Reliable energy is a commodity that every American has grown accustomed to. Whether plugging in our toasters in the morning to make the perfect bagel sandwich, maintaining comfortable temperatures in our living spaces during the winter, or being held on a ventilator at the hospital, having a reliable energy grid is essential to our society. Additionally, as we combat the current climate crisis, America has expanded its green energy infrastructure to where renewable energy generates over 20% of our electricity. [1] While this may sound like a promising step toward a sustainable future, our aging energy grid and infrastructure are running into a higher risk of failure with every green advancement, particularly with solar energy. This dilemma has been described as the Duck Curve Problem.
The top line of this graph represents the grid’s energy demand from nonrenewable sources over 24 hours, while the bottom line shows the demand when solar renewable energy is factored in. The significant drop in midday energy demand provided by solar energy, contrasted with the sharp rise in the evening, creates the famous ‘duck’ shape seen in the graph. This steep and quick rise in energy demand puts huge strains on nonrenewable power plants which risk overgeneration to compensate for the energy use differential. This imposes higher prices on consumers, causes infrastructure damage, and threatens our national security.
To curtail this problem, the Biden Administration, under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), has launched a joint grid modernization initiative with twenty-one states toupgrade approximately 100,000 miles of existing transmission lines. [2] This will allow for advancements in battery technology, which will help store midday solar energy and allow for a gradual release of energy when the sun goes down, which will reduce the strain on power plants. Recently, the California Energy Commission has used IIJA funding to expand 100 miles to their power grid to allow multiple sources of renewable energy input such as wind and hydroelectric, to reduce the effects of the duck curve. [3] This is an effective solution because hydroelectric and wind energy input will buffer the drastic evening energy demand.
While the IIJA is a critical step toward enhancing the reliability of the U.S. power grid, further state-level legislative action is needed to meet renewable energy goals without posing a threat to our energy grid infastructure. California’s Energy Storage Mandate serves as a key example. This innovative mandate requires the state’s three major utility companies: Pacific Gas and Electric, Southern California Edison, and San Diego Gas & Electric to procure a combined 1,325 megawatts (MW) of energy storage over ten years. [4] This initiative has proven highly successful, as all three utilities have nearly met their procurement targets. [5] By expanding energy storage capacity, this legislation ensures more efficient use of renewable energy, reducing strain on the grid and helping to stabilize electricity prices during periods of high demand.
As we continue to expand renewable energy and modernize our grid, innovative green legislation in energy storage will be essential to overcoming the challenges of the Duck Curve and ensuring a reliable, sustainable future for America’s energy infrastructure.
____________________
[1] Renewable Energy, U.S. Dep’t of Energy, https://www.energy.gov/eere/renewable-energy (last visited Oct. 5, 2024).
The emergence of social media has impacted our mental health in a way more complex than we may understand for hundreds of years. U.S. Surgeon General Murthy has called for warning labels on social media to remind users that this has not been proven safe.[1] Further, adolescents who spend a significant amount of time online are at risk for anxiety and depression.[2] So, what about the companies behind these platforms? What liability do they have, if any, to the effects of social media on the general public?
Currently, there is an ongoing lawsuit by more than 40 states who are suing Meta, one of the largest operators of several social media platforms.[3] The claims under this lawsuit are that Meta is responsible for harmful features such as “recommendation algorithms, social comparison features, infinite scroll, notifications and alerts, and photo filters” which all have negative links to addictive behavior and mental health conditions, like body dysmorphia.[4] This lawsuit requests remedies such as fines, penalties, and orders to stop using some problematic features.[5]
Additionally, there is litigation in one California court assessing the liability social media companies have about the potential effects on mental health.[6] The plaintiffs argue that failure-to-warn claims should be applied without a physical product at issue, and this would just be the law evolving to keep up with the times.[7] Opposing counsel argues this type of product liability is not applicable, since it tailors the experience to each user.[8] Similar lawsuits have been filed by parents, school districts, and attorneys general (AGs), claiming similar injuries.[9]
What About the Kids:
This question is being challenged specifically on behalf of children, and the impact it has on their development. New York, California, and Utah have passed similar laws allowing parents to have greater control over their children’s algorithms and social media uses.[10] California’s law defines an “addictive feed as a website or app in which multiple pieces of media generated or shared by users are … selected or prioritized for display to a user based … on information provided by the user.”[11]
TikTok’s defense to claims that it is misleading and threatening to adolescents is that they have already provided the safeguards necessary.[12] These protections include removing suspected underage users, “default screen time limits, family pairing, and privacy by default for minors under sixteen.”[13] The response from the New Jersey AG is that the safety features are misleading for parents, and the time restraints can be easily bypassed through passwords or eliminating the limit.[14]
The ongoing litigation for liability in the social media space will set up future standards for how seriously we take threats to our mental health. The resolution of these legal challenges could set important precedents for accountability in the tech industry while balancing a First Amendment right to free speech on these platforms.
