By: Jack Dorsey

The world is firmly in the age of drone technology, and the effects are increasingly being felt. From transforming warfare on the frontlines in Ukraine, revolutionizing medical aid logistics in African countries, postponing NFL games, impacting fire suppression operations in Los Angeles, or playing a role in the recent events in New Jersey and New York, the prevalence and usage of drone technology will only continue to increase. As of 2022, the commercial drone market is valued at $4.79 billion USD and is expected to grow 9.1% between 2023 and 2030, a trend largely driven by lower costs. E-commerce giants like Amazon and Temu both sell a variety of drones, the cheapest of which retail for well under $100. As technology advances and costs decrease, high-performance drones will be available to more people. 

Increased access to drone technology will likely result in cascading legal consequences that implicate concepts such as privacy, property rights, airspace regulations, criminal law, law enforcement, and broader national security. Currently, drones are subject to both Federal and State law. In 2016, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) promulgated regulations that created some federal framework around the use of commercial drones, i.e., drones used in commerce or for surveying. For drones used in this manner, drone pilots needed to pass a knowledge test, obtain an FAA Tracking Number, and register the drone with the FAA. Recreational drone pilots, on the other hand, were encouraged to take the Recreational Unmanned Aerial System test but were not required to do so. All drone operators are required to adhere to a maximum altitude limit of 400 feet. Moreover, states have also implemented various laws to regulate the usage of drones. In Washington for example, commercial drone operators are required to also register with the Washington State Department of Transportation. 

In 2024, the FAA began enforcing a regulation that mandates all drones operated or manufactured in the U.S. and weighing more than 0.55 pounds be outfitted with Remote ID. Remote ID acts as a digital emitter, which means that it transmits information such as the drone’s ID number, location, altitude, and speed, as well as information about the drone pilot. Further, remote ID applies to all drones regardless of whether they are flown for recreational or commercial purposes. Pilots who fail to comply with this rule may be subject to confiscation of their drone pilot license and may face up to $27,500 in penalties. 

 While Remote ID will help hold irresponsible drone operators accountable, there are several open questions. First, will the broader drone pilot community implement remote ID? Second, whether foreign manufactured drones above the 0.55 threshold will be grounded without the Remote ID feature? Finally, even with this remote ID technology, what enforcement body is keeping a record of the drones flight plan and activities while airborne? In addition to these questions, the fact remains that drones below the 0.55 pound threshold are not required to register with remote ID. Despite not having to register, Some of these smaller drones are capable of distances exceeding 13,000 feet and can still perform in ways that implicate the various legal issues previously discussed. 

Besides detecting drones or countering them with physical projectiles or objects, technology is still in its infancy when it comes to frequency jamming or hijacking countermeasures. Current hijacking and jamming technology relies on wide-band radio frequencies that emergency services and other communications devices also rely on. The effectiveness of deploying this technology in highly populated areas is currently not known, but would likely create problems for other technological devices that utilize these frequencies. 

Imagine a scenario where a malicious actor uses a drone to target and attack critical infrastructure. Tracking down such an individual becomes exceedingly difficult if the drone lacks a Remote ID. Moreover, it’s unlikely that the FAA would directly pursue the drone pilot; they would probably rely on the FBI or local law enforcement for assistance. The FAA has programs, such as the Law Enforcement Assistance Program (LEAP), to support state and local agencies, but several factors complicate the situation. These include compliance with Remote ID, the existence of smaller drones that are exempt from this requirement, and the limited effective countermeasures available. As a result, the response from local, state, and federal officials to a drone attack remains unclear.

To effectively hold drone operators accountable, it is essential to expand Remote ID regulations to include all drones, regardless of size. Ensuring that every drone, whether manufactured in the U.S. or abroad, is equipped with an active Remote ID emitter would create a clear pathway for identifying bad actors when necessary. Without such regulations, the future of drone security remains up in the air, leaving critical gaps in accountability, privacy, and public safety.

#Drones #FAA #WelcomeToTheDroneAge

By: Evan Stewart

Inheritance and Professional Sports

No one likes to think about how a family member’s assets will be handled after their death. Inheritance is a complicated, and often messy topic for families. But for the owners of multi-billion-dollar sports franchises, succession can be even more contentious, and likely to lead to fighting and litigation in the public eye.

In recent years, sports franchises like the Baltimore Orioles, Los Angeles Chargers, and Denver Broncos have all had public and heated litigation to make trust and estate determinations following their owner’s death. Sports franchises are ripe for trust and estate litigation because of their scarcity, and their value. There are 152 professional sports organizations in the five major American sports leagues(MLB, NFL, NBA, NHL, and MLS). Of those 152, nearly 100 have valuations in the billions, with the top 50 franchises in value having an average valuation of 5.7 billion. When an owner dies, it is expected that their heir will fight to gain control of their family’s most valuable asset.  

