Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
What has it been like being an immigration lawyer during Trump’s era?
I could not describe what being an immigration lawyer during this administration is. I have practised immigration law for the past 18 years and I have never seen this. First, the administration has changed the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ (USCIS) mission. Previously, its mission was to render immigration services within a customer service approach. Now, the mission of the USCIS is to enforce immigration law. And we know USCIS has to apply the U.S. immigration law, yet, this organisation became an enforcing agency just like Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Therefore, the approach towards the applicants and attorneys is totally different.
Second, the administration issues proclamations, memorandums, new regulations, (etc). so often and so fast that we basically have to wake up every day and check what change had occurred while we were sleeping.
Thirdly, due to the importance and sensitivity of such changes, litigation has ensued. This litigation brings changes as well; some changes are just temporary injunctions and others are more permanent.
Fourth, some litigation brings changes in certain circuits only, which creates chaos because immigration law is federal and one would think that changes should apply uniformly among the states.
Fifth, the delays with USCIS cases and wrongful rejections are staggering; this may be caused by the same enforcing approach that the agency is taking. The cases referred to removal (or deportation) proceedings keep piling and the immigration courts cannot keep up with the weekly amount of cases being filed. These are just a few of the issues we are facing as immigration attorneys.
What impact has his somewhat controversial rulings had on your clients?
The major impact on the changes this administration has proposed has been caused by the public charge (PC) rule that entered into force on 24 February 2020. This rule has motivated many lawsuits that are currently pending. In New York, a federal judge issued a temporary injunction recently ordering that this rule does not apply during the pandemic. So, we immediately notified our clients to file their petitions as soon as possible so they could take advantage of this ruling. Two weeks after, the court of appeals issued another decision stating the rule must continue being applied during the pandemic. Thus, we have to notify our clients, again, that the rule is being applied! We now are waiting for the next ruling, probably from the Supreme Court, and the rulings from other circuits. The uncertainty is definitely a feeling that we immigration attorneys are experiencing, as well as clients.
The PC rule has also caused much turmoil in terms of litigation. The rule itself will be chaos for the USCIS adjudicators and clients, because it requires so much financial information and documents, that a small package can easily reach 500 pages just for the PC rule. How will adjudicators review this? How much time would they have to allocate a review of the PC documents? I personally think this ruling will cause USCIS cases to take about 3-4 years to be adjudicated.
How do you push through and get the best results for your clients, despite when things seem tough?
It is really difficult. First, I try to stay calm and positive and ask my clients to do the same. Second, I try to be super careful with the filings nowadays to avoid minimal mistakes. Third, I explain to my clients that they should expect changes from one day to the other and that I cannot guarantee that the information I am giving them today is going to be the same next week. Most of the clients do not understand this, but it is our job to inform them what is really going on with immigration law and hope that they assimilate the information.
With Trump issuing ‘Muslim Bans’ in the past and other orders which have been somewhat thrown onto lawyers, can you share the lessons you have learnt over the past years, when it comes to dealing with the unanticipated changes in immigration law?
As mentioned, it is chaotic for immigration attorneys nowadays. We have to pick up the phone and write email templates to clients letting them know that the law or regulation has changed and that the course of action we chose must be changed; this does not happen in all cases, but it does happen. This creates more administrative costs for us. In some cases, we have to change the legal agreements to reflect the change in services. We have also had some people who just give up and leave the country or abandon their cases. This means we have to close those contracts and in some instances refund some money to the client. There is a change to the asylum law coming this August on the 25th, that will completely change the asylum petitions in this country. I am not thrilled to handle asylum cases now and I am probably not the only one feeling this way. This means, there will be less seasoned attorneys handling these types of cases.
How has the pandemic impacted immigration law?
There have obviously been delays. USCIS offices were closed until 4th June 2020, and many interviews and oath ceremonies were postponed. The immigration courts are not having hearings until 11 September 2020, but every week they extend the opening day. This means thousands of cases are being postponed and many new cases have not had their first hearings, leaving more backlog. On the other side, the pandemic has impacted people’s finances and this means fewer people can afford an attorney now or they have not been able to submit their petitions to USCIS.
Did clients face issues trying to extend their visa when they could not return home?
Yes, we had a couple of clients whose immigrant visas (green cards) were approved at the consular office and could not travel back due to the pandemic. Most of them have been able to return with humanitarian flights, but those flights are very expensive. Other clients could not get approved because the consular offices closed; these are stuck in their countries waiting for the consular office to reopen. There is no specific date for the reopening of the consular offices and it seems that they are opening on different days depending on the country’s conditions to where they are located. I think, therefore, that there will also be a huge backlog for consular interviews once they reopen, because they will have about six months worth of interviews to be rescheduled, alongside the upcoming cases.
Harvard and MIT filed a suit against the new ICE regulations[1] that were put in place last month – what grounds do they have here to fight against them? If they don’t win this suit, what impact will this have on foreign students and American universities?
Currently, the administration has already backed off from this endeavour. The universities and students can have virtual classes as long as they registered by 9th March 2020. The rule will apply to future students. The impact on the universities and students is huge because international students pay very high tuition fees that universities love! This is in addition to many other services the international students use such as housing, food, transportation, etc.
About Ms Arias
I did not choose immigration law… immigration law chose me! I wanted to practise tax law because I had been a legal research assistant at the LLM in International Taxation at St. Thomas University, School of Law, for two years. Yet, when I started looking for a job after graduation, my son was five years old and starting kindergarten. So, when I applied to some taxation law firms, they saw my eyes rolling when they informed me that the schedule was 8:00 AM to 8:30 PM, but that most attorneys left the office at 12 am or 1:00 AM. Of course, my rolling eyes did not help me get those jobs! So, my boss at that Tax LLM gave me advice: he said I had to look for a job in a small law office in something like family law or immigration. I followed his advice and here I am! I appreciated his words because I was able to develop my career as well as be an engaged mother for a now successful son, (my son just graduated from the University of Miami, from the finance school and began law school this fall).
Compassion, compassion, compassion. You cannot be a successful immigration attorney if you do not feel compassion and empathy towards your clients that come from many cultures and backgrounds. This is definitely a humanising field that is not fit for every attorney.
The importance of my job in people’s and their family’s life. If I do my job well, families may be able to stay together, from spouses, children, to grandchildren, etc. I am motivated when I see people who I helped with their legalisation in this country and then with their citizenship, and years later, I see them as successful professionals or entrepreneurs. I also feel proud when I help young clients with their removal proceedings and waivers and they get a second chance in this country; I take the opportunity to guide them and mentor them during the removal proceeding and I feel proud of them when they come back and say they appreciate all the work I put in their case and how my advice helped them be a better person. That’s very rewarding for me!
I use my role as an attorney to help others. Just like during the old times when the attorneys and doctors were top of the society and helped others, but it is not just the money the client pays us which is rewarding. We, attorneys, must have an impact in the life of our clients. I give you another example, I have had clients that come to me for a fiancé visa and they have only met that fiancé during a trip abroad. I asked them if they are certain what they are signing for and the obligation they acquire. Some of them think twice or take more time to get to know their future spouse. I have a couple that came back thanking me for the advice because they got to know that person better and found out that they were not the right person for them. That is also rewarding for me to know that people are making an informed decision before they endeavour in an immigration case.