Looking for a restaurant? What do you do? Most people would say – “Google it.” Search engines are a part of everyday life. We look up where to eat, what store we should shop at, what events are happening near us, and more. People seeking abortions or access to information regarding reproductive healthcare are no different. They frequent search engines to find access to critical reproductive healthcare. But what happens when those search engines are manipulated by those that have an ulterior motive?
Search engine optimization (SEO) is “the process of improving your website to increase its visibility in Google, Microsoft Bing, and other search engines.”[1] Because “organic search[es]” are responsible for 53% of all website traffic, SEO is a critical part of modern marketing strategies.[2] Notably, the global SEO industry is estimated to reach $122.11 billion by 2028.[3]
Companies or websites can use SEO to their advantage by using “the right keywords and phrases to improve their appearance in search results.”[4] In this way, SEO can be used to attract specific audiences to a webpage, including vulnerable individuals seeking access to reproductive healthcare information. Anti-abortion pregnancy centers in the United Sates have “spent an estimated $10.2 million on Google Search ads” and “those ads were clicked on an estimated 13 million times” in a two-year period.[5]
Human Coalition is credited with starting the trend for pro-life organizations use of SEO to their advantage.[6] Human Coalition is a “pro-life nonprofit organization committed to an audacious mission: to transform our culture of death into a culture of life – to end abortion in America.”[7] Human Coalition has “applied corporate digital marketing techniques” like SEO, to “manipulate pregnant peoples’ online search results, driving those researching abortion away from comprehensive pregnancy care or abortion clinics”.[8]
Users who search ‘pregnancy test’, ‘pregnancy’ or ‘abortion’ are frequently redirected to websites for Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPC’s).[9] CPC’s are “nonprofit organizations that present themselves as healthcare clinics while providing counseling explicitly intended to discourage and limit access to abortion.”[10] These centers, “are rarely licensed to provide health care and do not offer accurate information or refer patients for abortion care, emergency contraception, or comprehensive prenatal care, and they do not make referrals to abortion providers.”[11]
Heartbeat International is a “pro-life pregnancy resource center” with over 3,600 “affiliated pregnancy help locations.”[12] Heartbeat International has also manipulated SEO to their advantage.[13] They have gone as far as to boast that an individual “who makes a Google search such as ‘pregnant and scared’ finds a local Heartbeat International affiliate.”[14]
Human Coalition and Heartbeat International are not the exception. Manipulation of SEO to support a pro-life agenda is so commonplace that entire companies exist to support CPCs in this messaging. Choose Life Marketing is a marketing company, seeking to help clients (pro-life groups) use SEO to their advantage.[15] Their website states that “an SEO strategy can help more people who want to learn about or support the pro-life mission find your organization. Our team will do the necessary research to learn what keywords your target audience is searching for, and then we will optimize your site to help you reach that audience.”[16]
SEO is deliberately manipulated to redirect pregnant people to CPC’s and mislead them into misinformation surrounding abortion and to dissuade individuals from having abortions.[17] The CPC’s “often present themselves as medical facilities and mirror abortion clinics’ logos, using names like Your Choice and Women’s Health Clinic.”[18] CPC’s have also used “sophisticated digital tactics like ‘geo-fencing’ to intercept people in the waiting rooms of physician’s offices and vulnerable populations like high school students.”[19]
These tactics are deceptive and can have serious implications. For years, those in favor of reproductive rights have urged Google to prevent CPCs from running “misleading abortion-related ads” on their platform. However, because CPCs are not “selling anything, they do not fall under the purview of the Federal Trade Commission Act, which prohibits unfair or deceptive advertising.”[20] A group of Democrats in Congress urged Google to protect users from “misleading abortion-related search results” in June 2022, weeks before the groundbreaking decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, overturning Roe v. Wade and erasing Constitutional protection for abortions.[21]
Two years later, not much has changed. In 2024, women are still googling “abortion near me” and being directed to CPC’s.[22] Sudden abortion bans and restrictions in the aftermath of Dobbs only increases the dangers these centers cause. These centers “aim to delay medical procedures until it is too late to legally terminate a pregnancy, which these centers never present as an option.”[23] As State Senator from Pennsylvania Katie Muth has stated – Action is needed to ensure “consumers are protected from sham centers that spend millions of dollars on deceptive marketing to advertise themselves as health care centers, when in fact they don’t actually provide such service… These deceptive practices can lead to human harm and even the death of an expecting mother because of a delay in care caused by these centers wasting precious time with sham guidance.”[24]
——————————————————————————————————————–
[1] What Is SEO – Search Engine Optimization, Search Engine Land, https://searchengineland.com/guide/what-is-seo (last visited Sep. 22, 2024).
