#wjlta

When Proof Becomes Partisan: How AI Is Fracturing Our Shared Reality

/ Washington Journal of Law, Technology & Arts / Leave a comment
Photo by Markus Winkler on Pexels.com

By: Claire Kenneally

What’s Happening? 

Note: This post contains photos of weapons and discusses violence that may be triggering. 

The shootings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti incited the nation, as viewers across the country tuned in to the violence in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Both Good and Pretti were protestors killed by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents employed in Operation Metro Surge– a large scale immigration raid that resulted in the detention over 4,000 documented and undocumented Minnesotans. 

But instead of prompting collective grief, the country’s varied reactions only deepened the sense that Americans now inhabit entirely different moral and political universes. In part, this stems from media coverage surrounding the shootings. AI-generated media is accelerating political polarization by reshaping public perception of violent events before facts can stabilize.

Where Does Our News Get Our News? 

News networks have always had biases. But the internet and social media have shifted networks’ priorities from well-researched and fact-based journalism to punchy pieces aimed at generating clicks. A study by UCLA Professor Arash Amini described the media’s perpetuation of misinformation as an “arms race in which mainstream media outlets struggle to stand out amid a flood of content.” 

When Renee Good was shot by ICE on January 7th, 2026, online sleuths were quick to create and point to video footage of the moments leading up to the shooting. One X user, a self-proclaimed “Trump Loyalist Parody Account” shared an aerial-view photo of Good’s car that quickly gained traction online. The original post did not disclose that the photo was AI, nor that it was generated only to show why the X user personally believed agents should be allowed to use lethal force. A later post admitted the photo was AI-generated, after Snopes and Lead Stories debunked it (in part because the falsified photo included imagery like car doors open that were actually closed, and bystanders in different outfits than they had on in verified video footage). But the original photo, without the subsequent post’s clarification, had already spread across the internet. 

Image taken from Twitter user @ScummyMummy511/Max Nesterak/Snopes Illustration

In the wake of Alex Pretti’s death a few weeks later, social media users flooded the internet with AI-generated images of him holding a gun, while video footage of the shooting later revealed him to be holding his cell phone.  Other doctored footage circulated inaccurately showed an agent holding a gun to the back of Pretti’s head while he lay prone on the ground. 

Photo taken from the January 25th, 2026 New York Times article “False Posts and Altered Images Distort Views of Minnesota Shooting”

Ironically, the AI-enhancement of media to justify a singular political narrative is not a partisan issue. Viewers across the political spectrum suffer when the news they consume is riddled with inaccuracies, even if those inaccuracies confirm their biases. This, in turn, only serves to widen the gap between Americans- how can you converse about an important social issue when you’re each convinced you have the concrete evidence, and that it supports your opinion? 

Long-Reaching Implications

In the cases of Good, Pretti, and countless other victims of violence, another troubling aspect in the coverage of their deaths is how their images are reshaped posthumously to fit familiar narratives and biases. 

Altered photos of Good were circulated in the wake of her death, claiming she’d posted in celebration of Charlie Kirk’s shooting earlier this year. This led to some Conservative-leaning viewers calling her death “karma”- stoking animosity against her even after the photo’s authenticity was fact-checked and disproven. 

In Pretti’s case, multiple stations accidentally used an AI-doctored photo of him in their initial coverage. Some speculate the edited photo was created to make him appear “less Jewish”. Others suggested it was to make him “. . . a more appealing ‘poster boy’ for the anti-ICE movement.” MSNBC, who used the altered photo, claimed that they merely pulled it from the internet after searching Pretti’s name. Knowing AI’s predilection for generating images that favor whiteness, conventional beaty standards, and imbedded racial biases, it’s unsurprising, but disturbing, how mundane Google Image searches further subtle whitewashing and stereotyping under the guise of algorithmic neutrality.

Photo taken from the January 28th, 2026 New York Post article “AI-altered pic of Alex Pretti is being widely circulated after his killing by Border Patrol” 

The Legal Implications

Currently there are few legal protections in place to counteract AI “enhanced” media. The current administration has taken a strong stance against AI regulation, passing Executive Order 14179 in  January 23, 2025 (“Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence”) and Executive Order 14365 of December 11, 2025 (“Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence”). Both orders removed barriers like state-wide AI regulations to “encourage adoption of AI applications across sectors.”  

