Carpenter v. United States – What future for digital privacy?

Picture1By Jabu Diagana

On November 29th, 2017, the Supreme Court will hear Carpenter v. United States and decide whether the government violates the Fourth Amendment when it accesses a third party’s record of an individual’s cell phone location without a warrant.

Carpenter was a 2011 case where the defendant was convicted of a series of interstate robberies based on his phone location data, also known as cell-site-location information (CSLI). CSLI is maintained by wireless carriers and is a record of the cell towers our phones connect to every time we transmit calls, texts, emails, or any other digital information. It usually includes the precise geolocation of each tower as well as the day and time the phone tried to connect to it. The government obtained CSLI under the Stored Communications Act (SCA), a 1986 federal statute which provides that a “governmental entity may require a provider of electronic communication service or remote computing service to disclose” records using either a warrant, or, as in Carpenter, using a court order issued “if the governmental entity offers specific and articulable facts showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the contents of a wire or electronic communication, or the records or other information sought, are relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation.”

Stated differently, the real question is to what extent does the SCA allow the government to obtain CSLI without a warrant? Or to put it more bluntly, is the SCA unconstitutional?

The Sixth Circuit holding in Carpenter turned on the “third-party doctrine.”

The third-party doctrine originated in Smith v. Maryland, a 1979 case in which the Supreme Court found that installing and using a pen register to record a phone user’s dialed numbers was not an illegal search and didn’t merit Fourth Amendment protections. According to the Smith court, although the contents of our phone conversations are protected, information about the sender or receiver is not, since they willingly disclose that information to the phone company every time they place a call. Following this logic, the Sixth Circuit first found that the third-party doctrine also authorizes the government to access CSLI as “business records” directly from a cell phone company without a warrant. Additionally, it found that when a person uses their cell phone, they should be aware that their location data is shared with the service provider and should not have any “reasonable expectation of privacy” with respect to that data.

Although Carpenter is about users’ cell locations information, the principle at issue spans over other aspects of our digital privacy, given all the data we now share with third parties through the use of smartphones, wifi hotspots, apps, and cloud-based services. As Justice Sotomayor highlighted in her United States v. Jones concurrence, whatever our current societal expectations of privacy are, our citizenry can “attain constitutionally protected status only if our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence ceases to treat secrecy as a prerequisite for privacy.”

Whether Carpenter is affirmed or overruled, the court discourse will likely revolve around the impracticability of the “third-party doctrine” in the digital age. Does sharing with one mean sharing with many? It is tempting to recommend that the court abandons the “third party” doctrine, but that may be over simplistic. If the court choose to modify it, then where should the line be drawn? should there be a difference between information voluntarily conveyed to a third party or stored on the cloud? There is also a time component to this issue.  How long is continuous tracking too long? All these questions, a priori theoretical will be fundamental to the future of our privacy.

Taming the Gerry-Mander: How Technology Can Keep Gerrymandering in Check

181213-004-84DEAB79By Joshua Oh

A politician’s dream is to be re-elected over and over with minimal effort, so where might one look to ensure this? The answer, perhaps, is gerrymandering. Gerrymandering was coined after Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry enacted a law in 1812 to redraw legislative districts to benefit his party, which resulted in one of the redrawn districts resembling a salamander—thus the term “gerrymandering.” In fact, it has been gaining a notorious reputation for its widespread use based on its potentially unfair effects on election results. However, the Supreme Court will soon rule on a case, Gill v. Whitford, that will heavily influence future American elections.

Gerrymandering is without a doubt toxic to American democracy. It allows politicians to choose their voters by “packing”—concentrating one party’s supporters in one district to win overwhelmingly. On the other hand, “cracking” splits up supporters of the opposing party into multiple districts in order to dilute their impact, preventing opponents from securing a majority vote. This essentially means that elections are predetermined and one person’s vote is not necessarily equal to someone else’s vote, which could contravene the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court has always been reluctant to intervene in partisan areas meant for the political branches of government to debate. Thus, a standard or definition of political fairness in the gerrymandering context had never been set. Gill v. Whitford, an extreme example of partisan gerrymandering in Wisconsin, may soon change that. In 2012, Republican elected officials in Wisconsin were able to draw up a districting plan that permitted their party to win 61% of the Wisconsin Assembly, even though they only received 48.6% of the vote. In 2014, they won 64% of the Wisconsin Assembly, despite receiving only 52% of the vote.

