8700 research outputs found
Sort by
\u3cem\u3eWest Flagler\u3c/em\u3e and the Future of Sports Betting: Navigating Tribal Sovereignty and the Need for Consumer Protection in a Growing Market
No full textSports betting in the United States has exploded in recent years, with a record–breaking $11 billion in revenue in 2023. This growth has inspired state governments to try to leverage this lucrative business. One recent development is the 2021 Gaming Compact between the Seminole Tribe of Florida and the state of Florida. The Compact represents a milestone towards exclusivity in mobile gaming for Native American tribal nations. Under the Compact, the Seminole Tribe receives sports betting exclusivity, for both retail sports wagering and online sports wagering across the state of Florida, in exchange for a revenue sharing arrangement—unlike any other form of exclusivity. In the landmark case West Flagler Associates v. Haaland, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Compact, ruling that any bet made off tribal land, but processed through servers located on tribal land, can be legally considered within tribal jurisdiction. This case solidified the Compact’s legality after a prolonged legal battle.
This ruling paves the way for sports betting legalization in other states with Native American tribal nations, shifting the balance of tribal–state relations throughout the country. Although the economic rewards of such arrangements are attractive, there are serious secondary concerns. One main worry is monopolistic control, detrimental to consumers through limited competition, suppressed market innovation, and increased costs. Although tribal sovereignty is important, policymakers need to also consider consumer protections as a top priority. Without proper regulation and oversight, sports betting offerings could yield predatory practices that exploit vulnerable customers. As more states move to legalize sports betting, regulators must guarantee competitive and fair markets for all consumers
Framing the Dialogue by Revisiting Fundamental Principles for Indirect Copyright Liability in China: History, Economics and Tort Law Analysis
No full textThe issue of indirect copyright liability has been debated for many years, particularly with the rise of technological advancements like cloud computing and artificial intelligence (AI). China has frequently revised its laws and regulations to address copyright–related cases, often drawing from the experience of the common law system. However, this has sparked stakeholder disagreement on implementing filtering obligations for online services, raising the duty of care for online intermediaries, and whether safe harbor rules are still relevant.
This Article argues that the current regime of digital copyright liability rests on three pillars: historical, economic, and tort law theories. The author adopts a multifaceted perspective to search for a common ground across different jurisdictions to facilitate legal transplantation in China. By considering both the cyber and physical worlds, the study demonstrates that a theoretical foundation can be established for harmonizing copyright law in the face of digital challenges.
Furthermore, this Article provides a detailed and feasible framework and roadmap for digital China, proposing modifications to copyright law and long–neglected tort law principles. It emphasizes the importance of considering historical context, market conditions, and existing legal systems when transplanting or transforming laws. Overall, this study contributes to a comprehensive and pertinent discussion on the issue of indirect copyright liability
These Boots Were Made for Copyrighting: A Comparative Analysis of Copyright Protection for the Shoe Industry in the European Union and United States and How It is Impacting the “Dupe” Market
No full textCopyright protection for fashion designs has always been slim, especially when it comes to shoes. Times seem to be changing as calls for increased protection in the industry have generated a new focus on changing the nature of copyright laws to better protect designs and designers. Two of the world’s fashion meccas, the United States and European Union, have their own different approaches to this issue. In the last decade, each territory’s most influential court, the United States Supreme Court in Star Athletica v. Varsity Brands and the Court of Justice in the European Union in Cofemel v. G–Star Raw, has issued decisions that reshaped copyright law in their respective countries. This Note examines how these two monumental copyright decisions have altered the laws and impacted the shoe industry. Focusing on the recent Ganni v. Steve Madden decision, where the Danish court barred Steve Madden from selling one of its pairs of shoes, holding it infringed on Ganni’s Danish and European Union copyright–protected design, this Note analyzes how litigation ensued in both the United States and European Union, compares the differing results, and assesses how these developments may impact the “dupe” market or protect shoe designers, if at all. Ultimately, the dupe debate comes down to one question: Will Steve Madden be able to keep it up with the knockoffs? This Note proposes that the Danish Maritime and Commercial Court’s decision and rationale is spot on and that, in light of the differences between the United States and European Union copyright regimes, the United States should modify their Trademark Counterfeiting Act of 1984 to include registered copyrights and help designers shield their products from being duped
How Safe Is Safe Enough? Analyzing the Incentive Structure of the Products Liability Scheme on Commercial Aviation Manufacturers
Full text linkHow do aviation manufacturers work to prevent tragedy? After tragedy strikes, how does the legal system’s imposition of a remedy change the operations and decision-making of these manufacturers, if at all? This Note explores whether the current products liability framework effectively achieves the goals of tort law—including whether it deters unsafe innovation in the high-risk commercial aviation manufacturing industry. The Note explores these topics through the lens of the recent Boeing 737 Max disasters of 2018 and 2019, using such disasters to exemplify the skewed incentive structure that manufacturers face in the modern products liability tort system. This Note argues that the current tort system does not adequately deter manufacturers from innovating their products in a way that sacrifices safety for profit. It critiques the negligence standard as applied to aviation manufacturing, discussing whether the deterrent goal of tort law could be better served by a strict liability standard for manufacturers in design defect cases, and advocates for policy changes that could help to strike the right balance between progress and accountability in aviation technology