[2]Organic Search Responsible For 53% of all site traffic, paid 15% [Study], Search Engine Land https://searchengineland.com/organic-search-responsible-for-53-of-all-site-traffic-paid-15-study-322298 (last visited Sep. 22, 2024).
[3] What Is SEO, supra note 1.
[4] Jack Dobkin, In The Grand Scheme: Six Sinister Tactics Employed by Anti-Abortion Centers, Equity Forward (last visited Sep. 22, 2024) https://equityfwd.org/research/grand-scheme-six-sinister-tactics-employed-anti-abortion-centers.
[5] Laurel Wamsley, Google Shows You Ads for Anti-Abortion Centers When Yoy Search For Clinics Near You, Npr (Jun 22, 2023) https://www.npr.org/2023/06/22/1182865322/google-abortion-clinic-search-results-anti-abortion.
[6] Dobkin, supra note 1.
[7] Human Coalition, https://www.humancoalition.org/ (last visited Sep. 22, 2024).
[8] Dobkin, supra note 1.
[9]What Reproductive Rights Advocates Need to Know About Anti-Abortion Crisis Pregnancy Centers, Planned Parenthood Advocacy Fund of Massachusetts, Inc. https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/planned-parenthood-advocacy-fund-massachusetts-inc/issues/what-reproductive-rights-advocates-need-to-know-about-anti-abort#:~:text=They%20also%20utilize%20search%20engine,people%20away%20from%20real%20reproductive (last visited Sep. 22, 2024).
[10]Melissa N Montoya, Colleen Judge-Golden, Jonas J. Swartz, The Problems With Crisis Pregnancy Centers: Reviewing the Literature and Identifying New Directions for Future Research, (May 24, 2022) https://doi.org/10.2147/IJWH.S288861
[11] Planned Parenthood Advocacy Fund of Massachusetts, Inc., supra note 9.
[12] About Us,Heartbeat International, https://www.heartbeatinternational.org/about-us (last visited Sep. 22, 2024).
[17] Abigail Abrams and Vera Bergengruen, Anti-Abortion Pregnancy Centers Are Collecting Troves of Data That Could Be Weaponized Against Women, (Jun. 22, 2022 12:02 PM EDT) https://time.com/6189528/anti-abortion-pregnancy-centers-collect-data-investigation
[18] Id.
[19] Rep. Bridget Kosierowski and Rep. Melissa Shusterman, A Post-Roe PA: deceptive Practices of Anti-Abortion Centers, PA House Democratic Policy Comm. and PA Senate Democrats Policy Comm. (Sep. 6, 2022 1:00 pm) https://www.pahouse.com/files/Documents/Testimony/2022-09-06_034351__Sept6HearingDocs.pdf
[20] Emma Cott, Nilo Tabrizy, Aliza Aufrichtig, Rebecca Liberman and Nailah Morgan, They Serached Online for Abortion Clinics. They Found Anti-Abortion Centers., The New York Times (Jun. 23, 2022) https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/us/texas-abortion-human-coalition.html
[21] Id.
