#wjlta

Apple AirTags – Stalking made easy in the age of convenience

/ Washington Journal of Law, Technology & Arts / Leave a comment
Photo Credit: Zachary Zylak

By: Kayleigh McNiel

Marketed as a means of locating lost or stolen items, Apple AirTags are a convenient and affordable tool for tracking down your lost keys, misplaced luggage, and even your ex-partner. Weighing less than half an ounce, these small tracking devices fit in the palm of your hand and can be easily hidden inside backpacks, purses, and vehicles without arousing the owner’s suspicion. 

Reports of AirTag stalking began emerging almost immediately upon their release in April of 2021. Apple’s assurances that AirTag’s built-in abuse prevention features would protect against “unwanted tracking” have fallen woefully short of the reality that these $29 devices are increasingly being used to monitor, surveil and stalk women across the country.

The Wrong Tool in the Wrong Hands – Women Are Being Targeted with AirTags

Through an expansive review of 150 police reports involving Apple AirTags from eight law enforcement agencies across the nation, an investigative report by Motherboard confirmed the disturbing truth. One third of the reports were filed by women who received notifications that they were being tracked by someone else’s AirTag. The majority of these cases involved women being stalked by a current or former partner. Of the 150 reports reviewed by Motherboard, less than half involved people using their own AirTags to find their lost or stolen property.   

AirTags pose a significant danger to victims of domestic violence and have been used in at least two grisly murders. In January 2022, Heidi Moon, a 43-year-old mother from Akron, Ohio, was shot and killed by her abusive ex-boyfriend who tracked her movements using an AirTag hidden in the back seat of her car. In June 2022, Andre Smith, a 26-year-old Indianapolis man, died after he was repeatedly run over by his girlfriend after she found him at a bar with another woman by tracking him with an AirTag.

It’s not just domestic violence victims who are in danger. Stories are emerging on social media of women discovering AirTags under their license plate covers or receiving notifications that they are being tracked after traveling in public places. One woman’s viral TikTok describes how she received repeated notifications that an unknown device was tracking her after visiting a Walmart in Texas. Unable to locate the device, she tried unsuccessfully to disable it, and continued receiving notifications even after she turned off the location services and Bluetooth on all of her Apple devices.   

In January 2022, Sports Illustrated Swimsuit model Book Nader discovered that a stranger slipped an Apple AirTag into her coat pocket while she was sitting in a restaurant. The device tracked her location for hours before the built-in safety mechanism triggered a notification sent to her phone. 

One Georgia woman, Anna Mahaney, began receiving the alerts after going to a shopping mall but was unable to locate the tracker. When she tried to disable the device, she received an error message that it was unable to connect to the server. She immediately went to an Apple Store for help and was told that no beep sounded because the owner of the AirTag had apparently tracked her until she got home and then disabled it. 

Apple’s haphazard release of these button-sized trackers, with near complete disregard for the danger they pose to the public, has resulted in a recent federal class action lawsuit filed by two California women who were stalked by men using AirTags. One plaintiff, identified only as Jane Doe, was tracked by her ex-husband who hid an AirTag in their child’s backpack. The other plaintiff, Lauren Hughes, fled her home and moved into a hotel after being stalked and threatened by a man she dated for only three months. After she began receiving notifications that an AirTag was tracking her, Hughes found one in the wheel well of her back tire. 

The plaintiffs in Hughes et al v. Apple, Inc., 3:22-cv-07668, say Apple ignored the warnings from advocates and put the safety of consumers and the general public at risk by “revolutionizing the scope, breadth, and ease of location-based stalking.” 

The Tech Behind the Tags – Insufficient Safety Warnings and a Lack of Prevention

AirTags work by establishing a Bluetooth connection with nearby Apple devices. Once connected, it uses that device’s GPS and internet connection to transmit the AirTag’s location to the iCloud where users can track it via the Find My app. With a vast network of more than 1.8 billion Apple devices worldwide, AirTags can essentially track anyone, anywhere.  

While the accuracy of Bluetooth tracking can vary, newer iPhone devices (models 11 and up) come equipped with ultra-wide broadband technology that allows AirTag owners to use Precision Tracking to get within feet of its location. 

In its initial release in April 2021, Apple included minimal safety measures including alerts that inform iPhone users if someone else’s AirTag had been traveling with them.Additionally, AirTags chime if separated from its owner after three days. 