Martha L. Arias
Attorney at Law
Arias Villa LLC
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 510
Miami, Fl. 33156
Phone: 305.233.3110 & 305.671.0018
Fax: 844.273.8741
[1] https://www.lawyer-monthly.com/2020/07/mit-and-harvard-file-suit-against-new-ice-regulations/
With the digital era constantly evolving and thus posing new challenges for businesses and the legal sector alike, William shares with us how technology and the internet have impacted copyright law.
New technologies provide new tools for creative expression and new vehicles for sharing those works[1]. But sometimes they also disrupt existing copyright regimes. How so?
New technologies always disrupt the existing copyright regime. Prior to the printing press, society didn’t have to give much thought to the legal ramifications related to the widespread copying of books or manuscripts. Before the invention of the camera or the phonograph, we had no occasion to consider how to protect against the copying of a “photograph” or a “record.” VCRs gave Hollywood studios a headache for a while, and, later, Napster did the same to record labels.
Now here’s the thing: Congress should take a new look at the DMCA in 2020, but we should accept (and plan for) the eventuality we will need to do so again in 2025.
This potential tension will always exist. The simple reality is this: technology advances very quickly, sometimes exponentially. The law does not. It evolves slowly, after great consideration, lumbering along over a period of decades. I often joke that by the time some of the most important questions of our day are finally settled, it won’t matter because society will have moved on to the next big thing. As a result, we may always find ourselves trying to fit the proverbial square peg in a round hole.
The Internet, and the quantity of legal issues it presents, is a good example. Years ago, when the Internet was more-or-less still in its infancy and well before the ubiquity of sites like YouTube, Facebook, and TikTok, Congress attempted to pass a new copyright law for the modern age by passing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (“DMCA”). But it took no time at all before critics started saying it was outdated and broken. In fact, since 2016, there has been a significant amount of pressure on Congress to reconsider various provisions of the DMCA.
Now here’s the thing: Congress should take a new look at the DMCA in 2020, but we should accept (and plan for) the eventuality we will need to do so again in 2025. Technology is moving very fast, and we shouldn’t assume that revisiting concepts of copyright law every 20 or 30 years will be sufficient.
Technology and internet connectivity have radically changed the production of cultural material; how has this impacted copyright law?
I don’t think there’s enough space in this article for me to discuss the wide-ranging impact!
Honestly, the amount of content that is out there in the world is staggering. And, as we increase internet connectivity and bring more communities online, it will only increase.
As I alluded to previously, advances in technology can increase the type of protectable works. The first U.S. copyright law (passed in 1790) protected books, maps, and charts, but that was it. By 1909, copyright protection was expanded to also cover musical compositions, lectures and sermons, periodicals, works of art, drawings of a scientific or technical nature, photographs, and pictorial illustrations. Today, copyright protection also extends to computer software and architecture.
Internet connectivity increases the volume of publicly available protectable works. Fifty years ago, you might have gathered around a projector at your neighbour’s house to watch a home movie about their most recent vacation—and that would have been enough to satiate your desire for home movies for the next six months. Now, on any given day, we might watch dozens of YouTube videos filmed on a GoPro by “professional vacationers” who travel the world and then use YouTube to monetise their videos and finance their trips. That’s just one website on which people watch about 5 billion videos every single day. At last count, there were about 1.8 billion websites, and the number grows every second.
But here’s another thing: we’re not just seeing an increase in “amateur” material. We are starting to see a huge increase in professionally created content as well. A couple of decades ago, there was a perception that only the major Hollywood movie studios could produce a high-quality motion picture. Today, we have dozens of studios cranking out tons of content. Digital platforms like HBO, Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon, once focused primarily if not exclusively on distribution, are now just as likely to invest in content creation.
Honestly, the amount of content that is out there in the world is staggering. And, as we increase internet connectivity and bring more communities online, it will only increase.
Is it more challenging for companies to copyright their work in the digital age?
The mechanics of protecting a particular work haven’t changed dramatically so, in that respect, the answer is “no”. In terms of sheer volume, though, the answer may very well be “yes”.
Irrespective of how hard it is or isn’t to obtain a copyright registration in 2020, copyright protection and enforcement is certainly much tougher. Copyright holders constantly complain about having to play “Whack-A-Mole” with internet websites. That is to say, they frequently encounter the following scenario: their copyrighted work shows up on a website, so they act to take it down. No sooner has that happened than the same work shows up on another website. So they act again…and so it goes.
But we don’t have the same exposure or interaction to the underlying principles of intellectual property laws.
Unfortunately, I’m not sure there’s an easy solution for that particular problem. By and large, people have a very good understanding of what I refer to as “basic” legal principles—you can’t go around hitting other people, you can’t take stuff that doesn’t belong to you, you can’t build your house on someone else’s property, etc. I think this understanding is a function of at least two things. First, some of these principles—like not hitting others—are so fundamental to the social contract that we teach these principles to our children from an early age, and we continue to reinforce them as they get older. In addition, with respect to some of these situations, it’s easy for us to see the harm or damage we might cause the other person, i.e., if I go around hitting other people, the other person will feel pain.
But we don’t have the same exposure or interaction to the underlying principles of intellectual property laws. When our kindergartener tries to copy a picture from a colouring book, we encourage their freehand drawing—we don’t chastise them for “copying.” As another example, we teach our kids to play musical instruments by having them learn to play already existing, copyrighted works. In addition, it is conceptually harder to understand the harm in infringing someone’s “intellectual” property. After all, if I see a picture of a beautiful sunset on the internet and then post that picture on my website so that others can also enjoy it, what’s the harm in that? Indeed, if I have a very popular website, one could argue I am doing the photographer a favour—giving that picture more exposure it would have otherwise received and increasing that person’s notoriety.
That’s a long-winded way of saying we live in a world that doesn’t have a full appreciation for what is “right” and what is “wrong” when it comes to IP law, and I have no reason to believe that’s going to change. The youngest among us spend the most time online. Why would they have any better understanding of IP than, say, someone who is an adult with business experience?
With the speed of culture accelerated by digital technology, do you think it is imperative that protection periods be shortened? What impact would this have?
So, shortening the protection period to something like 14 years, which is a number I have seen, could represent a huge blow to a U.S. citizen.
At the risk of sounding like a lawyer, this is a complex, multi-faceted issue. Unfortunately, even if we concluded it was a good idea, it’s not as easy as saying “let’s have a shorter protection period.” There are international treaties and conventions which provide for a certain minimum protection period, and the U.S. is a signatory to those. So, first, we would have to pull out from these agreements.
Assuming we were okay with that kind of international move, we would then have to determine whether shortening the protection period would be a net positive or a net negative. Some argue shortening the protection period is a net positive because it will lead to society having easier access to a greater catalogue of creative works. Others would point out that shortening the protection period might put U.S. creators at a disadvantage vis-à-vis international creators who would continue to benefit from longer protection periods. By and large, most countries provide a protection period for the life of the creator plus 50 or 70 years. So, shortening the protection period to something like 14 years, which is a number I have seen, could represent a huge blow to a U.S. citizen.