The legislative branch has taken a different approach than the executive. The TAKE IT DOWN Act was signed into law in May 2025 and prohibits the nonconsensual online publication of intimate visual depictions of individuals, both authentic and computer-generated. However, the act focuses on sexual imagery and would not apply to Good or Pretti.  

The 2025 proposed NO FAKES Act holds more promise, as it would make individuals and entities legally responsible for creating unauthorized digital copies of a person. The Act is focused on establishing intellectual property rights against AI-generated deepfakes and creating a legal recourse for individuals whose likeness is used without consent. If this bill passes, it could create a way for members of Good and Pretti’s families to sue in civil court for damages. 

So What Am I Supposed to Do?  

The 24-hour news cycle is not slowing down. But with minimal legal recourse and an executive office that happily generates AI misinformation as freely as fringe conspiracy theorists, sometimes it feels that there’s not much to do but hope Congress acts quickly. However, one intermediate solution is turning to local, community journalism instead of national pundits. In the realm of immigration crackdowns, protest coverage, and updates on Minneapolis, consider:  

In the emerging age of AI narratives and de-regulation, staying truly informed now means choosing intention over speed, resisting easy narratives, and doing the critical thinking ourselves. 

This article acknowledges and honors all individuals who have been murdered by ICE and the Department of Homeland Security in 2026: Keith Porter, Parady La, Heber Sanchaz Domínguez, Victor Manuel Diaz, Luis Beltran Yanez-Cruz, Luis Gustavo Nunez Caceres, and Geraldo Lunas Campos, Renee Good, and Alex Pretti. Learn more about their stories here. 

#Deepfakes #A.I.Misinformation #WJLTA

Jody Allen and the Future of the Seahawks: A Week of Legal Confusion

/ Washington Journal of Law, Technology & Arts / Leave a comment
Photo by William Jacobs on Pexels.com

By: Thomas Oatridge

Media Reports and Conflicting Narratives About a Seahawks Sale

Just days before Super Bowl LX between the Seattle Seahawks and the New England Patriots was set to kick off, it was announced that the Seattle franchise would be back on the market after nearly three decades, a deal that is estimated to close for around $7 to $8 billion. Paul Allen, the Seattle Seahawks’ longtime owner and a co-founder of Microsoft, passed away in 2018. Prior to his death, Allen established a trust encompassing most of his assets and appointed his sister, Jody Allen, to be the personal representative of the estate and trustee to oversee the eventual sale of the trust’s assets, including the Seattle Seahawks. Although it is widely understood that the trust documents do not impose a specific timeline for selling the team, ESPN reported that the franchise would soon be put on the market. The Paul G. Allen Trust promptly issued a statement dismissing the report as rumor and stating unequivocally that “the team is not for sale.” Adding to the speculation, the Wall Street Journal reported that the NFL issued the Seahawks a $5 million fine for being out of compliance with ownership requirements. However, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell denied such allegations shortly after these reports surfaced.

Days after this initial story broke, Yahoo Sports released an article outlining the confusion, while simultaneously creating more confusion by reporting contradictory statements about Washington State trust and estate law. The article opens by asserting the estate mandates that the Seahawks will “eventually” be sold. The article subsequently quotes a local Seattle sportswriter who claims that “when the estate comes around and says, ‘you got to sell the team,’ she has to sell the team,” because “her job is to carry out the will of the estate.” Yet, as the same article reports, just moments earlier, the estate’s governing documents never set a specific timeline for selling its assets. The week leading up to the Super Bowl has underscored the need to ask more precise legal questions, rather than accepting the latest rumor as a statement of law.

The Legal Pressure Point: NFL Ownership Rules

To frame our legal analysis and fairly characterize Yahoo Sports’ interpretation, it’s important to point out the key legal risk the Paul G. Allen Trust assumes by deferring the sale of the Seahawks. The National Football League’s bylaws are clear and unambiguous regarding ownership structure, mandating the majority stakeholder must be an individual, rather than a trust. Additionally, all controlling owners must maintain a 30% ownership stake in their respective team. It is possible that this contractual obligation to the league will trigger a sale of the team earlier than what the trustee of the Paul G. Allen Trust, Jody Allen, would have otherwise preferred. The aforementioned stories by ESPN and the Wall Street Journal may in fact be pointing to this as the likely outcome, especially given the recent announcement that the estate agreed to sell the Trail Blazers to the majority stakeholder of the Carolina Hurricanes for $4 billion.