When someone discovers an AirTag and taps it with their iPhone, it tells them only the information the owner allows. If an AirTag has been separated from its owner for somewhere between eight and twenty-four hours, it begins chirping regularly. By then, the AirTag owner may have already been able to track their target for hours, learning where they live, work, or go to school. The chirp is only about 60 decibels which is the average sound level of a restaurant or office. This sound is easy to muffle especially if the AirTag is hidden under a car license plate or in a wheel well. This quiet alarm is the only automatic protection against stalking Apple can provide to those who do not have an iPhone. 

Apple did eventually release an app that Android users can download to scan for rogue AirTags, but it requires Android users to know about AirTag tracking and then manually scan for the devices. With only 2.4 stars, many complain that it is ineffective and does not provide enough information.  

In response to the wave of criticism and reports of stalking and harassment, Apple has begun to increase these safety measures in piecemeal updates, which so far have failed to resolve the problem. Just three months after its release, Apple shortened the amount of time it takes for AirTags to chime if separated from its owner; from three days to somewhere between eight and twenty-four hours. But it’s easy to register an AirTag, and then disable it before the target begins receiving notifications.

Our Legal Systems Are Not Prepared to Protect Victims From AirTag Stalking.

Our criminal and civil legal systems are painfully slow to respond to the way technology has changed the way we engage with our families and communities and how we experience harm in those relationships. One of the biggest challenges victims face in reporting AirTag stalking is that many police departments and Courts do not even know what AirTags are or how they can be used to harass and stalk women.

In some states, it is not even a crime to monitor someone’s movements with a tracking device like an AirTag without their knowledge or consent. At least 26 states and the District of Columbia have some kind of law prohibiting the tracking of others without their knowledge. While 11 of these states, including Washington, incorporate this into their stalking statutes, nine others (Delaware, Illinois, Michigan, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Wisconsin) only prohibit the use of location-tracking devices on motor vehicles without the owner’s consent. These state laws do nothing to protect against AirTags being placed in your bag or purse. These laws also don’t protect those who share a vehicle with their abuser, since the other party is also technically the owner of the vehicle. 

Many states are rapidly seeing the need to beef up their laws in response to AirTags. The Attorneys General of both New York and Pennsylvania have issued consumer protection alerts warning people about the dangers of AirTags. But much more needs to be done.

The fact that Apple released this product without considering the disproportionate impact it would have on the safety of women across the globe shows a clear lack of diversity in Apple’s design and manufacturing process. 

Is Amazon’s APEX the Top Option for Patent Rights?

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

By: Nicholas Lipperd

Are more avenues to resolve patent disputes a good thing? Patent litigation is a process that can easily cost millions of dollars and which lasts years; it is not exactly an option available to every patent holder. Even with the availability of arbitration, options to protect patents remain limited. Amazon has determined that a private patent evaluation program is a good thing, at least for its Amazon Marketplace. After beta-testing for three years under the name “Utility Patent Neutral Evaluation (UPNE),” Amazon formally implemented its Amazon Patent Evaluation Express (“APEX”) system in 2022, which allows sellers to flag possibly infringing products for Amazon to analyze without the use of the judicial patent system. This system advertises cheap, fast, and fair outcomes to sellers on Amazon Marketplace asserting their utility patent rights, yet has drawn criticism for disproportionately one-sided outcomes leading to its use as a retaliatory tool. Does the fact that this cheap, quick process reduces barriers to litigation offset these shortcomings? Should Amazon make changes to its process to achieve more balanced results?

A case brought in Federal Court for patent infringement takes two to four years to adjudicate, not including an additional year if an appeal is sought. Intrinsically tied to this lengthy timeline is the hefty price tag. Though the median cost for patent infringement cases with $1 million-$10 million at risk fell 250% from 2015 -2019, a full patent trial will still average $1.5 million. How does a patent holder without such resources assert the patent’s rights? Arbitration or mediation are cheaper options, at $50,000 on average, but often requires the other side to agree to participate. When the patent owner wants the patent rights asserted within Amazon Marketplace, though, the owner generally has a cheaper and faster option.