That’s not to say we shouldn’t be having this conversation on a global scale. The time periods we are talking about can be very long. For example, if you have a 30-year-old who lives to be 80, we are going to protect his work for 120 years (50 years during his life and another 70 on top of that). When you compare that to the protection period for a patent (20 years), it might lead you to wonder why copyrights are protected for so long. This disparity would seem to suggest we value useful inventions more than creative works. We think microprocessors are so useful we want them available to the public relatively quickly. A unique sonnet? We can wait 120 years for that.
Has the digital era impacted IP litigation we see today?
Of course, that leads one to wonder whether we need to reconceptualise how courts handle IP litigation.
Undoubtedly. We are creating intellectual property at rates heretofore unforeseen. It only stands to reason we are going to protect that IP at significantly higher rates. I recently saw a study indicating that corporate spending on IP litigation has doubled in the last 15 years and, to be honest, I was surprised litigation costs had only doubled in that time period. I don’t see any reason why that spend will decrease any time soon. We already have a lot of IP litigation in the U.S., but it’s really starting to take off in other countries. Companies may find themselves fighting on multiple fronts, foreign and domestic, all the time.
Of course, that leads one to wonder whether we need to reconceptualise how courts handle IP litigation. For example, every day I see dozens of copyright lawsuits filed across the country by photographers claiming one or more of their photos was inappropriately used on the defendant’s website. Because the Copyright Act provides for exclusive federal jurisdiction, all of these suits are filed in a federal court. But is it really a good idea to clog the dockets of our already overworked federal judiciary with hundreds of these cases? Perhaps it would be better to create a centralised “copyright court” with judges well-versed in copyright law where all such disputes would be filed. In addition, we could send copyright appeals to the Federal Circuit. That would free up district and appellate court dockets across the country. Fifty years ago, an idea like that might face real resistance from people arguing it was too costly to litigate in a forum they couldn’t drive to, but, in 2020, I don’t think that argument is particularly persuasive. With electronic filings, video conferences, and airplanes, people could probably litigate in a “far away” forum just as easily as they could in their backyard.
My advice is the same to all lawyers (whether IP or otherwise). In all of your interactions and in every form of communication, whether oral or written, formal or informal, eschew obfuscation, espouse elucidation.
Donald Trump is expected to order a review of a federal law known as Section 230, which protects internet companies like Facebook, Twitter and Alphabet’s Google from being responsible for the material posted by users[2]. How feasible is this, in your opinion?
I suspect Congress and several federal agencies will be taking a hard look at Section 230 and Section 230 compliance this year. The irony is that criticism for Section 230 may be one of the few remaining bipartisan issues. Trump recently issued his Executive Order as a result of Twitter labelling two of his tweets as “potentially misleading”, but Nancy Pelosi hinted at removing Section 230’s protections back in April 2019. And Joe Biden is on record saying Section 230 should be revoked “immediately”.
The 2020 reaction to Section 230 is not surprising. When the law was originally passed, there was a real concern that holding internet platforms liable for the statements of third parties would cripple them at a time when the internet was still in its nascent stages. But, now we have a more mature internet, and Congress is starting to wonder whether it swung the pendulum too far in the other direction-i.e., whether it afforded these platforms too much protection. If Congress concludes the answer is “yes” (though there are arguments the answer is still “no”), I would suspect they would amend the relevant language as opposed to repealing it altogether. I think we all prefer the pendulum sit in the middle, at rest, rather than vacillating widely between two extremes every twenty years.
William Delgado
I graduated from the University of Oklahoma with a degree in electrical engineering in 1999, but, having interned at a tech company throughout college, I had significant reservations about a career in engineering. After a period of introspection, I decided to go to law school in New York City. I was extremely fortunate to have hit the employment market at the perfect time as law school students with engineering degrees were a sought-after commodity at the time. After three fantastic years of law school, I moved out West to Los Angeles to become an IP litigator.
After a brief but extremely rewarding stint in Big Law and then a much longer but equally rewarding stint at a Big Law spinoff, in May 2019, I became one of three founding partners of DTO Law, a full-service boutique with offices in Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Louisville (KY). In terms of rewarding experiences, though, this last stop takes the cake. I could not be prouder of the team we have assembled at DTO. I am fortunate to be surrounded by amazingly talented colleagues who regularly achieve outstanding results for a wide variety of clients—from start-ups to those who regularly appear in the Fortune 500.
At this point in my career as a litigator, I have dabbled in just about every area of law. At present, though, my practice primarily focuses on intellectual property and class action defence.
[1] https://blogs.loc.gov/copyright/2017/05/copyright-law-and-new-technologies-a-long-and-complex-relationship/
[2] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-twitter-trump-executive-order-explain/explainer-whats-in-the-law-protecting-internet-companies-and-can-trump-change-it-idUSKBN23434V
The Tom Petty estate has issued a formal cease and desist letter to President Donald Trump’s re-election campaign, protesting the use of the late singer’s music.
Specifically at issue is the use of Tom Petty’s 1989 radio single “I Won’t Back Down” during Trump’s 20 June rally in Tulsa.
In a statement posted on Twitter, Petty’s family said that the campaign “was in no way authorized to use this song to further a campaign that leaves too many Americans and common sense behind.”
“Tom Petty would never want a song of his used for a campaign of hate,” the message continued. “He liked to bring people together.”
The statement was signed by Tom Petty’s widow Dana Petty, his daughters Adria and Annakim, and their mother Jane.
Various musicians have in the past attempted to prevent the Trump campaign from using their music during events. In 2015, Neil Young claimed that then-candidate Trump had not been given permission to use “Rockin’ in the Free World” during his presidential campaign announcement.
Other musicians who have denounced the Trump campaign’s use of their music include Rihanna, Elton John, Adele, Queen, The Rolling Stones, Guns N Roses, Prince, RM, Aerosmith and Earth Wind and Fire.
The Supreme Court of the United States on Thursday blocked the Department of Homeland Security’s attempt to end legal protections for the 650,000 young immigrants often referred to as “Dreamers”, posing a significant setback to Donald Trump’s anti-immigration policies.
The Court acknowledged that President Trump and the Department of Homeland Security have the authority to end the DACA programme, but rejected arguments that the programme was illegal and that courts had no role to play in reviewing the decision to end it.
In his written opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts (who joined the liberal wing of the Court in the 5-4 ruling) emphasised that the Supreme Court’s decision was based on purely apolitical reasoning.
“We do not decide whether DACA or its rescission are sound policies," he wrote. "We address only whether the agency complied with the procedural requirement that it provide a reasoned explanation for its action. Here the agency failed to consider the conspicuous issues of whether to retain forbearance and what if anything to do about the hardship to DACA recipients.”
He added that the Department of Homeland Security may try again.
The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals programme (DACA) was created in 2012 under President Obama, and allows people brought to the US illegally as children the temporary right to live, work and study in America. As of today, its protections are extended to 650,000 US residents.