The issue in the Whitford case was whether partisan redistricting could be so extreme as to be unconstitutional. The argument goes that Republican efforts to redistrict caused the dilution of Democratic votes, leading to a non-representative government. By packing and cracking districts, the votes of individual Democrats meant less than those of individual Republicans. The nation’s highest court will soon decide whether these arguments are persuasive.

In ruling on the constitutionality of a given redistricting effort, the Supreme Court could receive valuable assistance from recent technological advances that are equipped to detect gerrymandering. Indeed, algorithms are the latest threat to gerrymandering, as computers can now determine whether districts were drawn with political motivations in mind. Down the road, these algorithms could be used in a court of law in order to challenge unconstitutional gerrymandering. Since courts are demanding that districts be drawn more fairly, these algorithms could be the solution in providing the citizenry a fair and representative democracy that it deserves.

Professor Wendy Cho with the National Center for Supercomputing Applications at the University of Illinois is attempting to create such an algorithm to measure whether political parties manipulated a map to gain an unfair advantage, a term described as a “gerrymandering ruler.” This algorithm would identify the criteria—some even required by law—of redistricting: population equity, contiguity, compactness, and traditional districting principles. Based on these criteria, the algorithm would generate billions of maps that are, by definition, nonpartisan maps, since no political information was considered. These artificial, nonpartisan re-districted maps could then be compared to the districts that had been created by politicians. If the real map does not look like any of the billion possibilities generated by the algorithm, that would provide strong evidence of partisanship motivating the alleged gerrymandering. On the other hand, if the algorithm generated a set of one billion maps with partisan information considered, and the map in question looked similar to any of those billion possibilities, a court could then also infer partisan motivation.

This algorithm is but one possible solution to the toxicity that gerrymandering brings into the election system. It may be beneficial for the courts to be more receptive to technological advances like this one that can better detect and prove partisan bias in gerrymandering. Such extraordinary technology could encourage lawyers to introduce algorithmic evidence into a court of law, allowing the court to better assess cases before them in an objective manner as partisan gerrymandering continues to be a problem in American politics. It can also be a useful way to objectively give a voice to those who have felt that their votes did not matter when their district was always won by a particular party. It would no doubt advance the “one person, one vote” principle that the Constitution demands.

Picture Source

What To Do About Russian Facebook Trolls?

Picture1By Hugo Fraga

Once again, Facebook is being prodded by state officials—this time from across the pond. Just one month after revealing to Congress that Russian-linked accounts purchased $150,000 worth of political ads during the US election, Facebook is being asked to provide British lawmakers with information on ads purchased by Russian-linked Facebook accounts during last year’s Brexit referendum and during this year’s general election.

Law makers in both the United States and Britain worry that the social media giant is providing a platform for foreign governments to interfere with the democratic process. Up until now, Facebook has not provided enough information to Congress to assuage this worry. For that reason, Congress—and from the looks of it, Parliament as well —is considering a bill that would require political advertisements on social media platforms to disclose who is paying for the advertisement.

This kind of regulation—at least in the U.S.—isn’t new. The Federal Election Commission is charged with ensuring that political advertisements on television and radio reveal the source of their funds and has a similar regulation for radio and television ads. But as it stands now, political advertisers on social media platforms, like Facebook, escape the FEC’s requirement to disclose the source of their funds because such advertisements are considered merely “small items,” and thus are in the same group as, say, buttons and bumper stickers.

However, Congress has introduced a bill entitled “The Honest Ads Act” that could change that. The Honest Ads Act would require social media companies with more than 50 million monthly users to make public detailed information about any political advertiser who spends over $500 on their platforms. Furthermore, it would require social media platforms to take “reasonable efforts” to ensure that any political advertisements or content they display were not purchased by a foreign national.

But some argue that this isn’t enough. Brendan Fischer, director of the Federal Election Commission reform at the Campaign Legal Center, told Wired Magazine that the kinds of advertisements purchased by Russian-linked accounts wouldn’t fall under campaign finance law because none of them included “expressed advocacy”—i.e., a prompt to vote for this or that candidate. And even if Congress expanded the meaning of a bill to include the kind of ads purchased by Russian-linked accounts, there would still be ways around it, like forming a “fake news” website and then posting the ad as an article instead.