Does Washington State Law Require an Immediate Sale?

Contractual obligations to the NFL are only part of the legal picture. In accordance with Paul Allen’s will, his sister Jody was assigned as personal representative to properly probate his estate. She was also given the role of trustee to the Paul G. Allen Trust. Therefore, trust and estate law must be considered to properly understand this situation. Under the Revised Code of Washington (RCW), a trust is created by the transfer of property to a trustee to carry out the terms of the trust. Personal representatives and trustees must fulfill functionally identical fiduciary duties such as administering the trust solely in the interests of the beneficiaries, keeping the beneficiaries reasonably informed, managing assets properly, and avoiding self-dealing for personal benefit. In a 2022 interview, Jody Allen indicated the estate could take 10–20 years to unwind due to its complexity and size. Thus, if there is no reason to doubt the validity of this claim and no established deadline for the sale of the trust’s assets, it is hard to say what would trigger a breach of fiduciary duty to the trust if the Seahawks are not sold within the NFL’s preferred timeline. Furthermore, given Jody Allen is both the personal representative of the estate and the trustee of the Paul G. Allen Trust, it is unlikely the estate will “come knocking” to force Jody to sell the team either.

When a Sale Could Become Legally Problematic Under Washington State Law

There is, however, a scenario where Jody Allen could be found in breach of her fiduciary duty as personal representative of the estate and trustee. According to Yahoo Sports, their source discussed a rumor of “Allen and a bunch of her affluent friends at Seattle-based companies Microsoft and Amazon coming in and buying the team from her brother’s trust.” If this rumor turns out to be true, Jody could open herself up to the risk of breaching her fiduciary duties through self-dealing. This occurs when a trustee enters into a sale, encumbrance, or other transaction involving the investment or management of trust property for the trustee’s own personal account or which is otherwise affected by a conflict between the trustee’s fiduciary and personal interests. In 2018, a Washington State appeals court affirmed a lower court’s decision to block the sale of estate assets by a personal representative to himself because it breached his fiduciary duties via self-dealing. However, if Jody Allen decides to move forward with the sale of the Seahawks to herself, Washington State law allows for three exceptions to this doctrine which include waiver by the trust instrument, waiver by the beneficiaries, or permission from the court.

Conclusion

At present, there is no indication that Jody Allen or the Paul G. Allen Trust are under any immediate legal obligation to sell the Seattle Seahawks. If a sale occurs in the near term, it is more likely to stem from contractual obligations to the NFL rather than any requirement imposed by Washington State law. Absent meaningful pressure from the NFL, the timing of any sale remains largely within the discretion of Jody Allen as trustee of the Paul G. Allen Trust.

#Seahawks #JodyAllen #TrustAndEstateLaw #WJLTA

Epic Games Defeats Patent Infringement Claim Over Fortnite Virtual Concerts

/ Washington Journal of Law, Technology & Arts / Leave a comment
Photo by Erik Mclean on Pexels.com

By: Esha Kher

Epic’s Virtual Concerts 

Epic Games has successfully defended itself against a $32.5 million patent infringement lawsuit over its groundbreaking Fortnite concerts featuring artists like Travis Scott and Ariana Grande.  On May 19, 2025, a federal jury in the Western District of Washington found that Epic did not infringe a patent held by Utherverse Gaming LLC, a company licensing technology for virtual environments. The verdict, delivered after over six hours of deliberation, ended a high-profile trial that raised critical questions about intellectual property in the metaverse.

Epic Games revolutionized in-game experiences with Fortnite concerts—live events where real artists perform as digital avatars in evolving virtual environments. These concerts exemplify the metaverse’s core: a shared, persistent digital space for interactive, social experiences that go beyond traditional gaming. In 2020, pop icon Travis Scott drew over 27 million players to his in-game concert, setting new records for Fortnite. The following year, Ariana Grande headlined the “Rift Tour,” a narrative-driven concert experience that lifted players into a dreamlike, cloudscape environment. These events not only attracted millions of viewers but also generated tens of millions of dollars through merchandise sales and in-game purchases. To meet this demand, Epic looped and replayed each concert over several days.