[22] Ashley Adams, Exposed: This PA Woman’s Story Reveals How Crisis Pregnancy Centers Deceive Women, The Keystone (Feb. 28, 2024) https://keystonenewsroom.com/2024/02/28/exposed-this-pa-womans-story-reveals-how-crisis-pregnancy-centers-deceive-women/
Traditional methods of human disposition, namely burial and cremation, have been a tradition of many cultures for thousands of years.[1] However, the carbon footprint and environmental impact of these traditions had not been considered until relatively recently in the 1990s by the Green Burial Council. [2] They discovered that one cremation uses up to 500 gallons of fuel, and releases up to 250 lbs of CO2 per person. [3] That is the equivalent of driving a car for 400 miles. [4] More than 2 Million people are cremated each year in the United States, and as the costs of traditional burial continue to rise, cremation rates will continue to trend upwards. [5]
Scientists and environmentalists have been working together to find ways to respectfully dispose of human remains while reducing the 360,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide produced each year. [6] One method, which became legal in New York in 2022, is human composting. [7] Human composting, also known as terramation, is a process that breaks down the remains into nutrient-dense soil by speeding up the natural decomposition processes of bacteria and fungi.[8] The body is placed into a chamber with wood chips and straw, and heated for 5-7 weeks.[9] The family can then keep the soil for personal use in a garden or donate it to their local community. [10]
Unfortunately for New Yorkers, as of today September 13th, 2024, there has yet to be an application to construct a human composting facility.[11] Cemetery boards cite a lack of consumer interest because they have yet to apply, but this is a circular argument.[12] Due to the lack of facilities and subsequent lack of advertising for the service, consumers do not know that human composting is an option in New York. Additionally, many consumers who are interested in the procedure know that there is a lack of facilities in New York that can provide it, so they do not ask for it.
A lack of State regulations regarding the requirements of constructed facilities also stands as a roadblock, preventing facilities from opening in New York. The funeral industry is heavily regulated by State and Federal Law. Funeral homes and crematories are statutorily required to have certain rooms, such as a viewing room or chapel, to operate legally.[13] These regulations also require that the rooms be of a certain size and that some rooms cannot be connected.[14] No such regulations exist in the assembly bill that legalized human composting facilities.[15] Cemetery boards are not willing to spend millions of dollars on a facility when there is a precedent of building requirements with this level of specificity. This leaves them with the potential to construct a facility that is not up to code, leaving them unable to operate legally without incurring further renovation costs to bring the facility into compliance.
Overall, as global CO2 levels continue to rise, it is important to provide individuals with an option to lessen their carbon footprint, even after death. Currently, the lack of regulations for human composting facilities leaves New Yorkers unable to do their part to minimize their environmental impact.
The judicial system has long been revered for its fundamental ideals of impartiality and justice. These ideals have formed the cornerstone of our legal institutions, and of our democracy itself. But are these venerable ideals, many of which are written into our founding documents, always realized in our court system and in our community? If not, what can be done to achieve these goals, and how can society ensure that all individuals have access to the tools required to participate effectively in the judicial system, and ensure access to justice?
With the surge in use of unprecedented artificial intelligence tools like generative chatbots, including the leading chatbots in the industry, OpenAI’s ChatGPT and Google’s Bard chatbot, there is a prodigious amount of potential for expanding access to justice and addressing the issues discussed above. If leveraged properly, these generative artificial intelligence tools could provide guidance to populations that have less access to legal resources.[1] After personally evaluating these chatbots in their current form, I have seen that they can provide templates to
individuals to help draft legal documents, provide information about case law, and even suggest possible solutions for complex legal issues.
While it is important to ensure that these artificial intelligence mechanisms can be directly used by individuals to assist with legal issues that they may have, it is perhaps equally as important to implement these tools into the legal profession. Many artificial intelligence tools have already been found useful within the legal community itself; for example, some legal aid organizations have already begun incorporating generative chatbots into their legal research processes.[2] These generative chatbots can be given set parameters that guide the chatbot to research cases in a particular area of the law. Having access to these research tools will drastically increase the speed with which firms are able to handle client cases, and will especially benefit organization with limited resources, such as legal aid organizations that provide free legal services to clients. By having the capability to increase research speed, legal aid organizations will be able to work through client cases faster, and accordingly will be able to take on a greater case load, thus providing more legal services to individuals that the organization might otherwise have had to turn down.
However, the idea of using generative artificial intelligence chatbots to promote legal resources and to act as guides for underserved populations is not without its risks. Most notably, what if chatbots simply generate an incorrect response? Mainstream chatbots, such as ChatGPT, have been known to make errors and provide misleading, and often incorrect, information.[3] To address this issue, chatbots can be developed and tailored to serve the needs of the legal industry specifically. In addition, training methods for legal chatbots should be specially designed to ensure quality data is used for the artificial intelligence model. Traditionally, chatbots are trained by “scraping” data from across the internet; for chatbots used in the legal industry, a more refined methodology should be used to prevent the chatbot from learning inaccuracies and false information.[4]
In addition, there are other risks associated with the use of artificial intelligence chatbots in the legal system. One other risk is data privacy. In the scope of legal representation, confidential information is almost always revealed and passed between attorney and client, and feeding any confidential information into a generative artificial intelligence platform poses several potentially large risks to clients. Even without giving the platform specific details about
the client, questions arise about what the company behind the chatbot will do with the information entered after the user no longer needs it.