Background for San Diego Padres Inheritance Dispute

On January 6, 2025, the San Diego Padres became the latest sports franchise caught in the middle of a family’s inheritance dispute. Sheel Seidler, widow of former Padres chair and majority owner, Peter Seidler, sued Peter’s brothers Robert and Matthew Seidler, claiming that they were trying to “falsely claim themselves as Peter’s true heirs” to gain control of the team following Peter Seidler’s sudden passing in November 2023.

Peter Seidler was part of the ownership group that purchased the Padres in 2012. He became the majority owner and chair in 2020. Under Peter Seidler, the Padres ended a 14-year playoff drought, saw significant growth in attendance, and signed numerous big-name free agents. Peter Seidler was also a well-renowned philanthropist, raising millions of dollars for local cancer research and addressing homelessness in San Diego, making him a beloved figure among Padres fans. Following his passing, Robert and Matthew Seidler have managed Peter Seidler’s trust and estate. Noticeably absent from any management power is Peter’s widow, Sheel Seidler, who currently holds the largest share in the Padres (25%) and had been closely involved in daily operations and team management for the Padres during Peter’s lifetime.

Sheel Seidler’s Complaint

In her January 6th complaint, filed in Probate Court in Travis County, Texas, Sheel Seidler claimed that the two Seidler brothers breached their fiduciary duties of trust, and committed fraud, conversion, and egregious acts of self-dealing. Among the breaches that Sheel alleges, she alleges that Matthew and Robert have attempted to sell the trusts’ interests at below market value. A sale that she claims the brothers called off once other parties became aware of. She also alleged that the two brothers were preparing to potentially sell or relocate the franchise. Sheel also accused Robert’s wife Alecia of making “multiple racist, profane, and hateful communications” because of her Indian descent, which contributed to the Seidler family’s motivation to remove Sheel from involvement with the Padres. 

In addition, Sheel claims that during Peter’s time as the control person, she was very involved in the team’s operations. However, since his passing, she claims to have been ostracized from the team by Peter’s brothers, including not being allowed into the owner’s box at games.

Sheel Seidler is seeking to enjoin Matthew from acting on behalf of the Seidler trust, remove him as trustee, and void any appointments of a control person made by Matthew. Specifically, she is seeking to enjoin Matthew by naming John the team’s control person. A “control person” has the final say in all team operations, is tasked with ensuring compliance with all MLB rules and regulations, and has ultimate authority and responsibility for making team decisions. In support of her claim that she should be appointed control person for the Padres, Sheel attached a piece of paper in Peter’s handwriting listing Sheel as the first choice for the control person, followed by their children to her initial complaint. However, at this point, it is the only potential evidence that shows Sheel would have been the choice for the team’s control person.

Response from the Seidler Brothers

Matthew and Robert Seidler have not filed a response to Sheel Seidler’s complaint yet, but they are expected to do so in the upcoming weeks. However, on January 7, Matthew Seidler addressed Sheel’s allegations in a letter addressed to “Padres partners and Faithful fans,” where he explained that Peter Seidler’s plan was to name his siblings as the successor trustees of his trust. In the letter, Matthew Seidler called the suit “entirely without merit,” adding that “in 2020, in connection with Peter’s appointment as control person, Sheel agreed in a sworn document that she had no right to be or to designate the Control Person and that should not interfere with the designated Control Person.” Matthew Seidler also called the relocation claim “laughable,” and insisted that it was his goal to continue Peter Seidler’s legacy.

Uncertainty in the Future of the Seidler Litigation

Unfortunately for Padres fans, it is unlikely that this matter will be resolved quickly without a settlement. In 2022, a similar lawsuit was filed between two brothers who claimed to be the heir of former Orioles owner Peter Angelos, who became incapacitated in 2017 due to a heart condition. In this suit, John Angelos was sued by his brother Louis for allegedly conspiring with their mother to push him out of the family’s inheritance, which included ownership of the Baltimore Orioles. This suit, which was filed in June 2022, was settled outside of court in February 2023, and culminated with the sale of the team in March 2024, but impacted the Orioles franchise for nearly a decade.

Based on Sheel and Matthew Seidler’s comments, it does not seem likely that either side is willing to settle with an eventual goal of selling the team. With the Seidler brothers yet to file a response to Sheel’s complaint, and the conflicting evidence of who Peter Seidler intended to succeed him as the Padres’ control person, it is difficult to make a prognosis of how this litigation will end. 