Utherverse claimed that Epic has utilized three of their patents concerning “multi-instance, multi-user animation platforms” to host repeatable, large scale events for multitudes of participants. However, the jury sided with Epic, reinforcing the difficulty of applying traditional patent frameworks to dynamic, interactive digital performances.

The Lawsuit: Does Replay Mean Infringement? 

In June 2021, Utherverse sued Epic Games, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,724,605, which covers technology for “playing back recorded experiences in a virtual world system.” Utherverse claimed that Epic’s technology for managing massive online crowds and replaying events in Fortnite incorporated methods protected by this patent. 

Utherverse alleged that its technology enabled Fortnite concerts to support millions of avatars without overwhelming network bandwidth. The company argued that Epic used similar methods without permission and did so intentionally. 

Epic’s Defense: It is Innovation, Not Infringement

In response, Epic filed a counterclaim in January 2022 denying the allegations and asserting that it developed its concert technology independently using its own Unreal Engine software, which has existed since 1998. Epic argued that Utherverse’s patent covers technology for replaying past events—something that doesn’t apply to Fortnite’s concerts.

While the music was pre-recorded and performers appeared as animated 3D avatars, the concerts themselves were not recordings of prior events. Instead, they were pre-scripted, interactive shows that took place live at scheduled times. Players had to join during those windows, and there was no option to watch the events later, reinforcing that these were real-time experiences—not replays.

Epic’s attorneys further contended that Utherverse’s patent was overly broad, and invalid because the underlying concepts were well-known to professionals in the field at the time the Utherverse patent application was submitted in 2014. The video game publisher has argued in its defense that the patent is invalid because the concepts would’ve been considered obvious, abstract, and conventional to a professional in the field when the patent was sought. Finally, Epic accused Utherverse of contributing nothing to Fortnite’s development while attempting to capitalize on the game’s commercial success.

The Verdict: No Infringement 

The jury concluded that Utherverse failed to meet its burden of proof under the “preponderance of the evidence” standard, which requires showing that it is more likely than not that infringement occurred. To succeed on its infringement claims, Utherverse needed to prove that Epic’s technology fell within the scope of at least one valid patent claim. Infringement can be established either through direct infringement—where every element of a claim is present in the accused product—or under the doctrine of equivalents, which applies when a product performs substantially the same function in the same way to achieve the same result. The jury found no infringement of any of the three patent claims at issue.

While the jury largely rejected Epic’s separate claim that the patent was invalid, they did find one claim—related to how avatar movement is constrained by virtual objects—to be based on routine and conventional technology, as would have been understood by a person skilled in the art in 2014. This part of the verdict engages with the legal standard for patent validity under § 101 of the Patent Act, specifically whether the patent claims involve an “inventive concept” beyond well-understood, routine, or conventional technology.

As a result, Utherverse was awarded no damages, and Epic Games emerged from the trial without liability. The verdict ultimately reflects the legal complexity of applying traditional patent law to novel, immersive digital experiences, particularly when distinguishing between live interactive events and replayed content in virtual worlds.

Conclusion 

The jury’s verdict in Utherverse v. Epic is a landmark moment in the evolving relationship between intellectual property law and the virtual world. By rejecting Utherverse’s infringement claim, the decision highlights the challenges of applying traditional patent frameworks to immersive, real-time digital experiences. While Utherverse claimed its patent covered essential technology for replaying virtual events, the jury ultimately accepted  Epic’s argument that its concerts were original, live performances, not reproductions of past gameplay.

This case highlights the growing tension between innovation and patent enforcement in the virtual world. A ruling in favor of Utherverse could have opened the floodgates for similar lawsuits targeting large platforms and game developers, potentially stifling creativity and experimentation in digital entertainment. As the virtual landscape continues to evolve, so too must the legal frameworks that balance innovation, ownership, and fair competition.

Breaking the Game: The Legal Fallout of the EA-FIFA Divorce

/ Washington Journal of Law, Technology & Arts / Leave a comment
Photo by EVG Kowalievska on Pexels.com

By: Santi Pedrazas Arenas

I. Introduction

For nearly three decades, the FIFA video game series stood as both a cultural phenomenon and a revenue juggernaut, melding the world’s most popular sport with cutting‑edge digital technology. Yet on May 10th, 2022, Electronic Arts (EA) and Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) announced that their long‑running licensing agreement would not be renewed at the end of that year. This departure was far more than a simple rebranding exercise; it reflected a complex tug‑of‑war over intellectual property (“IP”) rights, brand equity, and digital distribution in an age when gaming companies increasingly rival traditional sports institutions in global influence.