Although there may be risks associated with using artificial intelligence chatbots in the legal profession, the potential benefits largely outweigh these risks. Not only could these chatbots provide direct assistance to underserved individuals facing legal issues, but they could also be used by attorneys and those working in the legal industry as a whole to better assist clients and expand access to the judicial system.
______________________
1. Kirsten Sonday, Forum: There’s potential for AI chatbots to increase access to justice, THOMSON REUTERS (May 25, 2023), https://www.thomsonreuters.com/en-us/posts/legal/forum-spring-2023-ai-chatbots/
In a recent decision, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in Thaler v. Perlmutter, found that a work entirely made and authored by artificial intelligence cannot receive copyright protection.[1]. The Court ruled that human authorship is a critical key part of what allows a work to fall under copyright protection. [2].The registration of copyright form, filed by the defendant, Thaler, listed his AI machine as the author.[3] The court found such a work cannot have copyright protection as there was no human input even considering that Thaler made the computer program and had to prompt the machine to act.[4] However, Thaler’s lawyer has indicated the possibility of an appeal making this issue for further debate.[5] This case will be the first of many testing the copyright protection of AI-made works as there still exists many questions like how much AI is too much to copyright a work or how can a business use AI while still protecting their investments.
How much AI is too much AI? How much human is too little human?
It should be noted that Thaler is limited to AI work with no human intervention.[6] In other words, in a case where there exists some human intervention, the outcome may be different. This is an important distinction because the copyright office has stated that “AI-generated content that is more than de minimis should be explicitly excluded from the application.”[7] However, this limit is blurry.[8] It is especially blurry, considering the back-and-forth the Copyright Office had with the registration of Zarya of the Dawn, where AI made pictures for a graphic novel and the pictures were deemed to not have copyright protection, and determining if the work was created by artificial intelligence.[9] In addition, it is also unclear when AI and human work are more intertwined if copyright protection can be given to the work.[10] In Zarya of the Dawn, the AI-made pictures could be distinguished and allow solely that part to not fall under copyright protection.[11]. However, if the AI edits a photograph or a human edits an AI-drawn painting, then the line of what is protected, if anything at all, is unknown and will need to be decided in the courts.[12].
Impact on Businesses and their Attempts to Copyright AI Work
As the recent writer strike has shown, AI involvement in creativity is a hotly contested issue. [13]. Writers want AI to be limited, while companies want to use AI to speed up creativity and even art-making processes.[14]. However, the introduction of Thaler limits how far companies can go. If AI writes a movie or book, that work will not fall under copyright protection. [15]. However, such protection may soon be expanded. Many governments are interested in AI and its advancements and how to control it or expand it. [16]. So far, The United Kingdom has taken a friendlier approach to computer-generated content, allowing works that may fall outside of copyright protection in the United States to have such protection in the United Kingdom. [17]. However, early optimism in the United Kingdom has started to turn to apprehension as AI became very powerful very quickly. [18] As the public opinion starts to turn against AI being involved in works it will become harder and harder to use it to create art. As such businesses will have to stay on top of current laws and court decisions as the field changes and the public reacts to such laws and works published.
_____________
[1] Thaler v. Perlmutter, No. CV 22-1564 (BAH), 2023 WL 5333236, at *7 (D.D.C. Aug. 18, 2023).
[2] Id.
[3] Id. at *1.
[4] Id. at *3-6.
[5] Copyright Protection in AI-Generated Works Update: Decision in Thaler V. Perlmutter, Authors Alliance (Aug. 24, 2023), https://www.authorsalliance.org/2023/08/24/copyright-protection-in-ai-generated-works-update-decision-in-thaler-v-perlmutter/.
[6] Thaler, 2023 WL 5333236, at *6-7.
[7] Copyright Registration Guidance: Works Containing Material Generated by Artificial Intelligence, 88 Fed. Reg. 16190, 16193 (Mar. 16, 2023) (to be codified at 37 C.F.R. pt. 202).
[8] Aaron Moss, What Copyright’s “Unclaimable Material” Rules Mean for Hollywood’s Use of AI, Copyright Lately (Aug. 25, 2023), https://copyrightlately.com/copyright-unclaimable-material-rules-hollywood-use-of-ai/#:~:text=“De%20Minimis”%20Amounts%20of%20AI,t%20need%20to%20be%20disclosed.