This litigation will revolve nearly exclusively on witness testimony and hearsay regarding meetings and Peter Seidler’s true succession intentions, which is unlikely to lead to a quick resolution. The unfortunate reality is that this litigation may be a dark cloud over the Padres franchise for years to come, overshadowing the legacy that Peter Seidler left with the Padres and San Diego, alike. 

#WJLTA #trustandestates #majorleaguebaseball #sportslaw #padres

By: Tavis McClain

In the new era of college sports that allows players to profit from their name, image, and likeness (“NIL”), growth is rapid and more entities seek industry involvement. Initially, in 2021 when NIL became legal, college athletes could not be paid by the universities directly. Recently, a District Court Judge granted preliminary approval for a settlement that would allow universities to pay their athletes directly. Seeing a lucrative investment opportunity, private equity firms have recently begun investing in college sports. For many years, the NCAA has rejected investment from outside sources, such as private equity firms. College sports is heading toward becoming a semi-professional industry direction, due to a combination of NIL factors and the NCAA allowing private equity firms to invest in college sports. This blog will provide a brief history of why investment in college sports has changed, and cover the various legal issues that may arise with private equity firms’ investment in college sports including antitrust law, regulatory/compliance concerns, and labor law implications. 

History 

In October 2024, a settlement was reached in House v. NCAA that required the NCAA and its power conferences to pay out $2.8 billion in backpay for former athletes over the past ten years. The settlement further requires that athletic departments find up to $30 million annually between revenue sharing with athletes and reduced NCAA distributions. This has provided the opportunity for private equity firms such as Red Bird Capital and Weatherford Capital to negotiate with universities in need of funding.

Antitrust 

A key issue is antitrust law, which seeks to promote fair competition and prevent monopolistic practices. When private equity firms invest in multiple college sports programs, there is a possibility that these investments could reduce the level of competition among institutions, creating antitrust concerns. Private equity firms would be wise to invest in established programs that can generate their desired returns. If private equity firms control several top athletic programs, they could potentially consolidate power over broadcasting rights or negotiate favorable media contracts for those programs. This would reduce opportunities for smaller schools to compete on equal footing, potentially creating an unfair advantage for schools backed by private equity. This is an even greater concern because of the TV deals/streaming rights that the SEC and Big Ten have–the most lucrative TV deals by a sizable margin. If private equity firms invest in schools from these conferences, it could exacerbate the talent disparity between conferences. Because private equity firms could own stakes in multiple teams, this could create conflicts of interest and hinder competition. It’s been reported that JPMorgan Chase has had negotiations with Florida State and other schools to capitalize on the promising opportunity to have stakes in multiple teams. The legal issues could stem from accusations of price-fixing or anti-competitive conduct, especially if the investments result in monopolies or oligopolies within the college sports market.

Regulatory/Compliance Issues

In addition to antitrust concerns, private equity investments in college sports may also raise issues related to compliance with existing state and federal regulations. Because college sports are typically governed by both federal law and the regulatory frameworks of state governments, private equity firms looking to invest in these programs must navigate a complicated landscape of rules and oversight. A specific example is the recent changes in NIL legislation. With college athletes now able to profit from NIL, there is increased potential for private equity firms to leverage their investments by facilitating NIL deals. In the absence of clear federal regulation governing how these transactions are handled, private equity firms could exploit loopholes, leading to further legal and ethical complications. The most important NIL law in the state of Washington is Senate Bill 5913, now RCW 42.52.807. Private equity firms could run into legal issues if they violate the act, such as the failure to comply with the disclosure requirement. Legal questions will arise around whether private equity firms are required to comply with these state regulations.

Labor Law Implications 

There has been significant movement toward the recognition of student-athletes as employees rather than amateurs. In light of recent legal developments such as the NCAA v. Alston case and the broader push for NIL rights, the role of private equity in shaping the economic and employment landscape of college athletes is becoming more controversial. 

Private equity involvement may result in legal challenges regarding whether student-athletes should be classified as employees. This could entitle college athletes to collective-bargaining rights, the rights of employees to negotiate with their employer as a group through a representative, which the NCAA has opposed. If college athletes were to attain collective bargaining power, they could further leverage their power as employees and argue for more favorable policies. Private equity firms, with their financial influence, may also advocate for arrangements that limit student-athletes’s control over their image or impose longer-term contracts, which could come under scrutiny from legislators and agencies. By placing limitations on students’ control over their image and imposing long-term contracts, private equity firms can maximize their profits. Long-term contracts could lead private equity firms to profit from college athletes later in their careers. For example, Big League Advantage, an investment firm, sought to enforce a contract that entitled the company to 15% of a college athlete’s pretax earnings for the rest of his career. These types of contracts in college sports are unprecedented and there may be legal challenges to the enforceability of these contracts.