Nonetheless, Congress likely realizes that a single bill won’t fix this problem and that there will be ways around any proposed solutions. However, many members of Congress see this bill more as an attempt to regulate what has seemed impossible to regulate: Facebook. And the advantage of that is that people won’t have to rely on Facebook’s internal efforts to solve the problem. After all, when has a company’s self-legislated efforts ever been in favor of the people.

(Don’t) Say My Name

3581676336_048e8a16fc_b

By Vanessa James

“We’re a company that’s so successful and everywhere you go, you see a scratchy, hairy fastener and you say…

Hey, that’s Velcro.”

So begins the recent Youtube video Velcro released on September 25, 2017. In an effort to protect itself against genericide—an intellectual property term that means the retraction of a trademark because the brand name has become synonymous with the type of product—Velcro released a video pleading with the public to stop saying “Velcro” and start instead saying “hook and loop.”

It may seem innocuous to use brand names to describe products associated with the brand, but this is actually often a red flag that the brand could potentially lose its trademark. For instance, when was the last time you drank from a “vacuum flask,” walked on a “moving staircase,” or went to a “coin laundry shop?”

Velcro, which was first registered as a trademark in 1956, is trying to avoid losing its trademark, as did thermos, escalator, laundromat, yo-yo, aspirin, and pilates. The purpose of a trademark is to uniquely distinguish the goods or services of a company and to help consumers identify the source of a product. When a trademark becomes synonymous with a class of goods, it no longer helps consumers to understand which company made the product. If this happens, the trademark may be cancelled by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Once a trademark is cancelled, the mark can no longer be used to prevent others from using the same mark to describe their products.

One factor courts consider when determining whether a trademark has become generic is whether the owner attempted to educate the public on the proper use of the mark and the generic name for the goods. Enter Velcro’s video. Ad campaigns like Velcro’s have a record of successfully stopping brands from losing their registered trademarks. Campaigns for Xerox (a 2003 advertisement from photocopier firm Xerox read: “When you use ‘Xerox’ the way you use ‘aspirin,’ we get a headache), Jeep, and Band-Aid saved those trademarks from becoming generic.  Johnson & Johnson changed its marketing jingle from “I am stuck on Band-Aids, ’cause Band-Aid’s stuck on me” to “I am stuck on Band-Aids brand ’cause Band-Aid’s stuck on me.”  Chrysler turned to the term “SUV” instead of “Jeep.” The Dow Chemical Company, which makes a well-known “line of extruded polystyrene foam products,” has worked to remind consumers coffee cups are not made of Styrofoam.

Another recent example of a company fighting to save its trademark comes from well-known jewelry chain Tiffany & Co. Tiffany initiated a legal battle with U.S. wholesaler Costco when Tiffany claimed that Costco infringed its trademark by selling “Tiffany” engagement rings. In retaliation, Costco argued that the jewelry firm’s trademark was no longer valid because “Tiffany” had become a generic term for solitaire-style rings. Judge Swain of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York determined that Costco did in fact infringe on Tiffany’s trademark and awarded Tiffany $11.1 million plus interest in addition to $8.25 million punitive damages. For now, producing a simple, fun Youtube video is far less costly way for Velcro to protect its trademark.

Picture Source

Antitrust Implications of Amazon’s Purported New Delivery Service

Amazon-Shopping-in-KenyaBy Gardner Reed

Amazon’s recent acquisition of Whole Foods has renewed the debate surrounding the proper role of antitrust regulation. The traditional approach to antitrust law aims to protect consumers by keeping prices down and quality up. The Whole Foods acquisition, along with the growing dominance of large tech firms such as Google, has helped popularize a new approach to antitrust: “hipster antitrust.” Hipster antitrust widens the objectives of traditional antitrust regulation, not only protecting consumers through fostering competition, but also using antitrust enforcement to attack problems such as economic inequality and environmental degradation. While the Federal Trade Commission promptly approved the Whole Foods acquisition, recent reports that Amazon is developing a delivery service to rival FedEX and UPS may raise a new round of competitive questions and continue the debate surrounding the proper role of antitrust regulation.

To begin, it is important to understand why Amazon’s acquisition of Whole Foods was not an antitrust violation. First, Amazon itself only sells a small amount of groceries and Whole Foods only accounts for two percent of the American grocery market. Second, the grocery market contains far larger and more entrenched competitors, such as Walmart with a twenty percent market share and Kroger with a seven percent share. Third, antitrust regulators, applying the traditional approach to antitrust, believe that fostering competition is the best way to promote low prices and high quality. Because this merger accounted for only a small share of the grocery market, consumers were left with plenty of competitive alternatives whether or not it led to lower prices or higher quality services.