Amazon’s APEX program allows patent holders to have their patents examined by a neutral third-party patent examiner, rather than the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). APEX begins with the patent holder submitting a complaint through Amazon’s Brand Registry, providing the Amazon Standard Identification Numbers (ASINs) of the allegedly infringing sellers and upon which claim in which patent the holder believes the ASINs infringe. For each alleged infringer, Amazon sends a notice and allows up to three weeks for a response. Should Amazon receive no response, such products will be automatically delisted, similar to a default judgment. Upon receipt of the response, an evaluator independent of Amazon and each party is assigned to the issue, and each side is required to pay a $4000 fee, refundable to the winner. The patent holder gets three weeks to submit arguments. The sellers then have two weeks to respond, with the patent holder given one week to submit an optional reply. The evaluator then decides within two weeks, making only the determination if the sellers’ products likely infringe on the patent holder’s claim. It is noteworthy that the APEX evaluator does not make any determination on the validity of the claims in the patent at issue. If the evaluator decides in favor of the seller, the product stays on the platform; if not, the products are removed. There is no appeal process from the evaluator’s decision. The entire process takes fewer than three months, and at a price tag of $4000 per party, creates a fiscal barrier of a fraction of the cost of formal patent litigation.

This process is not, though, without its drawbacks. The patent holder wins a disproportionate amount in APEX proceedings, creating incentives to initiate the process without valid claims. Because the evaluator does not look at the validity of the asserted patent, the accused sellers can do nothing but play defense. In legal terms, they are without the affirmative defense of invalidity. They can’t win, they can only hope to survive. Further, the evaluation is not subject to formal rules like the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Federal Rules of Evidence. The evaluators are hired for their expertise in the patent field, not for their investigative skills in the information provided. With no process of verification from Amazon, patent holders are submitting fraudulent information to obtain favorable judgments. With loose evidentiary rules, a low fiscal barrier, and no chance for the patent to be ruled invalid, the incentives all line up for patent holders to abuse this process, especially considering there is no chance for appeal. Should a competitor be cutting significantly into profits, $4000 is a very low risk for a possibly high reward of ejecting your competition from the market. Tortious interference claims stemming from the APEX process are already coming to light. 

Perhaps the most well-known legal spat involving Amazon’s patent evaluation process is the case of Tineco Intelligence Tech. Co. v. Bissell Inc. (W.D. Wash, 2022). Bissell is a US company that sells vacuums, and Tineco is a Chinese company that does the same. When Bissell initiated a UPNE proceeding, Tineco ignored it, leading to the automatic removal of its products. Tineco moved for a ruling in district court that Bissell’s patent claims were invalid and that their products did not infringe. Luckily, perhaps in part because of the sheer volume of business both entities do, Amazon deviated from its set UPNE/APEX process and reinstated Tineco’s listings before the District Court case finished, though U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”) proceedings continued. This case and Amazon’s deviation are seen by some as the exception to the rule. Many entities are still using APEX as a hammer to bludgeon competition into settlements and licensing agreements, despite the tortious interference claims that sometimes follow.

Amazon’s APEX has the potential to be the first of many commercial patent dispute programs due to its budget-friendly, expedited decisions. Yet before it can be considered a system after which other businesses should model their systems, it must rebalance and overcome the issues outlined above. Although a large burden is placed on “neutral evaluators” hired by Amazon, these evaluators currently do not review the patent at issue for invalidity. To establish a more balanced approach and to disincentivize misuse of APEX by predatory sellers, invalidity must be considered. Even if such consideration drives up the required fee slightly, the trade-off would be worthwhile to promote fairness in the process. Amazon has three years of beta-testing under its belt with this system and thus has the data available to see where fraud and misuse are most prevalent. A thorough review of this data should lead to the tightening of its evidentiary standards throughout the process. Despite the name inviting such a pun, APEX must not be allowed to thrive as a predatory tool.

While barriers to justice should not be so high that patent holders may not assert their rights, the process should not be so favorable and easy that it inadvertently incentivizes abuse of the process. Through small tweaks, APEX can continue to serve patent holders’ rights without demanding the time and money that large-scale patent litigation requires.