Conclusion

The legal landscape in college sports is constantly evolving. Lawyers will play a pivotal role in navigating the complex challenges that are presented that span across multiple areas of law. Stay tuned to see how private equity’s investment changes college sports.

#WJLTA #sports #competition #athletes #NIL

By: William H. Kronblat

In today’s music landscape it may feel painfully obvious that some artists incorporate, mimic, or replicate parts of previous songs—even those that are not their own—on the way to producing top charting hits. While this practice may feel commonplace it still presents a very relevant and contemporary copyright-centric legal question as to whether that copying was allowed, who has ownership of the musical composition used, and what remedies are allowed if someone were to unlawfully copy a copyrighted work. Moreover, if someone in the music industry wants to bring a copyright lawsuit forward, who is legally able to do so? This particular question has come to the forefront of one the latest celebrity music copyright lawsuits in which Tempo Music has sued Miley Cyrus, alleging she ripped off Bruno Mars’ “When I Was Your Man” in her hit song “Flowers”. 

The Leadup to the Lawsuit:

In January of 2013 Bruno Mars Released his hit song “When I Was Your Man” as a single. A few years later in 2020, Tempo Music Investments acquired a share of the copyright to the song from one its four writers, Philip Lawrence. Roughly a decade after Mars released his single, in January of 2023, Miley Cyrus released her hit song “Flowers”. It quickly topped charts  and was “streamed more than 2 billon times on Spotify.” The popular song also garnered  Cyrus a Grammy award for Record of the Year, and a Grammy award for Best Pop Solo Performance. As of June of 2024, Cyrus’ song made history by holding the top spot on various music charts. Then in September of 2024, Tempo Music Investments filed a civil lawsuit against Cyrus. The lawsuit did not list the song’s other three songwriters as plaintiffs. 

The Heart of the Lawsuit and Cryus’ Motion to Dismiss:

Tempo Music Investments accused Cyrus of copying or mimicking parts of Mars’ song including key elements like the melody, harmony, and chorus. Tempo Music Investments claimed that     “based on the combination and number of similarities between the two recordings that “Flowers” would not exist without “When I Was Your Man.” In addition to Cyrus, the lawsuit names “Flowers” other songwriters as defendants along with Sony Music Publishing and various distributors like Amazon, Walmart, and Target. In the lawsuit, Tempo Music Investments is seeking damages and to bar Cyrus from performing and distributing “Flowers”. 

Cyrus and her legal team responded by filing a motion to dismiss arguing that the lawsuit should be thrown out. In the motion to dismiss, Cyrus’ legal team asserts that the “allegedly copied elements are random, scattered, unprotected ideas and musical building blocks.” However, the more intricate argument that Cyrus’ legal team advances is that Tempo Music Investments does not have standing to bring the lawsuit. They claim that in the 9^th Circuit, where the lawsuit was brought, there is precedent that a copyright holder must have exclusive rights over the copyright under Section 501(b) to confer standing. Furthermore, they claim that Tempo Music Investments lacks exclusive rights over the copyright because they only have a partial interest from Philip Lawrence—one of the four songwriters of “When I Was Your Man”— and do not have the interests from the other “When I Was Your Man” songwriters. 

A New Precedent Out of the Ninth Circuit?

This motion to dismiss hearing is set to take place on January 27^th of 2025 in the US District Court for the Central District of California. Tempo’s lawyers have already noted that they adamantly disagree with Cyrus’ standing to sue argument noting that it is “blackletter law” any one owner of copyright could bring a lawsuit without the other owners. Nonetheless, Cyrus’ motion to dismiss has opened the doors for a new precedent on who can bring a copyright lawsuit (more specifically in the Ninth Circuit). Some lawyers and legal scholars believe that if Cyrus’ standing claim is successful it may create a “problematic” precedent. If her argument is successful, it could make it increasingly difficult to enforce a copyright without every partial owner’s participation.  This could have significant ramifications for the licensing of intellectual property and would diminish the value of licensing fractional shares of copyrights. 

Ultimately, this case could fundamentally change how intellectual property contracts are done in the entertainment industry and cast a shadow on numerous previous license deals because it may render partial ownership of IP worthless. The ability to enforce your intellectual property is a fundamental aspect of intellectual property law. If this precedent is established, those who purchase partial ownership of a copyright will be left powerless to enforce their newly purchased copyright, and they will be at the mercy of the other copyright owners as to whether they can go after potential infringers. As noted above, this case is still in district court and would require a decision on appeal to officially set any kind of precedent. However, even if this case does not go up on appeal it may still present the foundation for a new legal argument others may attempt to adopt. In the meantime, this will be an important case for any intellectual property owner or intellectual property lawyer to keep an eye on.  

#Miley Cyrus, #Copyright, #Flowers Lawsuit