However, recent reports indicate that Amazon is planning to launch a new delivery service similar to FedEX and UPS. According to Bloomberg, project “Seller Flex” began a trial run on the West Coast in 2017 with an expansion planned for 2018. The purpose of the system is to decrease the crowding in Amazon’s warehouses and increase the number of products available through two-day delivery. Under this new system, Amazon will directly oversee the pickup and delivery of packages from the warehouses of third-party merchants who market their items on Amazon.com. Traditionally, when delivering to end consumers, merchants had the choice to ship their products directly through Amazon or to use third-party carriers such as FedEX and UPS. Amazon may still elect to use FedEX and UPS to make deliveries, but merchants will no longer be able to make the decision on their own. Amazon expects that its increased control of the shipping process will allow it to save money through volume discounts, avoiding congestion, and increasing its flexibility.

By drawing comparisons with Amazon’s acquisition of Whole Foods it is possible to identify potential competitive concerns implicated by the new delivery system. The key difference is the amount of competitive power Amazon wields in each market. In the grocery market, Amazon is not an antitrust risk because it is a small player with only a two percent market share, which gives it essentially no ability to affect its competitors’ businesses or the market as a whole. In the e-commerce market, however, Amazon provides an essential platform and acts as a gateway for businesses to reach consumers across the United States. In the past, merchants could participate on Amazon’s platform, but retained the option to select their preference of delivery service. By requiring the use of its own delivery service, however, Amazon will be depriving its merchants of choice. Given Amazon’s power in the e-commerce market, merchants have limited alternatives to Amazon’s platform and thus may have no other realistic option outside of using Amazon’s in-house delivery service. This lack of competition in delivery methods could potentially raise end prices for consumers.

Ultimately, it is too early to predict the competitive effects of Amazon’s delivery service, but different schools of antitrust may reach different conclusions. Consistent with its track record, it is likely that Amazon will do everything in its power to lower prices and offer a better service by integrating delivery into its e-commerce platform. Under these circumstances, a traditional antitrust review would not likely find a problem. A review under “hipster antitrust”, however, may find a problem regardless of the cost or quality outcome. As part of a larger policy matter, such as protecting small businesses, Amazon’s acquisition of more power and the reduction of choice for its merchants may simply be unacceptable. Regardless of the outcome, Amazon’s continued expansion of its operations has all but guaranteed that it will remain a focus of antitrust discussions for the foreseeable future.

Sharing Is Not Always Easy – An Analysis of Sharing Data Between the Public and Private Sectors

Picture1By Isaac Prevost

Traffic data plays an important role for public agencies concerned with traffic management and infrastructure. We’re seeing private companies collect more and more of this data, occasionally resulting in partnerships between governments and those private companies. However, whether these partnerships will stave off an increased interest in regulatory requirements of private data disclosure remains to be seen.

Federal, state, and local governments collect significant traffic data about traffic patterns and use of roadway system. The collection methods used by governmental entities range from interconnected sensors along the road to government employees manually tallying vehicle occupancies. This information is then used to analyze infrastructure needs, improve public transportation routes, and provide real-time traffic information to the public. In recent years however, there has also been a substantial uptick in the amount of traffic data collected by private companies. This is occurring with the prevalence of ride-sharing companies, increasingly-automated cars, and mapping applications such as Google Maps.

So, just how are public transportation agencies utilizing these new sources of data? Waze, a GPS navigation software owned by Google, launched the Connected Citizens Program in 2014 that shares traffic and road information with public entities for free. Agencies that partner with them participate in a two-way exchange of traffic data, giving Waze information on road closures and incidents. This private data supplements the government’s data, providing better information on functions such as the timing of traffic signals or the dispatch of emergency vehicles.

An alternative example of these partnerships can be found between Strava Metro and public agencies, where the agency pays for access to the data. Strava, a popular application for runners and cyclists, gives the public entities access to the their users’ running and cycling routes.  The Oregon Department of Transportation pays $20,000 per year for access to the data. Information from Strava Metro was a factor in the decision to restrict cars from Portland’s Tilikum Crossing bridge. These types of collaborations are just a small sample of how private data is increasingly being used in public planning.