Virtual Experiences in the Art World: Potential for Copyright Issues

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

By: Lauren Liu

Since the COVID pandemic hit, the world has been facing continuous health and economic issues. The art world, in particular, has been facing hardships that require art institutions to adjust their mode of operations. Since the year 2020, the world’s effort to contain the spread of COVID forced art galleries and museums around the world to close their doors and look for new forms of operation and exhibition. Such adaptations include increasing online marketing platforms, organizing virtual panels, and even creating online art exhibitions. In particular, these virtual exhibitions use high-resolution images of artworks, and provide them with contextual introductions of the artists’ background and inspiration. Some galleries include artworks that are available for sale, and thus further providing financial benefits for the galleries and their artists. The most fascinating part of these virtual platforms is the galleries’ implementation of virtual reality and augmented reality tools to produce virtual tours and remote immersive experiences. In other words, they are virtual exhibitions that mimic the audience’s experience when they are physically in an art gallery.

Virtual reality, also known as augmented reality (AR), usually displays an original or scanned work of art in a digital setting, thus creating a “total immersion” experience for the audience. As amazing and creative as it is for the audience, legal issues can arise for the gallery. For example, AR can invite “guerilla hacking” of a virtual exhibit. Hackers can copy and post unsanctioned works on the digital digital platform, and thus infringe upon the copyright of the original artists and take away the gallery’s potential revenue. Furthermore, the gallery also faces potential lawsuits from their artists alleging that the unauthorized use of their works was approved by the gallery.

As museums and galleries started implementing these virtual methods, they also had to start considering potential copyright issues. When museums use virtual reality or displaying art works online, they must keep in mind the intellectual property rights in the images and the text. Furthermore, they need to consider the rights of the artist, especially for a primary-market sale offer. For most artists, museums generally can clear the rights to use high-resolution images through the artist or her licensing agency. As for the photographer, if he or she is not employed by the artist or the museum, the museum should consider obtaining a broad license or require the photographer to execute a work-made-for-hire agreement with the customary in-the-alternative assignment language. Museums should also obtain the necessary rights from the author of the essays featured in the viewing room.

Museums and galleries may have available to them, the Fair Use defense against copyright infringement claims. For example, for secondary-market sales, such as resales of artworks, museums and galleries may not have a relationship with the artist or the artist’s estate. In such a case, the Fair Use Doctrine may allow the use of small, low-resolution images. The Copyright Act of 1976 provides that “the fair use of a copyrighted work is not an infringement of copyright.” To determine whether an allegedly infringing use is “fair use,” courts need to consider four factors: (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial or for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. Whether or not the doctrine allows the display of large-scale, high resolution images without permission is less clear. There is also no specific definition of large versus small scale, and high versus low resolution. Courts usually analyze each situation according to a totality of circumstances.

Lastly, galleries should be aware of whether or not the displayed artwork incorporates third-party content. If so, the owner of that content can potentially have a claim against the display. Possible solutions to mitigate this risk include obtaining an opinion from attorneys regarding potential Fair Use defense, working with the artist in advance of an exhibition to reach an agreement about the use,  and potentially having liability or omissions insurance in place. 

The online presence of museums and art galleries has grown due to COVID. Even now, after all venues have nearly reopened to the public, many virtual options still remain available. Although there are many uncertainties in potential copyright cases, museums and galleries that are using or considering virtual arts should conduct more thorough legal research, seek legal advice from counsel, and implement prevention mechanisms to mitigate risks.

Universally Deceived: False Advertising in Movie Trailers

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

By: Nicholas Neathamer

Have you ever been excited by a flashy movie trailer, only to be sorely disappointed when you get around to seeing the film itself? While it is certainly a common sentiment, most people would not think to litigate over the letdown. Yet in the ongoing case, Conor Woulfe et al v. Universal City Studios LLC et al, two disgruntled movie-watchers have sued Universal City Studios LLC for just such a disappointment, claiming that Universal deceived them with an early trailer for the movie Yesterday. 

The movie Yesterday, released in 2019, takes place in a world where everyone except the protagonist mysteriously loses all recollection of The Beatles, allowing the protagonist to pass off the band’s famous songs as his own creations. A trailer for the film featured said protagonist serenading popular actress Ana de Armas with the Beatles song “Something.” Allegedly, this brief sighting of de Armas in the trailer was enough to prompt Conor Woulfe and Peter Michael Rosza to watch Yesterday, and both men paid $3.99 on Amazon to stream it. However, to their immense disappointment, the scene with de Armas from the trailer was removed from the film’s final cut, and de Armas never makes an appearance otherwise. 