Ending DACA was one of Trump’s signature promises during his 2016 presidential campaign. This latest setback is especially significant by its timing, coming less than five months before the 2020 election.
Following Thursday’s decision, the President tweeted: “Do you get the impression that the Supreme Court doesn’t like me?”
Plaintiffs Radiya Buchanan, Ann Dagrin and Lindsay Field, represented by Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, have filed a federal lawsuit against several Trump administration officials for actions taken by law enforcement in dispersing a crowd of protestors in Lafayette Park so that President Trump could attend a photo-op at a nearby church.
President Donald Trump, Attorney General William Barr, Defense Secretary Mark Esper, Secret Service Director James Murray, US Park Police Acting Chief Gregory Monahan and DC National Guard Commanding General William Walker, are each named as defendants in the case (no. 1:20-cv-01542). All are sued in both their official capacities and personal capacities, with the exception of President Trump, who is sued only in his official capacity.
In addition to the individuals named above, the lawsuit also names “John and Jane Does Nos. 1–50” as “members of the federal law enforcement agencies who were present in Lafayette Park on the evening of June 1, 2020, and authorized, planned, and participated in the violent attack.”
The lawsuit alleges Bivens damages, ultra vires conduct in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, and violations of the plaintiffs’ First, Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights.
In the introduction to the complaint, the plaintiffs’ attorneys describe the administration’s ordering of law enforcement to clear away protestors with tear gas and pepper balls as “a gross abuse of executive power that violated First Amendment free speech rights, Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable force, Fifth Amendment due process rights, and long-standing federal law prohibiting use of such military force on domestic targets.”
The case has not yet been assigned to a judge.
It is a little bit tough to know where to begin with this. A lot has happened this year in the capricious legal realm. From alterations in abortion laws to new tax reforms, all the way through to drone laws and, dare I say it, Brexit, a lot has changed this year (aside from the latter point; not much has changed there at all...yet).
And, for the legislative reforms that have been made, have they changed things for the better, or are we in a worse position than before? After all, the erratic and unpredictable nature of our endlessly advancing society is what leads us to address and revise the laws that work and change or scrap those that don’t.
.There’s finally some legislation for drone flying (possibly as a result of airport closures due to drones) from November 2019 it is illegal to fly a drone weighing more than 250g without registering it with the Civil Aviation Authority and passing a safety test.
Employment Law
From the Gig Economy taking the headlines again and again, all the way through to minimum wages and pay gap reporting, employment law is an area which had a few wake up calls throughout the year, in the UK and US.
In September, Lawmakers in California passed Assembly Bill 5 (AB5) - a move designed to pave the way for “gig workers” to become employees and gain additional rights. Some argued it will make things worse for those who want to work flexibly, whereas others argued the gig economy enables “Workers [to] lose basic protections like the minimum wage, paid sick days and health insurance benefits.”
The new law demands that workers are considered employees unless companies can prove that the worker is “free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work”.
Earlier this year in April, the European Parliament approved new EU rules for the member states - giving them three years to enforce increased transparency for those in "on-demand" jobs at companies like Uber or Deliveroo -, proposing there should be more predictable hours, compensation for work that is cancelled and an end to casual contracts, which have the tendency to shift towards a more ‘abusive’ practice.
Whether or not such rules will positively impact the gig economy is yet to be determined. However, with California’s Bill already in full force, some have noted the negative impact it may have. A fine example from Times of San Diego: “AB 5 will rob workers of the freedom and flexibility they want and sometimes need from freelance work, and force more companies to leave the state than already are. California’s once-dynamic economy is on track to becoming permanently sclerotic.
AB 5 is a historic mistake.”
More police officers can now authorise stop and search probes, likely to be as a direct result of the worrying knife crime rates, an extra 3000 police officers are now able to authorise the use of stop and search powers.
Environmental Law
I think we know where I will be starting for this one: the Paris Agreement. Uproar and disappointment hit the headlines when Donald Trump announced his withdrawal from the Agreement earlier this year. The impact it has had so far? Well, not much as it the withdrawal will take final effect in November 2020.
In the UK, the government introduced a landmark Bill to Parliament in October, to tackle the biggest environmental priorities of our time, signalling a historic change in the way the environment is protected.
The transformative Environment Bill will help ensure that the UK maintains and improves its environmental protections as the UK leaves the EU. As stated on Gov.uk: “Environmental principles will be enshrined in law and measures will be introduced to improve air and water quality, tackle plastic pollution and restore habitats so plants and wildlife can thrive.
“Legislation will also create, legally-binding environmental improvement targets. A new independent Office for Environmental Protection will be established to scrutinise environmental policy and law, investigate complaints and take enforcement action against public authorities, if necessary, to uphold our environmental standards.
“The office’s powers will cover all climate change legislation and hold the government to account on its commitment to reach net zero emissions by 2050. By also championing nature-based solutions, the Bill demonstrates our commitment to tackle climate change.”
Will it work? Only time will tell.
Despite concerns it would lead to the closure of bookies, the Government in October 2019 implemented a maximum stake of £2, reduced from £100. This controversial change has been praised by many including ex-gambling addicts, their families and local MPs
Global Trade
Perhaps the juiciest of them all, global trade, had its fair share of discussions this year. From Brexit to the trade war of the year (US vs. China), international businesses remained on their toes, anxious to know if there is anything imperatively impacting around the corner.
Speaking to Bernadette M. Bulacan, Lead Evangelist at Icertis, she notes that 2019 marked the year of global trade disruption and that the greatest legal challenge faced by lawyers, especially those who advise complex, multi-national organisations, was the rise of economic and national populism.
‘A “shrinking” globe and protectionist tendencies-- like higher tariffs and quotas on imports-- have posed a substantial threat to supply chains and business growth; legal teams have had to quickly pivot to provide guidance and advice in these uncertain times and in an ever-changing political landscape.’
Legal Tech
‘In addition to these global economic challenges’, shares Bernadette, ‘another internal threat facing the legal profession was their inability to flex, be agile and join the digital transformation that is disrupting the rest of their respective organisations.’
Expanding on this, we speak to Matthew Harrington, Senior Partner at insurance and commercial law firm BLM, and we discuss how the race to implement tech accelerated in 2019.
‘Every insurance law firm has had to adapt their practices and ways of working over the last 5-10 years and this year we have seen a real acceleration in law firms investing in innovation, technology and analytics’, says Matthew.
‘In our case, we’ve had a real push to encourage a ‘digital-first’ mindset; embracing what’s now possible through digital so that we can respond faster and deliver on the experiences that our clients expect.’
This year Matthew’s team introduced a suite of analytics tools in conjunction with the London School of Economics. One of those tools uses AI to consider the strength of evidence on either side of a case to predict the fault in a claim; it supports claims handlers in reaching earlier settlements, using explainable AI to simulate human decision making.
With legal tech continuing to develop and transform how the legal sphere coincides with laypersons and citizens, it is vital that those involved in the legal industry adopt such developments to transform how the judicial system works.
