Blog Post

After the Hybrid Failure: Remediation Efforts and Legal Challenges Following the California Bar Exam

By: Sarah Shine

On February 25th and 26th, 2025, the State Bar of California rolled out a new testing system for the State Bar exam.1 In an effort to save money, California made the decision to switch from a fully in person exam to a hybrid model, reducing the need to rent centers for in person test takers. Up until the February administration the state bar has created its own essay and performance test questions, and utilized the Multistate Bar Exam questions from the National Conference of Bar Examiners.2 Due to concerns regarding security, fairness, and integrity, the NCBE does not allow remote testing, therefore to move to a hybrid model, the state bar must abandon their partnership with the NCBE. Facing a 22.2 million dollar budget deficit, the State bar cut a deal with Kaplan Exam Services which was tasked with creating the test questions, and Meazure Learning, who was hired to administer the exam.3 The hybrid model was projected to cost 3.9 million dollars, a savings of 1 million dollars from the previous in person model.

Concerns regarding administration of the new system had been noted prior to the February administration.4 On September 17th, deans from 15 ABA accredited law schools sent a letter to the board of trustees expressing “grave concerns” about the new hybrid test. The board also heard concerns at their February 21st meeting. The NCBE issued a letter warning Kaplan of their obligations regarding intellectual property rights surrounding test questions.5 At the same time, under existing regulations any major changes to the exam must be communicated two years in advance. This put Kaplan in a tough position, their questions could not be too similar to previous questions but also, not too different.

Roll out of the new test was described as a fiasco.6 Technology issues plagued test takers including being unable to connect, delays of up to ninety minutes to begin, getting kicked off the platform with no way to re enter without restarting the exam, screens that displayed error messages, and inability to use functions that were accessible in the performance test. The technology delays and glitches were not the only issues. Test takers also reported issues with the questions themselves, citing typos, questions with important facts left out, and some nonsensical questions.7 Law school deans report that these kinds of issues were also noted in the practice questions that had been published last fall. Issues with in person test sites included distracting environments and proctors who could not answer basic questions.

The California Supreme Court requested a detailed report from Meazure Learning and the state bar regarding the issues experienced and lists of appropriate remedies for affected test takers.8 On March 4th the court directed the state bar to plan on administering the July 2025 bar exam in person. In the Northern District of California a group of examinees filed a class action complaint against Proctor U Inc, the vendor for Meazure Learning. On March 3rd a second suit was filed by a bar candidate who alleges that the company was aware of their software’s shortcomings, and failed to address them.

The state bar released a statement saying they are actively working with stakeholders to determine the full scope of remediation measures that will be necessary for February test takers. Several law school deans are urging the California Supreme Court to offer provisional licenses for test takers who sat through the exam. This would allow candidates with offers of employment that are contingent on their results to retain those offers. The board is offering refunds for the February exam and free July exams.

Sources:

[1] Jenny Jarvie, After exam fiasco, California State Bar staff recommend reverting to in-person exams, The Los Angeles Times, (March 3, 2025), https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-03-03/after-bar-exam-fiasco-california-state-bar-staff-recommend-reverting-to-in-person-exams.

[2] FEATURE: IS THE STATE BAR PLAYING RUSSIAN ROULETTE WITH THE BAR EXAM?, 66 Orange County Lawyer 34.

[3] Jarvie supra, note 1.

[4] Julianne Hill, As fallout rains down, California considers return to in-person bar exam, ABA Journal, (March 4, 2025), https://www.abajournal.com/web/article/cali-bar-fallout-looks-at-bar-vendor-failures-provisional-licenses-return-to-mbe.

[5] Supra, note 2.

[6] Hill supra, note 4.

[7] Jarvie supra,  note 1.

[8] Hill supra, note 4.

The Practice of Greenwashing: Monetizing Hope for a Better Future

By: Ella Walton

In today’s day and age, many are looking to companies to begin implementing more sustainable practices throughout their businesses. Eco-friendly practices enable companies to continue to grow, while considering social responsibilities to preserve the future health of consumers and the planet alike.[1]

Per a 2017 survey, 92% of consumers believe they are more likely to trust brands which are environmentally or socially conscious, and 88% of consumers believe themselves to be more loyal to a company which supports social or environmental issues; more generally, 87% of consumers have more positive images of companies supporting these issues.[2] Globally, companies implementing these practices typically promote specific sustainable products or consumer benefits of sustainable actions, or reaffirm the company’s commitment to sustainability. Many of these missions relate to plastic reduction, conserving and reusing resources, sustainable energy usage, climate neutrality, and donating to sustainable projects; Managing Director of Nielsen Germany, Dirk Reinbothe, believes these missions are highly motivated by businesses seeking to appeal emotionally with their consumers [3] 