[9] Id.
[10] Id.
[11] Id.
[12] Id.
[13] Ashley Cullins and Katie Kilkenny, As Writers Strike, AI Could Covertly Cross the Picket Line, Hollywood Reporter (May 3, 2023), https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/writers-strike-ai-chatgpt-1235478681/.
[14] Id.
[15] Ellen Glover and Brennan Whitfield, AI-Generated Content and Copyright Law: What We Know, Built In (Aug. 23, 2023), https://builtin.com/artificial-intelligence/ai-copyright.
[17] Id.
[18] Carlton Daniel, Joseph Grasser, and James J Collis, Copyright protection for AI works: UK vs US, Lexology (July 12, 2023), https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=a9b81aa1-7243-4f03-890c-7d29f5ccbdd7.
[1] ChatGPT: what the law says about who owns the copyright of AI-generated content, University of Portsmouth (April 17, 2023), https://www.port.ac.uk/news-events-and-blogs/blogs/security-and-risk/chatgpt-what-the-law-says-about-who-owns-the-copyright-of-ai-generated-content
If you’ve been to a Whole Foods lately, you may have noticed that there’s a new way to pay – using your hand. If you haven’t yet experienced this new phenomenon, don’t worry. Amazon is bringing its palm-scanning technology to over 500 Whole Foods stores by the end of this year1. If Whole Foods isn’t your thing, you might find the new technology in sports stadiums, raceways, and casinos2.
The palm payment technology is part of Amazon One, a service that connects your Amazon account, and your payment information, to the palm of your hand3. This is done through a “palm signature”, which is Amazon’s way of storing your information through the lines and wrinkles on your palm4. When you hold your hand above the scanner, it reads your palm’s unique ridges, grooves, and vein patterns, and charges the payment method attached to your Amazon account5.
Amazon’s new technology isn’t only for payment, though. The technology’s capabilities can determine your age for alcohol purchase purposes6. This identification ability has raised major concerns from consumers and vendors to state senators7. Red Rocks Amphitheater, for example, cut ties with Amazon One after an open letter asked entertainment industry groups and venues to cancel contracts with Amazon One due to data security concerns8.
Currently, Amazon is facing a class action lawsuit related to its Amazon Go stores tracking New York customers’ body shapes, sizes, and palm prints without providing proper notice as required by a New York City biometric surveillance law9.
Amazon’s assurance to consumers is that your identity is unique to you. Your stored payment and other information can’t be stolen in the way that a credit card otherwise could10. However, there are experts who believe AI can copy voices, faces, and even your palm11. Amazon’s response has been its use of liveness-detections technology, which is supposed to be able to tell a difference between a real palm and a fake one12. Further, Amazon claims its combination of palm and vein imagery is unusable to third parties and says your data will not be bought or sold to other companies, or used by Amazon itself, for marketing and advertising13.
Even with promises of safety and data protection, Amazon’s track record of data collection may influence your decision to use Amazon One. For one, Amazon recently reached a $25 million settlement following allegations of violating children’s privacy rights through the company’s voice assistant, Alexa14. This comes after Amazon’s failed attempt in 2018 to defeat a California law which requires disclosure of the information collected from consumers15.
So, while replacing a stolen credit card or stolen Social Security number seems time-consuming and difficult, consider the possibility of trying to replace your actual identity– your voice, face, or palm print. Is the convenience of paying with your hand worth the unknown security risks and questions associated with biometric identification technology? If it’s worth it to you, you can try it out at your local Whole Foods.
Are you willing to pay more for your Tully’s Tenders knowing that they are 100% cruelty free? On June 21, 2023, the U.S. Department of Agriculture granted two companies, UPSIDE Foods and Good Meat, approval to produce and sell cell-cultivated chicken for the first time in the United States. [1]. According to UPSIDE Foods, the process of making cultivated meat is akin to brewing beer. [2]. Major advancements in food science and cell culture technology have led to this evolution.
Cultivated meat begins in a laboratory as a sample of cells that came from the tissue of an animal. [3]. That sample of cells is placed in a tightly controlled and monitored environment, like a cultivator, that supports cellular multiplication. [4]. After the cells are fed the right blend of nutrients, they multiply into billions or trillions of cells. [5]. Additional substances are added to the cells to differentiate into various cell types and assume the characteristics of muscle, fat, or connective tissue cells. [6]. Once the cells have differentiated into the desired type, they can be harvested. [7]. This entire process takes about two or three weeks. [8].