It is safe to say that the EU is not messing around. Such hefty fines given to influential, international companies further exhibits the importance of businesses taking their customers’ personal data -and their trust- very seriously.
‘I would say that in 2019, it’s become increasingly clear to our sector that it’s no longer just about great legal advice - that’s a given. It’s now important to be able to support clients in different ways and to continue making crucial investments. For us, this has meant investing in different IT functions and creating a specialist team to support our digital strategy.’
Notwithstanding talks of innovation and adoption of legal tech in small pockets, the profession as a whole remains largely resistant to the winds (and therefore the benefits) of change. As Bernadette expands, ‘My hope is that 2020 sees more of the profession leaning into change, taking a critical look at archaic processes (like manual, paper-based contracting) and adopting technology to facilitate collaboration and speed.
‘I think that this change of mindset will not only transform the legal practice, but also break common stereotypes of lawyers who are perceived as not being creative, data-driven or business-minded.’
Insurance
Alistair Kinley, Director of Policy & Government Affairs at insurance and commercial law firm BLM, discusses how changes to the discount rate, announced in July, have impacted insurers and the law firms advising them. One of the most significant changes for insurers in the personal injury sphere was the new discount rate set under the Civil Liability Act 2018. The intention of the Act was to bring in more real-world and evidence-based approach to valuing significant future loss claims.
‘The Lord Chancellor announced a new discount rate of -0.25% in July’, explains Alistair. ‘This was something of a disappointment to us and our insurance clients, as in the earlier part of the year we’d been resolving claims at around +0.5% and above so there was a degree of expectation that the new statutory rate would be at that sort of level. The -0.25% rate meant that a number of insurers who had planned on zero % or a modestly positive rate had to strengthen reserves.’
All that said, the setting of the new rate did remove uncertainties in resolving cases and should help to bring claims to a close more quickly. The rate should remain stable until the next review in five years’ time.
GDPR
You thought we left any mention of GDPR back in 2017, didn’t you? But, even though your inbox may be feeling a little less attacked from all of the GDPR emails your favourite subscribed websites were throwing your way, 2019 was really truly the year of GDPR.
Google started the year off with a bang. In January, Alphabet’s leading subsidiary was fined a whopping £44 million by CNIL for a breach of the EU’s data protection rules. It was reported that the regulator said Google had not obtained clear consent to process data because "essential information" was "disseminated across several documents".
According to PreciseSecurity analysis[1], the top ten biggest GDPR fines combined amount to $443.7 million, and the biggest, was awarded earlier this year to British Airways. They were fined £183m over breaching customers’ personal data, including their financial details and sensitive personal information when hackers obtained the data over a two-week period.
After Google, British Airways and Marriott International – who comes second place in highest GDPR fine of the year - collectively bring the sum of GDPR’s 2019 fines to (approximately) £ 309 million (USD 400 Million).
It is safe to say that the EU is not messing around. Such hefty fines given to influential, international companies further exhibits the importance of businesses taking their customers’ personal data -and their trust- very seriously.
What’s to Come?
But where there have been changes, there are still lots to be done that perhaps 2020 will see. We speak to Sarah Colley who is a senior supervising solicitor at Wilson Solicitors and Children’s Panel member, on what didn't change and what 2020 should really address.
“There have been little changes to family and children law in 2019. Expected changes, such as the introduction of ‘no-fault’ divorce and amendments to the law surrounding domestic abuse, have not come to fruition due to the upcoming general election. Unfortunately, although these bills were going through parliament, they have now lapsed and require re-introduction in a Queen’s Speech with the process starting again from scratch."
She explains how both bills are vital to the development of family law, the avoidance or reduction of conflict, and the protection of the most vulnerable people in our society. The Domestic Abuse Bill will bring about a prohibition of the cross-examination of domestic abuse victims by their abuser, and the proposed ‘no fault’ divorce bill will avoid the blame game currently in place in our divorce system and assist in focusing the parties on other more important issues such as the children.
"It is therefore disappointing to note that despite how important both bills are, although the three major parties (Labour, Conservative, and Liberal Democrats) have all stated in their manifestos that they will re-introduce the Domestic Abuse Bill, only two (Labour and Liberal Democrats) have committed to re-introducing the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill.”
[1] https://www.itproportal.com/news/top-gdpr-breaches-caused-millions-in-fines/
Unfortunately, in the past few weeks mass shootings have taken the news in the US and worldwide. With there being two mass shootings on consecutive days at the start of August in Texas and Ohio, the never-ending debate to whether or not the government need to enforce some changes becomes even more heated and ever topical.
This month, I decided to get in touch with some US attorneys to find out their arguments to whether or not the US needs to address current gun regulations. We have some arguing against any reforms, on the basis that the 2nd amendment is a constitutional right, stating the main issue is regarding the sentences of those who violate gun laws face; and we have some attorneys speaking on why there needs to changes in the regulation and laws, in order to ensure mass shootings decrease.
Before we begin the debate, Nora Demleitner, Chaired Law Professor at Washington and Lee University, shares a little background into guns, its laws and the impact it has had.
“Much of the current debate focuses on high-profile mass shootings. Yet, those are just the tip of the iceberg of gun-related injuries and deaths in the United States. After a long decline of gun death rates throughout the 1990s and stable rates in the decade following, in 2017 the rate went up substantially, with about 40,000 Americans dying from gun-related injuries. The rate of gun deaths is still lower than in 1993, the previous high (though the absolute numbers are virtually identical).”
Many argue, correctly in my view, that weapons of war have no place in the civilian population.
The sale of guns had been going up steadily since 2000 until the beginning of Trump’s presidency. Since then it has been falling. Perhaps more importantly, the percentage of US households with firearms has been going down from about half in 1978 to slightly above a third in 2016. Nora expands: “That implies a smaller percentage of gun owners but with a larger arsenal of guns. This may explain why a larger percentage of Americans are in favor of more restrictive gun legislation (including many firearms owners, of course).”
As a result of violent crime during the late 1980s and early 1990s, Congress banned so-called assault weapons in 1994, a ban that expired in 2004. It is reinstituting that ban which has been the legal action most in the news. “Many argue, correctly in my view, that weapons of war have no place in the civilian population. Even if such a ban is in place, it needs to be supplemented by a buy-back plan, similar to the one in New Zealand”, says Nora.
FOR:
Our system is not fair, we have work to do.
Dameka Davis is a licensed attorney in South Florida who states “Now is the time for gun reform more than ever.”
There need to be changes in who is able to buy, sell, and purchase firearms. Especially as it relates to assault rifles.
The most important things that our legislators need to regulate is the purchase of guns by the mentally ill, persons who have been committed to impatient residential facilities, and convicted felons.
I have been on both sides as both a former prosecutor and now a Criminal Defense Attorney. People want to feel like they have the right to protect themselves and their family. While on balance, Criminal defense attorneys want to make sure that those accused of firearm crimes are given a fair process with fair and proportional sentences. Particularly where certain classes of people are facing enhanced sentences as a result of firearm crimes.
