their services. One proposed solution to remedy this inadequacy is to recognize college athletes as employees.
This Note will assess the possibility of college athletes becoming employees by first, analyzing the history within the court system and the adoption of breakthroughs within (1) the Supreme Court (reducing barriers to college athlete compensation); (2) the National Labor Relations Board (recognizing that some college athletes are employees under the Fair Labor Standard Act); and (3) Congress (Senate introducing bills recognizing the rights of college athletes). Second, in light of these breakthroughs, this Note will examine the class action filed on behalf of former Villanova football player Trey Johnson against the NCAA. At bottom, this Note suggests that it is all but inevitable for college athletes to be considered employees. Different from other articles pertaining to this subject, this Note recognizes the overwhelming negative effects an employment model will have for many college athletes. Additionally, treating college athletes as employees will hurt each university, conference, and the NCAA entity as a whole and force the NCAA Division I Model to make significant changes. With the support of diverse Division I administration members, ranging from those representing Football Championship Subdivision and Football Bowl Subdivision universities and conferences, this Note will address the challenges associated with changing the Division I Model and offer solutions to help control the issues associated with a college athlete employment model. Of these solutions, the most compelling is removing the Football Bowl Subdivision from the revenue distribution formula and creating a separate entity for that level of football coined the National College Football Association. The best route, however, is to avoid an employment model by choosing not to classify college athletes as employees and instead proactively implement a licensing model that allows for revenue sharing among college athletes participating in revenue earning sports
Shareholder Primacy versus Shareholder Accountability
Full text linkWhen corporations inflict injuries in the course of business, shareholders wielding environmental, social, and governance ( ESG ) principles can, and now sometimes do, intervene to correct the matter. In the emerging fact pattern, corporate social accountability expands out of its historic collectivized frame to become an internal subject matter-a corporate governance topic. As a result, shareholder accountability surfaces as a policy question for the first time. The Big Three index fund managers, BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street, responded to the accountability question with ESG activism. In so doing, they defected against corporate legal theory\u27s central tenet, shareholder primacy. Shareholder primacy builds on a pair of norms. The first is substantive and concerns purposethe firm should be managed for the shareholders\u27 financial benefit. The second norm is procedural and concerns power-shareholders should be able to tell managers how to run the firm. Once put into operation, the two norms are supposed to ensure that market control over production, and hence economic efficiency, is maximized. Prior to the Big Three\u27s turn to ESG activism, the two norms operated in tandem-power on the ground assured shareholder value maximization in the boardroom toward the generally accepted efficiency goal. But power on the ground now also triggers questions about shareholder accountability, and the Big Three, upon switching into activist mode to address those questions, put the two norms out of synch, causing the directive of management for the shareholders\u27 financial benefit to lose focus and compromising shareholder primacy in the performance of its mission. This Article looks closely at this confrontation between shareholder primacy and shareholder accountability, asking three questions: (1) whether investment institutions can legitimately sacrifice their investors\u27 financial returns in connection with the installation of socially responsible business practices at operating companies; (2) whether assuming ESG concerns take a permanent place at the top of the corporate governance agenda, shareholder primacy can continue to provide a viable cornerstone for corporate legal theory; and (3) whether recent institutional interventions in the name of ESG herald a structural shift toward a welfarist corporation. The Article answers all three questions in the negative. The sequence of questions and answers delivers us to an unsatisfactory destination riven by contradiction and tension