However, even though the voluntary sharing of private data with public entities has become more common, it has not happened without its hurdles. While governments may be eager to use the data that companies like Waze or Strava are willing to share or sell, tensions have arisen when a company like Uber is reluctant to turn over data or withholds certain customer information. A partnership between Uber and the City of Boston in 2015 resulted in underwhelming results because Uber only disclosed the zip codes for the start and end location of an Uber user’s ride. A city official explained that the location information was not specific enough to be useful for urban planning.

Instead of pursuing partnerships, some cities have required data information from ridesharing companies in exchange for their license to operate in the area. In January 2017, the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission requested all passenger pick-up and drop-off information from ride-sharing companies such as Uber and Lyft. Uber publicly objected to the proposal, citing the privacy of their drivers, but the Commission kept the requirement. The City expressed interest in the value of Uber’s data for traffic planning and analysis, as well as a tool for preventing drivers from working beyond their permitted total of work.

Possibly in an effort to appease regulators, Uber launched Uber Movement this year, which aggregates and anonymizes Uber’s ride data to show the traffic flows of various cities. In their FAQs section, Uber Movement states that the launch of the site was partially due to feedback from government agencies that “aggregated data will inform decisions about how to adapt existing infrastructure and invest in future solutions to make our cities more efficient.” One of their pilot reports tracked how a metro shutdown in Washington D.C. affected travel times in the city. The New York Times labeled this website “an olive branch to local governments.”

Uber Movement formally launched in August. As it gains more and more data on various cities, it could provide an interesting case study: what amount and type of private traffic data are governmental entities hoping to access? Will the availability of this data stave off further local and state regulations? Partnerships between governments and private companies are becoming more and more common, but the success or failure of Uber Movement may provide some insight into what lies ahead for these types of partnerships.

 

Picture Source

Online Education and Federal Funding: When Is a Class Actually a Correspondence Course?

Picture1By Brittany Taylor

On September 21st, 2017, the Inspector General for the Department of Education released an audit of Western Governors University (WGU), a non-profit, primarily online university that has been using technology to further higher education for twenty years. The Inspector General’s findings indicated that WGU does not provide the “regular and substantive contact” between students and teachers required by The Higher Education Act, making its classes what are called “correspondence courses,” which are ineligible for federal funding. Moreover, the inspector general has recommended that WGU repay all funding received over the last several years, which would total over $712 million. Western Governors University contests these findings vehemently, and supporters of the school have come out of the woodwork to praise the WGU’s unique educational model as well as the above average outcomes its students enjoy.

Online education has been a rapidly changing and growing field, both in high schools and on college campuses. The Higher Education Act, enacted in 1965, has not been updated to account for technological changes in education technology. It also applies outdated rules to modern programs, despite making other updates during reauthorization periods. In the case of WGU, students who (1) watch lectures digitally (sometimes in real time), (2) complete the same assignments as students in a brick-and-mortar classroom, and (3) communicate with professors by phone, email, and assignment feedback, have been found ineligible for federal funding under the same rules that made mail-in correspondence courses of the 1960’s ineligible. Specifically, these types of contacts were not considered “regular and substantive” enough to meet Title IV requirements to receive federal funding for the school. However, the Department of Education has not issued guidelines to assist schools in meeting the “regular and substantive contact” with teachers requirement, according to Jamie Merisotis, director of the Lumina Foundation, leaving institutions like WGU to use their best judgement in attempting to meet it.

One response to these findings is a movement to update the language in the Higher Education Act to better adapt and account for current technology and research regarding what types of education are effective. A house bill has been proposed to help update the statutory and regulatory framework behind online learning. The Advancing Competency-Based Education Act of 2017, HR 2589, is currently receiving bipartisan support and will, if passed, update the Higher Education Act of 1965 language to be more accommodating of modern technology and educational models like WGU’s.

Meanwhile, WGU is awaiting the Department of Education determination regarding these findings. It is entirely possible for the Department of Education to decline to act upon the results of the audit, effectively punting the question to some later date. Even if the audit is not acted upon, though, the findings send a chill through innovative education models that rely upon government funding.