Therefore, I believe that we need massive reform on who can own and/or possess guns. Our country also needs criminal justice reform without mandatory minimums.
Our system is not fair, we have work to do.
AGAINST:
Scott Sanborn is an Ex-Green Beret and California attorney who joined the US Army National Guard at age 17. He explains the reason to why he thinks no reforms should take place.
We need more good guys carrying guns that ready to defend others in an active shooter scenario.
The gun laws should not change, at least not in a manner that would be any more restrictive to people. Guns have an important role in empowering people of the United States of America. As part of a system of checks and balances, armed citizens are an oversight mechanism and deterrent for any government considering tyranny. The USA has the most powerful government in the world. Gun control laws work in other countries because they can rely on USA intervention for protection. But the USA is different. We have a duty, not only to ourselves, but to the rest of the world to keep our people armed and ensure the US government is acting right, within the limits of the Constitution. If you don’t trust that the US government will always do the right thing, then US citizens must be armed. With regard to mass shooters, we need to execute them. We need to give them some due process and a swift prosecution. Then we need to execute them in a manner that will leave an impression on any person wanting to one-up the last shooter. We need more good guys carrying guns that ready to defend others in an active shooter scenario.
FOR:
Touching on a slightly different area, domestic gun violence, Michael Stutman, Founding Partner of Stutman, Stutman & Lichtenstein, a NYC-based matrimonial law firm, speaks about why there should be better regulation for those going through a divorce who also own firearms.
Michael believes that in order to mitigate the dangers of domestic gun violence, there ought to be a law or regulation that requires all firearms to be surrendered during divorce litigation. As soon as divorce has been filed, those with guns should be brought to the local police station (those with illegal firearms would be given amnesty) and would get them back upon settlement of the divorce. With the rate of domestic violence and gun violence in this country, Michael thinks this law would be common-sense safety.
FOR:
The ambiguity in the language of the Constitution has opened up debate among many different areas of the Constitution including the right to bear arms.
David Reischer, Esq., attorney & CEO of LegalAdvice.com explains what reasonable gun laws should be and the impact better gun laws could have.
The ambiguity in the language of the Constitution has opened up debate among many different areas of the Constitution including the right to bear arms. There is a natural tension between protecting the rights and liberties of the individual while also promoting the general welfare and common good of society as a whole. Recently, society has started to debate the limits of the "Right To Bear Arms" enshrined in the 'Second Amendment' of the Bill of Rights. Specifically, there is a push that would require background checks, a national gun registry, red flag laws and prohibition on anybody owning semi-automatic weapons. In my opinion, Congress should pass reasonable gun laws that make sure guns are less likely to get into the hands of malicious actors, but they should not outright prohibit law-abiding citizens from owning a gun. A reasonable gun law would 1) raise the required age to own a gun to 21, 2) Require all gun owners to undergo a mental health evaluation, 3) Mandate that all gun owners pass criminal background checks and, 4) Extend the waiting period to purchase a gun.
AGAINST
Criminal defense attorney Arash Hashemi, host of the "Hashing Out The Law" podcast, simultaneously supports the 2nd Amendment and gun control in the US.
I'm more pro-second Amendment than con. People should have the right to bear arms, but it shouldn't be a free-for-all, for any kind of person to get any kind of gun they want. We need background checks, to keep guns out of the hands of convicted criminals.
Unfortunately, most gun-related crimes -- not the mass shootings, but the gang murders and street crime -- involve guns that were not obtained legally. They are either stolen in burglaries or bought off the black market. And no matter how much gun control we have, we'll always have a black market.
It doesn't matter that assault rifles didn't exist during the time the Constitution was written.
But that doesn’t mean you have to take away legal gun ownership rights. Stricter gun control doesn't mean criminals will stop burglarizing homes to steal guns. But for someone convicted of a violent felony, they can lose their right to vote, so they also lose their right to bear arms. That is why we must have criminal background checks for gun purchasing. But petty theft? That's a different case. We can't take away a Constitutional right for that.
It doesn't matter that assault rifles didn't exist during the time the Constitution was written. Our Constitution's search and seizure laws apply to cell phones, and those weren't around either. Constitutional laws apply to present-day technology. That's why I don't agree with banning certain types of guns, for law-abiding citizens who pass a criminal background check. You can have whatever kind of gun, for whatever kind of reason. The government has no business inquiring about what 'reason' you might have for owning one type of gun over another. This is a Constitutional right, whether you want to use it for hunting or as a doorstop.
Guns, for good or ill, will always be a part of America's story.
The reason the 2nd Amendment was adopted was because under British law, you could not have arms -- but the Founding Fathers felt it was important, to keep the government in check, from becoming tyrannical. Citizens bearing arms is a check on government power. The British wanted to prevent ownership of arms because they feared Colonists would turn their weapons against them -- which is exactly what they did.
This is how deep the importance of guns goes in US history -- they go to the very founding of this country. Guns, for good or ill, will always be a part of America's story.
FOR
Nora continues her debate to whether guns should be regulated differently in the United States, to avoid mass shootings and/or "the wrong people getting their hands on guns." Her general consensus is yes, they should be.
In addition, to a ban on new sales of automatic and semi-automatic guns and a buy-back plan, the US could also benefit from German- and Swiss-style regulation. Both countries have very high gun ownership but a much smaller violent gun crime rate (though suicides remain an issue). Regulations would include more than criminal background checks, such as potentially psychological assessments and questions about the motivation for gun purchases, and training (akin to driver's training). I suspect, however, that such searching inquiries would be anathema, especially in light of the Heller decision.
None of these laws will prevent all gun-related killings or mass shootings. Yet, they have the potential to lessen deadly violence in different settings.
The Supreme Court's decision in Heller in 2008, in which it basically re-evaluated the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, reading it to include an individual right to gun ownership, will make many such regulatory moves more difficult. Still, the Amendment has not been read to allow all gun ownership of any type of firearm with no limitation (at least not yet).
Of course, in addition to legally owned guns, there is also a number of illegally owned guns around. Buy-backs are a start (though not always effective) as is enforcement of criminal laws. Here, the disparity in gun laws between the states causes substantial enforcement challenges. In addition, illegal gun ownership is often prevalent in neighborhoods that are less safe, which provides a rational basis even for law-abiding citizens to buy such guns.
None of these laws will prevent all gun-related killings or mass shootings. Yet, they have the potential to lessen deadly violence in different settings.
A broader rethinking of America's relationship with violence and guns is long overdue. Switzerland, for example, allows gun ownership for defense against outside enemies. In the US, gun ownership is styled as a defense against criminals and an overbearing government. That attitude lends itself to vigilante action and undermines state authority. In addition, a better-funded mental health system will not be able to prevent all mass shootings but would provide assistance to those who may need it long before violence occurs.
It remains to be a contested issue for US citizens and their government. Whether or not any changes will be made is a question in itself, and whether those changes will have a positive impact, is another. What worked for countries like Australia, may not work for the US, yet, on the other hand, controlling devasting mass shootings from frequently reoccurring ought to be a priority.
If you enjoyed this article, you may want to take a look at our: ‘What Would Happen If the US Applied A Gun Amnesty?’ article.