Beyond the headlines, the EA‑FIFA breakup offers a rich case study in contract negotiations, trademark strategy, and the evolving contours of digital IP. By examining the key legal fault lines, from licensing fees and player likenesses to trademark dilution and collective bargaining with player unions, we can trace how tech giants assert greater autonomy over digital assets once held by legacy organizations. 

II. Background: A $20 Billion Partnership

EA first partnered with FIFA in 1993, releasing FIFA International Soccer for the Sega Genesis and Super Nintendo Entertainment System. Over the ensuing years, the franchise evolved into EA’s flagship title, particularly following the introduction of FIFA Ultimate Team (FUT) in 2009, a game mode that grew to dominate the company’s monetization strategy. By the time of the split announcement, “FIFA 23” accounted for a significant amount of the financial success for EA. 

Under the terms of the licensing deal, FIFA granted EA exclusive rights to use its trademark, official competition names (including the World Cup), and related branding elements. In return, reports suggested that annual licensing fees ran into the billions of dollars per World Cup cycle. Meanwhile, EA negotiated separate agreements with player associations (FIFPro), major leagues (Premier League, LaLiga, Bundesliga), and individual clubs to secure likeness rights, kits, and stadiums — a sprawling web of sublicenses that gave the series’ authenticity.

This dual‑track licensing approach meant that while FIFA owned the name, EA controlled the experience. As digital distribution overtook physical sales, EA began to question the value of the FIFA trademark itself. The core gameplay, player likenesses, leagues, and clubs that fans cared about were secured through separate agreements and remained intact regardless of the FIFA name. In this context, the branding offered by FIFA was increasingly seen as symbolic rather than essential. For EA, long-term value lay in recurring in‑game revenues from microtransactions and content updates, not in legacy naming rights. This shift in perspective helped set the stage for license renegotiations in 2022.

III. The Licensing Dispute: FIFA vs. EA

At the heart of the breakup lay a disagreement over the value and scope of FIFA’s trademark. Reports indicate that FIFA sought over $1 billion for a renewed naming‑rights deal covering the next World Cup cycle, a figure EA deemed unjustifiable in light of its digital‑first business model. EA countered with a proposal that would have granted it broader rights to digital and streaming content, global mobile distribution, and extended sublicensing flexibility, terms FIFA ultimately refused to grant.

When negotiations collapsed in May 2022, both parties publicly assured fans that the split would be “amicable,” but behind the scenes, lawyers scrambled to untangle overlapping rights before the December 2022 deadline. 

IV. Who Owns the Game? A Legal Anatomy of the Split

A. Trademark Law

Under U.S. and international trademark principles, a mark grants its owner the exclusive right to use a brand identifier in commerce. FIFA’s insistence on preserving exclusive control over “FIFA” threatened to limit EA’s ability to leverage the brand in new digital arenas. In contrast, EA holds registered trademarks for “EA Sports,” “FUT,” and related subbrands. The split has tested the consumer confusion doctrines. This raises important questions about whether or not fans can distinguish EA Sports FC from FIFA games, or whether EA’s longstanding association would dilute FIFA’s goodwill. 

B. Collective Licensing & Player Likenesses

Crucially, EA’s separate agreements with FIFPro conferred rights to more than 17,000 player likenesses, independent of the FIFA deal. This collective bargaining arrangement allowed EA to continue featuring top athletes even as the FIFA name disappeared. From a contract‑law perspective, these parallel licenses insulated EA against the fallout of a single counterparty walkout, showcasing a best practice in risk diversification for IP‑heavy ventures.

VI. Conclusion

The end of the EA‑FIFA partnership marks more than the sunset of an era; it signals a tectonic shift in how IP, branding, and digital distribution intersect in sports entertainment. By dissecting the legal anatomy of the split, from the high‑stakes trademark negotiations and contract‑law intricacies, we glimpse the future battlegrounds where tech companies and traditional institutions will fight for control. As virtual sports become ever more immersive and monetized, law will play a pivotal role in defining the balance of power. Can governing bodies adapt to digital‑first licensing models? And will new stars emerge amid the legal skirmishes over fan engagement and metaverse extensions? For lawyers, technologists, and gamers alike, the story of EA Sports FC versus FIFA is just the opening whistle in a game whose final outcome remains to be determined.