Picture Source

EU Antitrust Policy: Favoring Innovation over the Googles’ of the World

Picture1By Amela Zukic

As many of us have heard, the European Commission recently slapped Google with a 2.7-billon dollar antitrust fine for allegedly favoring its own comparison-shopping service, an illegal practice in the EU. Google now has 90 days to cease this practice or it could face a fine of up to 5% of the average daily worldwide turnover of its parent company, Alphabet. While many in the U.S. may reject this decision, the EU’s ruling reflects its underlying goal of fostering innovation and should not be quickly dismissed. Continue reading “EU Antitrust Policy: Favoring Innovation over the Googles’ of the World”

Regulatory Landscape Remains Unclear for Mobile Health App Developers

8585047526_37a5bed3ff_bBy Mariko Kageyama

The digital health field has been growing exponentially and is now expanding rapidly into emerging markets. As a result, mobile health apps, or “mHealth apps,” have exploded in popularity. If you search for “health” on online app stores such as Apple’s App Store or Google Play, you will have no problem finding countless apps with various health-related purposes. One survey reports that nearly 260,000 mHealth apps were available worldwide by 2016.

However, what mHealth app developers and consumers may not realize is that these new technologies are becoming the target of increasingly tight regulations by both federal and state laws in the United States.

At the federal level, mobile health apps may be scrutinized under the following federal agency laws:

  • Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and HITECH Act – These acts regulate data privacy and security of health information. They are enforced by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services’ Office for Civil Rights (OCR) and Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC);
  • Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) – This act allows the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to regulate the safety and effectiveness of “medical devices;” and
  • Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act) – This act both creates the FTC and allows it to enforce and penalize deceptive or unfair business practices including false or misleading claims about apps’ performance.

Among these major agency players, the FDA has struggled the most with trying to adapt its existing regulatory framework to include and regulate mHealth apps.

For instance, the FDA can regulate “medical devices,” but what qualifies as a “medical device” under FDA law? According to its 2015 Guidanace, the FDA does not want to regulate every single smartphone app that tangentially relates to fitness or wellness. Instead, the FDA only wants to keep an eye on a small subset of apps called “mobile medical apps” that may pose moderate to high risks to a patient’s safety if the apps fail to work as intended. “Mobile medical apps” can either be those connected to existing medical devices already regulated by FDA, or those that “transform” mobile platforms into an FDA-regulated device.

The FDA explains that a mobile app “transforms” into a medical device when it uses attachments, display screens, or sensors, or when it uses a mobile platform’s built-in features such as light, vibrations, and camera to create functionalities similar to those of currently regulated devices. But the exact actions that constitute a “transformation” are not yet known and remain open to significant agency discretion.

Therefore, if you were to create a new mHealth app that “transforms” a mobile device, you may need to seek FDA approval for a specific medical device classification based on the level of safety risks it poses. The classes are ranked I, II, or III and any class of device can be subject to what is known as Premarket Notification 510(k).

In anticipation of ambiguities in this field, multiple federal agencies collaborated in 2016 to create the Mobile Health Apps Interactive Tool. What is unique about this user-friendly educational website is that it is clearly intended for IT developers, not healthcare professionals or general consumers.

State laws have also come into play. Earlier in 2017, the New York Attorney General settled with three mHealth app developers for state law violations over their misleading marketing and privacy practices. Those mHealth apps are: My Baby’s Beat–Prenatal Listener; Heart Rate Monitor & Pulse Tracker; and Cardiio-Heart Rate Monitor + 7 Minute Workout. As illustrated in the settlement documents, these apps do not look any more sophisticated than other similar apps, but the New York AG maintained that these cardiac rate monitors probably fall under FDA Class II medical devices. Such a classification means that these are higher risk devices than Class I and thus subject to greater regulatory controls. Although the investigation did not go further, these state cases show that mHealth app developers and manufacturers can be exposing themselves to large amounts of liability at the state level as well as the federal level.

Despite this heightened oversight, the current FDA Guidance is clearly nothing more than a temporary fix when much more is needed to address these issues in such a rapidly growing and changing field. Because Congress has a less-than-great track record of quickly enacting laws, the FDA and other relevant agencies should act swiftly to reevaluate these regulations in order to ensure consumer health and safety while simultaneously fostering innovation in this massively beneficial field.

Picture Source

Developments in the Dispute About Nazi-Loot; Heirs No Longer in Limbauch-Limbo?

Berlín_KGM_güelfos_02By Sebastian R Stock

Germany will likely be forced to defend itself for the first time in a U.S. Court against claims relating to the theft of art by the Nazi party. The complicated issue of ownership and title to art looted by the Nazi regime is not new, but this case could have extensive implications to ongoing and future litigation in this area of law nonetheless. Continue reading “Developments in the Dispute About Nazi-Loot; Heirs No Longer in Limbauch-Limbo?”