Whether you are going to Trump this one out and state you don’t believe it, many scientists and experts have churned out their days and nights into trying to find out what is causing the potentially drastic changes in our climate.
A rise in sea level, hotter temperatures, shrinking ice sheets and warmer oceans are all signs; whisk together water pollution and the masses of plastic and waste that are superglued into the depths of our soil and reefs, and we have cooked up a very toxic concoction.
With experts stating that it is likely that the increase of violent hurricanes and parching droughts that will occur and have since occurred ‘can be attributed to human activities[1]’, it doesn’t really throw us off our seats when societies and their governments and trying to find new ways to keep climate change at bay.
After all, there is no Plan B, is there?
And if we are thinking of ways to reduce our waste, we ought to be considering what big corporations are doing to shrink their carbon footprint, because, at the end of the day, they do account towards 25% of the waste generated in England[3].
This is just the tip of the iceberg, with Europa[2] stating that each person in the EU generates 31kg plastic per year, which thus results in a sheer mass of 15.8 million tonnes of plastic packaging waste generated in a single year.
And if we are thinking of ways to reduce our waste, we ought to be considering what big corporations are doing to shrink their carbon footprint, because, at the end of the day, they do account towards 25% of the waste generated in England[3]. Morality and planetary benefits aside, corporations could also benefit financially by reducing their carbon footprint; solar panels and renewable energy costs are decreasing, thus making them a cheaper option, and, with the younger generation being more environmentally cautious, being sustainable - which sells the company well when considering marketing initiatives-, works to your favour, especially when 87% of consumers have a more positive image of a company that supports social or environmental issues[4].
What are the current laws?
Aside from the regulations, such as the expected ‘you will need a permit for exhuming excessive air pollution into the precious ozone layer’ and ‘make sure your chemicals and too corrosive and meet requirements’, there have been initiatives implemented to help push businesses to be kinder to mother earth.
Yet, ever since environmental regulations were enacted, there have been concerns on their impacts on businesses, even still to this day.
An example: if you have a turnover of more than £2 million and handle more than 50 tonnes of packaging a year, you must register with a compliance scheme or your environmental regulator and recycle and recover specific amounts of the waste[5].
Landfill tax rose with the aim to push companies to recycle more of their waste, as well as making businesses pay ‘gate fees’ when disposing waste, which is on average £6 a tonne[6]. Where this has worked to an extent, smaller businesses often struggle to gain access to residential recycling schemes run by councils and are not always big enough to gain attractive contracts for waste disposal from large commercial providers[7].
And in the past, critics, including MPs on the Commons Environmental Audit Committee, stated that the cost of compliance was too low and that they should be charged more under a “polluter pays” principle[8].
In the UK alone, changes are on the horizon.
Yet, ever since environmental regulations were enacted, there have been concerns on their impacts on businesses, even still to this day. But evidence suggests that not only do environmental regulations vastly outweigh the costs thrown onto corporations’ shoulders, but they also promote low-carbon innovations, which in turn ‘induce[s] larger economic benefits than the ‘dirty’ technologies they replace, because they generate more knowledge in the economy[9]’. This in turn makes it plausible that the switch from ‘dirty’ to ‘clean’ technologies will generate economic growth and justifies the move towards clean technology.
And since The UK’s Climate Change Act was enacted in 2008, emissions have fallen by 59% (from 2008- 2017) as the share of low-carbon generation rose from 20 to 52%, enabling the renewable energy and automotive sector to enhance investment and progress[10].
With EU laws shaping the majority of the environmental regulations, it will be up to the UK to shape how businesses and citizens to create a plan to try and save the planet.
What Will Change?
From The Green New Deal - which in essence, is a programme of investments in clean-energy jobs and infrastructure, is hoping to transform the energy sector and the entire economy alongside it[11] - to the first-ever universal, legally binding globate climate deal, The Paris Agreement, the legislation and regulations in this area are ever changing and something businesses need to be in tune with.
In the UK alone, changes are on the horizon. I am sure you are sick of the sight of the word, but Brexit, once the UK finally finds a rational way of leaving, will present some changes in environment legislation.
With EU laws shaping the majority of the environmental regulations, it will be up to the UK to shape how businesses and citizens to create a plan to try and save the planet. The draft Environment (Principles and Governance) Bill could promise a new era for UK environmental law. With this draft bill - which is a bit to early in the making for us to delve too deep into the potential changes-, focusing on the governance, than substantive environmental law, businesses may be wondering what these changes mean for them. As experts at Burges Salmon state[12]: “It is probably true that, day to day, the work of businesses, environmental compliance teams and environmental lawyers acting for business will carry on as usual. However, let’s not underestimate the importance of strong governance on the direction of travel of environmental law. If this draft bill becomes an Act of Parliament, it sets down a powerful safeguard for environmental protection – and more radically, enhancement - that will inevitably filter through to the substantive environmental law in the UK.”
In addition to reporting on carbon emissions, business will need to report their underlying energy and transport use under Scope 1 and 2 Emissions.
More imminently, however is the new Streamlined Energy and Carbon Reporting framework (SECR). This comes into force from 1 April replacing CRC (Carbon Reduction Commitment) and will be a big disruptor to large businesses and law firms this year, according to Richard Tarboton, Director of Strategic Services at Carbon Credentials.
This framework was included in the latest Environmental Reporting Guidelines from the Department of Business Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) published on 31 January 2019. Richard, who works with law firms regarding trusted carbon performance and energy management business, explains that compared to CRC which affected around 2,500 UK businesses, SECR is estimated to impact an estimated 11,900 UK companies including LLPs, quoted and large unquoted companies with more than 250 staff or an annual turnover of more than £36m and an annual balance sheet of more than £18m (so not SMEs unless they report voluntarily).
He expands: “These companies will be required to record and report within their annual reports to Companies House, their carbon emissions, energy use and energy efficiency actions taken during the reporting year with the first reports due 1st April 2020, for those businesses whose financial year ends in April 2020.
Companies need to accept that the world economy will be going through a rapid transformation over the next 30 years to one that is zero-carbon and more equitable
In addition to reporting on carbon emissions, business will need to report their underlying energy and transport use under Scope 1 and 2 Emissions. Scope 1 are greenhouse gas emissions released directly into the atmosphere – i.e.: from an organisation’s site or from their vehicles. Scope 2 is purchased electricity, heat and steam.
“These new regulations mean that a number of [law] firms will have to start collecting and reporting their emissions figures for the first time. What’s more, these figures will be publicly reported and can be used to form league tables and compare who is performing at the best level of carbon improvement across the legal sector. It will be an opportunity to show your leadership and differentiate your firm.”
As with anything, we can never truly know what to expect in this area.
Companies need to accept that the world economy will be going through a rapid transformation over the next 30 years to one that is zero-carbon and more equitable so SECR will be the chance to create real competitive advantage for example, by reducing energy costs, improving reputation and the wellbeing and productivity of staff.