Hitting Refresh: How Drug Companies Use Patents to Extend Their Monopoly Power

/ Washington Journal of Law, Technology & Arts / Leave a comment
Photo by Photo By: Kaboompics.com on Pexels.com

By: Alexander Okun

  On April 17, 2025, the non-profit Initiative for Medicines, Access, and Knowledge (“I-MAK”) published a report detailing the tactics that two pharmaceutical companies use to maintain their monopolies for their popular diabetes and obesity drugs. The two drugs are Semaglutide (marketed by Novo Nordisk as Ozempic, Rybelsus, and Wegovy) and Tirzepatide (marketed by Eli Lilly as Mounjaro and Zepbound). According to I-MAK, Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly will effectively extend their patent-based monopolies on these drugs for up to a decade. The tactic of  “patent thickets” is not new to the pharmaceutical industry, but its potential economic impact as applied to these products (known collectively as “GLP-1” drugs) could be on a scale previously unseen. Given the adverse impact this could have on US patients, the need for legal reform is greater than ever.

“Patent Thickets” and Their Uses

A US pharmaceutical patent provides 20 years of protection, after which other manufacturers can produce generic versions of the drug. However, drug companies often file an array of patents for aspects beyond the drug’s core ingredients (called a “patent thicket”) like the method of administration. Subsequent changes to the product may also get patented (known as “secondary” or “follow-on” patents) but can be as minor as adding a dose counter to the injection device. Follow-on patents can also protect purportedly “new” applications of a drug without making any changes, even though those “novel” uses were  disclosed in the initial patent. For example, Eli Lilly’s Mounjaro is approved to treat diabetes while Zepbound is approved for weight loss even though Tirzepatide’s original patent disclosed both uses.

This practice is neither novel nor unique to the GLP-1 market: a 2018 report by I-MAK found that in 2017, the top 12 grossing medications in the US had an average of 71 active patents each, extending each drug’s protection for an average of 18 years. However, the profitability of those extensions is miniscule relative to the potential with GLP-1 drugs. Whereas the top-selling drug in I-MAK’s 2018 report, Humira, produced roughly $200 billion in revenue in its first 20 years, the GLP-1 market is projected to reach $150 billion in annual revenue by 2030. Novo Nordisk has already extended its patents for Ozempic and Wegovy by five years (expiring in 2031), which I-MAK says will deliver $166 billion in additional profits. As of now, patent thickets have effectively extended the protections for Semaglutide by 10 years (expiring in 2042) and Tirzepatide by five years (expiring in 2041). 

Potential for Reform

High drug prices are a perennial issue in US politics, and two proposals appear most promising in preventing further abuses of the patent system. The first approach is to limit the number of patents that can be cited in an infringement lawsuit. This would reduce the deterrent value of patent thickets by limiting the complexity of infringement actions (therefore defendants’ costs) and reducing plaintiffs’ likelihood of succeeding. The Affordable Prescriptions For Americans Act would implement this strategy, and on April 10 it was placed on the Senate’s legislative calendar. However, some analysts say the bill’s exemptions and waivers could make it largely ineffective.

A second option is to crack down on petitions that delay the approval of generic drug versions by using the filer’s patent thickets. The “Stop STALLING Act,” would enable the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) to sue filers if it deems a petition “objectively baseless” and intended to “interfere with the business of a competitor.”  However, the requirement of government intervention creates greater administrative costs and potential inconsistencies in enforcement. On April 10 the Stop STALLING Act was also placed on the Senate’s legislative calendar. While both bills have potential and bipartisan sponsorship, they have failed to garner sufficient support in their past iterations. Last year the Affordable Prescriptions for Patients Act passed the Senate unanimously but was never scheduled for a vote in the House of Representatives; the Stop STALLING Act never received a vote in the Senate whatsoever. Hopefully, the resounding success of GLP-1 drugs despite their exorbitant pricing will trigger public interest broad enough to provoke Congressional action.