Like the slaughterhouse industry, the cultivated meat industry is regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). [9]. The FDA oversees cell collection, cell banks, and cell growth. [10]. However, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Food Safety and Inspection Services (FSIS) oversee the harvesting stage, as well as the further production and labeling of these products. [11].
Is cultivated meat the meat of the future? Advocates, such as the Animal Legal Defense Fund, are eager to put an end to the cruelty that occurs in slaughterhouses, as well as the negative environmental impacts of those businesses. [12]. However, Good Meat’s co-founder worries that they may never get the funds needed to scale up production. [13]. High production costs turn into high market prices, which may serve as a deterrent for future consumers. Singapore, the only other country that produces and sells UPSIDE Food’s cultivated meat, has yet to engage in mass production. [14].
Critics are skeptical of the benefits that this new technology can provide. George Santos, a United States representative for New York’s 3rd congressional district, introduced a Bill that would prohibit Federal funds to support lab-grown meat. [15]. Missouri became the first state to restrict the word “meat” during the marketing of alternative meat products. [16]. Does this restriction violate a manufacturer’s First Amendment Right to free speech? More severely, the Washington legislature has introduced a bill that bans the advertisement, selling, or offer for the sale of cultivated meat all together. [17]. Can a state use its police powers enact a law like this one? Legislative decisions will pave the path for the future of cultivated meat.
_________________________
1. Joanna Thompson, Lab-Grown Meat Approved for Sale: What You Need to Know, Scientific American (June 30, 2023), https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/lab-grown-meat-approved-for-sale-what-you-need-to-know/.
2. Upside is approved for sale in the US! Here’s what you need to know, UPSIDE Foods (June 21, 2023), https://www.upsidefoods.com/blog/upside-is-approved-for-sale-in-the-us-heres-what-you-need-to-know.
3. Human Food Made with Cultured Animal Cells, Food and Drug Admin. (March 21, 2023) https://www.fda.gov/food/food-ingredients-packaging/human-food-made-cultured-animal-cells.
13. Leah Douglas, Insight: Lab-grown meat moves closer to American dinner plates, Reuters (Jan. 23, 2023), https://www.reuters.com/business/retail-consumer/lab-grown-meat-moves-closer-american-dinner-plates-2023-01- 23/.
14. Reuters, Even after green-light, lab-grown meat yet to take off in Sing., Daily Sabah (Mar. 8, 2023), https://www.dailysabah.com/life/food/even-after-green-light-lab-grown-meat-yet-to-take-off-in-singapore.
15. American Meat Industry Protection Act of 2023, 118 H.R. 4805.
16. Eryn Terry, Note, The Regulation of Commercial Speech: Can Alternative Meet Companies Have Their Beef And Speak It Too, Vand. J. Ent. & Tech. L. 223 (2020).
Throughout the pandemic, many states allowed remote online notarizations(“RON”) on a temporary basis. This allowed businesses to continue operating when in-person commerce was at a standstill. On January 15, 2021, Senate 1780 was introduced, authorizing traditional Notaries to perform electronic notarial acts using specific technology.[1] On February 1, 2023, Senate 1780 went into effect, enabling RONs in New York State on a permanent basis.[2]
The new law enables a notary sitting in New York to notarize documents for an individual anywhere in the world.[3] The technology allows business to be conducted regardless of where the individual signing is located, provided that the notary complies with the requirements set forth in the new statute. In order to become a remote online notary, an individual must hold a current commission as a traditional Notary Public, contract with a technology provider that meets the state requirements, register with the Secretary of State, and purchase a required Notary journal.[4]
In order to meet the requirements necessary to complete the RONs, the Notary Public will need a computer, webcam, microphone, and secure internet connection.[5] As with many other states, New York requires that all RON be recorded with audiovisual technology.[6] There are currently severa that provide the necessary technology, including DocuSign, DocVerify, and SIGNix, to name a few.[7] In addition, Notaries are required to have an electronic stamp and digital certificate containing their electronic signature, and a journal is required.[8]
Utilizing the current online providers, the signer and Notary meet virtually through the platform to complete the notarization.[9] In addition, if witnesses are necessary, they will also meet through the platform throughout the singing process. The Notary is responsible for verifying the signer’s identity, as well as the witnesses, if necessary.[10] The identity verification is done directly through the service provider. This regulation allows the remote Notary to rely upon the information received from the service provider for verifying the identity of the individual(s) signing.[11] Further, the Notary is also responsible for confirming that the signer understands and is aware of what they are signing.[12] Finally, Remote Notaries are required to keep an audio and video recording of the electronic notarization for ten (10) years.[13]
Once the document has been electronically notarized, the document may be emailed, printed, faxed, or sent by other electronic means. However, in order to record an electronically signed document, the Remote Notary must provide a Certificate of Authenticity substantiating that no changes have been made to the document since the electronic signature and record were created.[14] The new law provides more security measures than a traditional notary and will likely reduce the number of fraudulent transfers.[15]
[1]How to Become a Remote Online Notary in New York, https://www.nationalnotary.org/knowledge-center/remote-online-notary/how-to-become-a-remote-online-notary/new-york (last updated Feb. 14, 2023)
[3] Michael A. Markowitz, The Future is Here: New York Approves Remote Online Notarization, https://nysba.org/the-future-is-here-new-york-approves-remote-online-notarization (Apr. 11, 2023)
Legal education has long prioritized the formalities of citation techniques, such as those found in the Bluebook. Students often find themselves learning an entirely new citation style upon entering law school, even after mastering other writing forms like the Chicago Manual of Style during their undergraduate studies.[1] However, rapid advancements in AI present an opportunity for a shift within the legal landscape that places greater emphasis on the substance of legal writing as opposed to the form of legal citations.
