8700 research outputs found
Sort by
The Microsoft Litigation’s Lessons for \u3cem\u3eUnited States v. Google\u3c/em\u3e
Get PDFThe United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and three overlapping groups of states have filed federal antitrust cases alleging Google has monopolized internet search, search advertising, internet advertising technologies, and app distribution on Android phones. In this Article, we focus on the DOJ’s claims that Google has used contracts with tech firms that distribute Google’s search services in order to exclude rival search providers and thus to monopolize the markets for search and search advertising—the two sides of Google’s search platform. The primary mechanisms of exclusion, according to the DOJ, are the many contracts Google has used to secure its status as the default search engine at all major search access points. The complaint echoes the DOJ’s claims two decades ago that Microsoft illegally maintained its monopoly in personal computer operating systems by forming exclusionary contracts with distributors of web browsers, and by tying its Internet Explorer browser to Windows. The gist of the case was that Microsoft had used exclusionary tactics to thwart the competitive threat Netscape’s Navigator browser and Sun Microsystems’ Java programming technologies—both forms of “middleware”—posed to the Windows monopoly. In this Article, we argue that the treatment of market definition, exclusionary contracting, causation, and remedies in the D.C. Circuit’s Microsoft decision has important lessons for the Google litigation
\u3cem\u3eChevron\u3c/em\u3e: Fueling the Right Against Title 42 and the Denial of U.S. Asylum Rights
Get PDFThis Note was inspired by the questionable treatment of Haitian asylum seekers in Del Rio, Texas, where horseback U.S. officials charged at them using reins as whips, before immediately deporting them back to Haiti. The U.S. government justified its actions by claiming that Title 42 permits U.S. officials to prohibit the entry of individuals when there is a danger of introducing certain diseases, such as COVID-19. However, Title 42 conflicts with the United States’ codified commitment to the principle of non-refoulment, prohibiting it from returning certain refugees to a country where their life or freedom would be threatened. Accordingly, the U.S. government is facing several lawsuits exposing Title 42‘s function of immigration regulation through alleged COVID19 pretenses. Thus, this Note will breakdown the United States’ displacement of the right to seek asylum by (1) analyzing U.S. treaty obligations through the lens of past Haitian refugee litigation and Haiti’s current affairs and (2) evaluating the U.S. government’s contention that Title 42 is entitled to deference under Chevron U.S.A. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council
A Muddy Mess: The Supreme Court’s Jurisprudence on Jurisdiction for Arbitration Matters
Get PDFThe Supreme Court’s 2022 Badgerow v. Waters decision at- tempts to create a bright-line rule regarding access to federal courts to hear arbitration matters. On its face, the Badgerow majority opinion reads like a straightforward exercise in textualism. Badgerow interpreted the judicial test for jurisdiction under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) provision regarding vacatur differently than it interpreted the jurisdictional test for a motion to compel under a different part of the statute. However, Badgerow leaves courts, which were already struggling to decipher the Supreme Court’s 2009 decision of Vaden v. Discover Bank, with a significant number of outstanding questions. Although these two cases can theoretically be read together, the two holdings leave open a host of practical difficulties that could lead to years of litigation on arbitration matters—matters that should otherwise be resolved simply and efficiently. This Article outlines the two decisions, how they are read together, and how they leave open inconsistencies. This Article then discusses the likely practical fallout from Badgerow, a proverbial “muddy mess.” The “muddy mess” has already be- gun to occur, based on early lower courts working with these two inconsistent precedents. This Article suggests legislative changes to create a consistent and predictable rule for motions dealing with arbitration practice
Cuban Protests in 2021: An Opportunity to Implement Alternatives to Sanctions
Get PDFThe relationship between the United States and Cuba can be described as anything but simple. In fact, it is the intricacy of the relationship that inspired this Note. A key point in the complex relationship between the United States and Cuba was the United States’ decision to impose the embargo in 1962. Since 1962, Cuba’s relationship with the United States, and its allies, changed entirely. While the embargo poses an economic sanction, the United States, throughout the years, has placed sanctions on Cuban officials as a result of human rights violations in Cuba. Broadly, sanctions target the officials and freeze their assets in the United States. This Note uses Cuba’s protests for freedom on July 11, 2021, and the due process violations that ensued, as proof that these sanctions have not achieved their goal because they have failed to stop the human rights violations on the island.
The focus of this paper is to explore alternatives to sanctions. The proposed alternatives are meant to provide an avenue that will lead to the desired change – namely, to stop legal and human rights violations in Cuba. This Note proposes a myriad of alternatives, which include the participation by international legal bodies, and the imposition of targeted sanctions, but at the core of the alternatives is the concept of engagement. Up until this point, sanctions have done nothing to change the behavior of the Cuban regime. Engaging in a dialogue with the Cuban regime and negotiating a series of exchanges could prove to be one of the only means to achieve the freedom and equality the Cuban people yearn for
Cosmetic Crisis: The Obsolete Regulatory Framework of the Ever-Evolving Cosmetic Industry
Get PDFCosmetics only first became regulated after a series of tragic events where users were seriously harmed from the use of cosmetic products. These tragic events prompted legislators to enact the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act of 1938. Before then, law makers feared that regulating the cosmetic industry would lower the tone of legislation because they considered the cosmetic industry to be inconsequential. At present, the regulatory system in place to protect vulnerable cosmetic consumers is nearly identical to when it was enacted over eighty-six years ago—even though the cosmetic market looks nothing like it did back then. The consumer base for cosmetics has expanded drastically, and consumers use more products daily. Further, scientific advancements now reveal the safety or danger of chemicals within the products. Given the multitude of studies indicating the presence of dangerous chemicals latent in cosmetics, the regulatory system requires modernization. Unfortunately, legislators consistently fail to pass legislation to regulate the industry and protect cosmetic consumers. Do legislators still consider the cosmetic market too inconsequential to regulate? This Note advocates for stricter cosmetic regulations, discusses alternative means of regulation reform, and evaluates the likelihood of legislators enacting such reform
Restitution for Haiti, Reparations for All: Haiti’s Place in the Global Reparations Movement
Get PDFHaiti’s claim for restitution of the debt coerced by France in exchange for Haiti’s 1804 independence has unique legal advantages that can open the door to broader reparations for the descendants of all people harmed by slavery. But in order to assert the claim, Haiti first needs help reclaiming its democracy from a corrupt, repressive regime propped up by the powerful countries that prospered through slavery and overthrew the Haitian President who dared to assert his country’s legal claim. This article explores Haiti’s Independence Debt, and the fight for restitution of it, in the context of two centuries of continued struggle between Haitians asserting their independence and countries enriched by slavery trying to limit the power of Haiti’s example