“These businesses will also improve customer loyalty and investor confidence, opening up new opportunities for investment. Pressure to improve sustainability isn’t just coming from regulation, but more so from end clients seeking ways to cut emissions throughout their own supply chain (their Scope 3 emissions) and this means working only with likeminded, environmentally committed suppliers and partners”, concludes Richard.
As with anything, we can never truly know what to expect in this area. But with businesses accounting towards a lot of the waste and pollution our planet unfortunately is forced to embrace, it is of utmost importance we all ensure we keep our eyes peeled for any changes in environmental regulations for the betterment of our home and businesses.
[1] http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
[2] https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/EDN-20180422-1?inheritRedirect=true
[3] https://www.brother.co.uk/blog/sme/2017/business-waste-cost
[4] https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesnycouncil/2018/11/21/do-customers-really-care-about-your-environmental-impact/#195bf908240d
[5] https://www.british-assessment.co.uk/environmentally-friendly-business-guide/obligations-environmental-laws.html
[6] https://www.brother.co.uk/blog/sme/2017/business-waste-cost
[7] https://www.brother.co.uk/blog/sme/2017/business-waste-cost
[8] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/uk-supermarkets-drinks-plastic-recycling-pay-cost-environment-mps-committee-audit-mary-creagh-a8124771.html
[9] http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/publication/the-impacts-of-environmental-regulations-on-competitiveness/
[10] https://friendsoftheearth.uk/climate-change/what-has-the-uk-climate-law-achieved
[11] https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/12/21/18144138/green-new-deal-alexandria-ocasio-cortez
[12] https://www.burges-salmon.com/news-and-insight/legal-updates/environmental-principles-and-governance-a-new-era-for-uk-environmental-law/
Facebook Inc. is built into the daily lives of most westerners, whether in social life, business or communities. Going a day without Facebook is a challenge and many can very easily admit they couldn’t live without it.
On the other hand, there is a rising group of people who are unhappy with the supposed exploitation of information, user engagement and sales opportunities from Facebook’s part. The #deletefacebook movement is on the rise, and those invested in their own privacy are increasingly concerned about using the social media platform, sharing their photos or adding their personal details to their page.
Even Brian Acton, ex-boss of WhatsApp, another social messaging app that was bought by Facebook in 2014 for $19 billion, joined in with #deletefacebook.
https://twitter.com/brianacton/status/976231995846963201
Some even believe Facebook is always listening… The propagation of smart and appropriate user directed ads on Facebook ahs led many users to misunderstand the systems Facebook has implemented to show the right ads to the right people. Many seem to think Facebook hears your conversations and tries to sell you on the back of them.
In extreme cases, some have gone as far as trying to sue Facebook for misuse of their data or likeness. But is such a thing even possible? And even if you did sue Facebook, would you have a leg to stand on?
In the first quarter of 2018, Facebook was hit with a major scandal that really pushed worldwide privacy worries over the edge; Cambridge Analytica. The ordeal that took place led to government investigations into Facebook’s processes, in particular regards to political campaign ads, and severely angered many users, to the point some threatened and tried to sue. One group got together to present a 27-page letter to Facebook, threatening a lawsuit on the grounds of breaching British data privacy regulations. In the US, many businesses and individuals filed very real lawsuits against Facebook, but the social media giant stood to defend them.
This is one of many lawsuits Facebook has faced on the back of its data policies, ad monitoring, and political campaign advertising operations. Let’s take a look at some others.
In March 2018, three users brought a lawsuit to Facebook claiming it had been documenting their calls and text messages, facts which Facebook acknowledged but said the users had opted in on via their smartphones.
In April 2018, popular journalist and TV star Martin Lewis sued Facebook for defamation, on the basis that it is a publisher, over the use of his face in Bitcoin ads. Though Lewis tried many times to stop Facebook allowing scammers to use his face in ads without permission, Facebook failed to eradicate the issue.
In June 2018, Attorney General Bob Ferguson sued Facebook with claims it had failed to maintain legal standards for political campaign ads ran in Washington state dating back to 2013.
In July 2018, one of Facebook’s shareholders, James Kacouris, sued the company following the largest drop in stock price in wall Street history. The shareholder accused Facebook of misleading statements regarding its user figures and operations.
In August 2018, hundreds of social media users in India had their social media details submitted to the Delhi High Court on the back of PepsiCo’s lawsuit against Facebook (and Twitter & YouTube) for allowing the circulation of ‘defamatory and disparaging’ posts against one of its brands, Kurkure.
More recently, Facebook has been sued by the Trump Administration, which joined a suit filed by the National Fair Housing Alliance for violating the Fair Housing Act and allegedly diverting housing ads away from potential tenants.
https://twitter.com/newsworldforev4/status/1030747484019146753
As of time of publication, none of the above lawsuits have concluded, meaning only time and hard evidence will tell us whether the law is greater than Facebook, and whether in the long run, it is at all possible to sue Facebook.
Though, in the case of data privacy law and damages to the user, Marc Pettigrew, a specialist in IT Law from Waterfront Solicitors, had this to say: “In relation to breach of the Data Protection Act, if an individual suffers damage, they may be entitled to claim some form of compensation. ‘Damage’ could be in the form of a financial loss and/or showing that the individual has suffered some form of distress. To claim compensation, the individual would need to be ready to prove the level of damage claimed to have been suffered and it would be for the courts to decide whether that level of compensation is appropriate.
“There is also the potential of collective action claims, which are on the rise here in the UK (often referred to as the ‘class action suits’ we often hear about in the US). This is the concept of a number of individuals combining their claims to bring an action against a common defendant. Previous examples include actions against the supermarket chain Morrisons and Google. If Facebook is found to have been in breach, one wonders whether it will be next in line.”
Make of that what you will, but it is clear that a lot of evidence, time and money will be spent pursuing justice if you decided to try and sue Facebook.
Sources: https://www.cnet.com/news/deletefacebook-hashtag-trends-twitter-facebook-users/ https://www.marketwatch.com/press-release/class-action-lawsuits-against-facebook-consolidated-creating-one-of-the-largest-data-privacy-lawsuits-2018-08-23 https://dataprivacylawsuit.com/ https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/27/three-facebook-users-sue-over-collection-of-call-and-text-history.html https://blog.moneysavingexpert.com/2018/04/martin-lewis-to-sue-facebook/ https://www.shortlist.com/news/sue-facebook-data-cambridge-analytica-lawyer/352704 https://www.atg.wa.gov/news/news-releases/ag-ferguson-files-campaign-finance-lawsuits-against-facebook-google https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/07/30/shareholder-sues-facebook-after-stock-plunges/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f22f4ac79b08 https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/23/17271454/facebook-cryptocurrency-bitcoin-scam https://www.redstate.com/streiff/2018/08/18/opening-salvo-trump-administration-sues-facebook-fair-housing-act-violations/ https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/cons-products/fmcg/pepsi-sues-facebook-twitter-and-youtube-hc-orders-take-down-of-posts-that-allege-kurkure-contains-plastic/articleshow/65174482.cms
When asked about additional regulation for Google on Aug. 29, President Trump said “we’re just going to see” before adding he wanted to see “fairness” on the platform.