Student-run law journals underscore the importance of providing accurate legal citations, with many law schools administering Bluebook exams as part of the application process. In 2012, Staci Zaretsky reported on a University of Richmond School of Law student who launched a guerilla campaign against the school’s Bluebook exam, arguing that the 40-hour exam was excessive and unnecessary compared to the four-hour standard final exams.[2] This incident sparked controversy and divided opinions among law students regarding the necessity and value of the Bluebook exam.[3]
Traditionally, law students have dedicated significant time and effort to mastering Bluebooking citation forms for legal publications. Rothman, however, contends that perfect Bluebooking is often less critical in legal practice than in law school.[4] The introduction of AI in legal spaces offers a chance for a paradigm shift, enabling scholars to concentrate on the substantive content of legal writing.
While AI models like ChatGPT have been met with skepticism in the legal community due to concerns about trust, security, and cost, recent advancements demonstrate improvements in accuracy.[5] For instance, GPT-4, ChatGPT’s newest AI model, recently passed a simulated bar exam, scoring in the top 10 percentile of test-takers—a significant leap from the previous model, GPT-3.5, which scored in the bottom 10 percentile.[6]
Capitalizing on these advancements, numerous organizations have developed AI-powered tools for various industries.[7] Legal Ease, for example, offers an AI-tool that assists law students, lawyers, and other legal professionals with Bluebook citations, claiming to generate 100% accurate citations in seconds.[8]
AI holds the potential to reshape the future of legal education, driving a much-needed shift towards substantive content. Although proper Bluebooking may not always be as important in legal practice as it is in law school, AI can alleviate the pressure on students and legal professionals to perfect their citation skills. The potential disruption of the formalisms associated with Bluebooking opens up a wealth of opportunities for legal scholars to allocate more resources to increasing their contributions to legal academia, ultimately enhancing the quality and impact of legal scholarship.
[1] Jordan Rothman, Perfect Bluebooking Is Less Important in Legal Practice Than in Law School, Above the Law (Jan. 19, 2022), https://abovethelaw.com/2022/01/perfect-bluebooking-is-less-important-in-legal-practice-than-in-law-school/.
[2] Staci Zaretsky, Law Student Revolts Against Law Review’s Bluebook Exam, Above the Law (Mar. 22, 2012), https://abovethelaw.com/2012/03/law-student-revolts-against-law-reviews-bluebook-exam/.
[5] Thomas Bacas, ANALYSIS: Will ChatGPT Bring AI to Law Firms? Not Anytime Soon, Bloomberg L. (Dec. 28, 2022), https://news.bloomberglaw.com/bloomberg-law-analysis/analysis-will-chatgpt-bring-ai-to-law-firms-not-anytime-soon.
[6] Kyle Wiggers, OpenAI Releases GPT-4, a Multimodal AI That It Claims Is State-of-the-Art, TechCrunch (Mar. 14, 2023), https://techcrunch.com/2023/03/14/openai-releases-gpt-4-ai-that-it-claims-is-state-of-the-art/.
[7] Sunny Betz, The 15 Best AI Tools to Know, BuiltIn (June 9, 2022), https://builtin.com/artificial-intelligence/ai-tools.