While someone’s favorite actress being cut from a film without warning sounds like a fairly trivial problem, the resulting lawsuit and its demands are nothing for Universal to laugh at. In January of 2022, Woulfe and Rosza sued Universal in the District Court for the Central District of California. The pair brought several claims that alleged the studio profited from the illegal misrepresentation of the movie, ultimately seeking $5 million for two yet-to-be-certified classes of spurned viewers of Yesterday. Woulfe and Rosza seek class certification for viewers who paid to see the film in California and Maryland. 

To combat these claims, Universal filed a special motion to strike this lawsuit under California’s Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16, the state’s anti-SLAPP statute. A SLAPP suit, or a strategic lawsuit against public participation, is generally a lawsuit without legal merit that is brought to dissuade critics from producing negative publicity. In response to such frivolous lawsuits that limit critics’ free speech, many states have enacted Anti-SLAPP statutes. California’s anti-SLAPP statute specifically provides defendants with a special motion to strike a claim that arises from an act in furtherance of free speech and in connection with a public issue, “unless the court determines that the plaintiff has established that there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim.” After the defendant shows that the suit arises from such an act, the burden falls on the plaintiff to show that the complaint is both legally sufficient and “supported by a sufficient prima facie showing of facts to sustain a favorable judgment if the evidence submitted by the plaintiff is credited.” Hilton v. Hallmark Cards. Universal also filed a motion to dismiss the suit for failure to state a claim, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). 

In his ruling, Judge Stephen V. Wilson worked through a multi-step framework laid out by the Ninth Circuit to reach the conclusion that this lawsuit stemmed from Universal’s right to free speech, as Universal’s creations of Yesterday and its trailer both were exercises of free speech. He also ruled that Woulfe and Rosza’s claims were in connection with a public issue for several reasons, including the fact that the user reviews, ratings, and an interview regarding the lack of de Armas in the final cut demonstrated public interest in the dispute. Because the claims center around an act of free speech that is connected to a public issue, Wilson went on to analyze whether Woulfe and Rosza had established a likelihood of success on their claims. 

Ultimately, Judge Wilson was persuaded by the majority of Universal’s challenges to the movie viewers’ claims, including barring injunctive relief. However, Wilson did leave room for the suit to continue. Namely, he allowed the plaintiff’s claims of unfair competition, false advertising, and unjust enrichment to continue, and even left open the possibility of monetary damages, stating that “the Court cannot rule as a matter of law that [Woulfe and Rosza] received the full value of what they paid for…”. 

Both the unfair competition and false advertising claims take into account the “reasonable consumer standard,” in which a plaintiff must show that the defendant’s misrepresentation is likely to deceive an ordinary consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances. Using this standard, Wilson found that Woulfe and Rosza alleged facts that demonstrate the plausibility that ordinary consumers would be misled by the trailer. Additionally, California’s false advertising law only applies when a significant portion of reasonable consumers could be deceived by a trailer. On this point, he found it plausible that viewers of Yesterday would expect Ana de Armas to feature prominently in the movie, allowing the suit to survive the anti-SLAPP motion and a motion to dismiss.

Notably, Wilson also held that Universal had no defense in the First Amendment’s free speech protections because Woulfe and Rosza had sufficiently alleged that Yesterday’s trailer is false, commercial speech. Specifically, Wilson noted that the First Amendment provides no protection for false or misleading commercial speech. Wilson, applying factors from Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp., found that Yesterday’s trailer constitutes commercial speech because it (1) is an advertisement for the movie, (2) refers to the specific product of the movie, and (3) Woulfe and Rosza have alleged sufficient facts to show that Universal had an adequate economic motivation so that the economic benefit was the studio’s primary purpose for the expression in the trailer. 

However, Judge Wilson’s ruling does not mean that any studio whose movie disappoints compared to its trailer is eligible to be sued. Despite many media sources’ bold headlines that movie studios can now be sued over their deceptive trailers, Wilson explicitly limited his holding to “representations as to whether an actress or scene is in the movie, and nothing else.” This statement wisely barred Wilson’s ruling from being used to support lawsuits when moviegoers’ subjective tastes are not met by films whose trailers enticed them. Furthermore, Woulfe and Rosza’s claims have yet to actually succeed–Wilson’s ruling only shows that their surviving claims are plausible and have at least a slim likelihood of success. While this holding certainly does not yet doom movie trailers to lose their artistic freedom of expression, movie studios may want to be a bit more careful about which actors they choose to feature in their trailers moving forward. 

Tough to Watch: Assumption of Risk in the NFL

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

By: Kelton McLeod

On January 2nd, 2023, during a primetime Monday Night Football matchup between the Buffalo Bills at the Cincinnati Bengals, Bills’ safety Damar Hamlin collapsed after being struck in the chest during a routine tackle.  Bills’ medical staff rushed to the field, where assistant athletic director Denny Kellington performed CPR for nine minutes after it was discovered that Hamlin had no pulse. Kellington’s actions likely saved Hamlin’s life, as Hamlin had suffered from a severe cardiac arrest. National Football League (NFL) officials responded in the immediate aftermath of the episode by suspending play in the still ongoing football game (Hamlin’s collapse happened with less than six minutes left in the first quarter), before outright canceling the match on Thursday January 5th. The reasons cited for not replaying the match at a later date were all related to a lack of a large impact on who would be playing in the upcoming NFL Playoffs and were unrelated to Hamlin’s current medical status.

In the days that have followed, Hamlin has continued to receive intensive treatment, but his recovery is looking more hopeful by the day. In fact, doctors report that after regaining consciousness one of Hamlin’s first questions was wondering who had won the much-hyped matchup. The NFL, and the larger professional sports world, have banded together around Hamlin, and it has been an incredibly touching display community in the face of potential tragedy. But the episode also draws attention to the larger issue of liability for injuries in professional sports. 

While an on-the-job injury at a more “normal” job with a low risk of injury, and almost no risk of death, would likely lead to a suit seeking to recover damages for the injury and its consequences, Football remains different. The kind of injuries like the one Hamlin suffered remain an “inherent risk” to the sport, and players take on an assumption of that risk in choosing to play football. In Morgan v. Kent State Univ. (2016), the risks inherent in an activity are those that are “foreseeable, common, and customary” to an activity. Certain risks “are so inherent in some activities that they cannot be eliminated, and therefore a person participating in such activities tacitly consents to the risks involved.”  It is foreseeable, common, and customary to be tackled or to tackle another in professional football, and as anyone who watched the replay might be able to see, the tackle is nothing out of the ordinary. Hamlin, therefore, would be hard-pressed to assign any potential injury liability to the NFL, the Bengals, the Bills, or Tee Higgins (the player who he was tackling), because Hamlin assumed the risk that he might be injured throughout the normal course of the game. This is further exemplified by Avila v. Citrus Community College Dist. (2006), where the court stated that “the football player who steps onto the gridiron consents to his opponents hard tackle.” Hamlin, by playing Football, consented to being hit in the chest during a tackle. While the result of said tackle was unlikely and harrowing to say the least, the risk of that outcome was assumed. Leagues like the NFL try to strike a balance between encouraging players to go out and give their all in any given match, and remain safe while doing so, and the balance always appears to be lopsided to giving it their all. 

Hamlin’s injury occurred during a routine tackle; it was an example of the medical phenomenon commotio cordis, where blunt force trauma hitting the chest at just the wrong moment can cause an irregular and dangerous rhythm. This was an unlikely outcome to a standard play, but it was not an impossible outcome. Hamlin’s cardiac arrest is nowhere near the first injury that has grasped the attention of the public, and it is likely not going to be the last. The NFL itself has had a history with high profile catastrophic injuries, and deaths that have resulted in part due to trauma related to playing professional football. And these injuries extend far beyond Hamilin (or the high-profile concussion settlement of the 2010s). The National Center for Catastrophic Sports Injury Research keeps records of football fatalities and catastrophic injuries going back decades, related to professional and amateur football. Between 2016-2021, 140 catastrophic injuries to football players were reported across experience levels, while in 2021, 20 football related deaths were reported. 

Players are aware of the potential risks of football, but that does not stop the Monday Night Football incident from being a wakeup call. Tennessee Titans linebacker Dylan Cole after the incident said that “[he] always said [he] signed on the dotted line, so [he] understands what [they]’re getting into” but that does not stop the hit from being “tough to watch” and a “reminder to the world of how precious life is and how absorbed we can get into things that really, truly don’t matter.” 

While this incident ends in a fairytale fashion, with the world surrounding Hamlin in love and support, and Hamlin offering words of support to his fellow Bills players, there’s no guarantee that the next public injury ends the same way. And when it comes, because it will come, it is the player, and not the league, who remains on the hook for the injury.