Given the increasing consumer demand for eco-conscious business practices and products, it’s no surprise companies may attempt to falsely claim such practices in the name of profit. This misrepresentation is referred to as “greenwashing,” primarily defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as “, to mislead [the public] or counter [public or media concerns] by falsely representing a person, company, product, etc., as being environmentally responsible.”[4]

Although greenwashing lacks a universally respected legal definition, suits grounded in this theme continue to rise in prevalence nationally through common law allegations of false advertising, fraud, unjust enrichment, and breach of warranty, as well as through state consumer fraud protection statutes. New York State allows such claims to be brought through its General Business Law §§ 349, 350, prohibiting deceptive business practices, and false advertising, respectively.[5]

This increase in litigation relating to greenwashing is consistent with recent findings from the Capgemini Research Institute; in 2024, 52% of global consumers believed organizations were engaging in greenwashing with their sustainability initiatives, an increase from a third of global consumers in 2023.[6] As recently as February 2025, a group of customers of W.L. Gore & Associates, the company which produces Gore-Tex Fabric, filed a complaint in the Eastern District of Washington supported by state common law and consumer protection laws. Among the complainants’ various allegations, are that the company has failed to disclose to consumers its utilization of perfluorinated based chemicals (PFC) in its manufacturing of Gore-Tex, as well as the shedding of these chemicals. Essentially, the complaint alleges that Gore purposely and deceptively excluded commonly regarded PFC-based chemicals from their definition of “PFC* Free Laminate” statement included on their product’s tags to bolster their product’s appearance of sustainable manufacturing.[7] Studies have suggested PFCs to potentially harm consumer’s health in numerous ways such through elevated thyroid hormone levels, early menopause, and even higher levels of cholesterol.[8]

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) began to tackle the fraudulent practice of greenwashing in 1996 through its publication of Green Guides for the Use of Environmental Claims, subsequently revised in 1996, 1998, 2012; these guides include general principles which related to environmental marketing claims generally, anticipated consumer perceptions of various claims and methods of substantiating and qualifying environmental claims to best avoid consumer deception. [9] Currently, the Green Guides are in revision with the FTC seeking public comment on proposed changes in December 2022, citing motivation as a continually increasing consumer consciousness to environmental impacts of their purchases.[10]

In March 2021, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced a Climate and ESG Task Force in the enforcement division, seeking the elimination of “material gaps or misstatements” in security issuers’ disclosure of climate risks, as well as disclosure and compliance of investment advisors relating to environmental, social, and governance (ESG) funds.[11] The task force has since been quietly halted, its website disappearing in June 2024.[12]  It is unclear whether the SEC will undertake future similar initiatives in light of the recent election. 

Greenwashing claims provide an avenue for consumers to hold companies accountable for destructive business practices which negatively affect the health and safety of both individuals and our planet. It is important to continue to identify such practices, to further decrease the inclination of brands and companies to exploit and monopolize on consumer’s environmental concerns, without adequate contribution to the preservation of consumers’ safety and health.

[1] Sustainable marketing: the what and why, Doorway, https://www.doorway.io/blog/sustainable-marketing/ (last visited Feb. 21, 2025).

[2] Adam Butler, Do Customers Really Care About Your Environmental Impact?, Forbes (Nov. 21, 2018, 8:00 AM), https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbesnycouncil/2018/11/21/do-customers-really-care-about-your-environmental-impact/.

[3] Nielsen study reveals: Sustainability-themed advertising is here to stay, Nielsen (July 2023), https://www.nielsen.com/news-center/2023/nielsen-study-reveals-sustainability-themed-advertising-is-here-to-stay/.

[4] Greenwash, Oxford Eng. Dictionary (Dec. 2023), https://www.oed.com/dictionary/greenwash_v?tab=meaning_and_use#11644342. 

[5] N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349; N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 350.

[6] A world in balance 2024: Accelerating sustainability amidst geopolitical challenges, Capgemini Rsch. Inst. (2024), https://www.capgemini.com/insights/research-library/sustainability-trends-2024/.

[7] Mason et al. v. W. L. Gore & Associates, No. 2:25-cv-00049 (E. D. Wash. Feb. 11. 2025).

[8] Firefighting and Your Health: Perfluorinated Chemicals (PFCs), Alaska Cnty. Action on Toxics, https://www.akaction.org/wp-content/uploads/Fact-Sheet-PFCs-IAFF.pdf (last visited Feb. 21, 2025).

[9] Environmentally Friendly Products: FTC’s Green Guides, Fed. Trade Comm’n, https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2022/12/ftc-seeks-public-comment-potential-updates-its-green-guides-use-environmental-marketing-claims (last visited Feb. 21, 2025).

[10] Potential Updates to its ‘Green Guides’ for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims, Fed. Trade Comm’n (Dec. 14, 2022), https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2022/12/ftc-seeks-public-comment-potential-updates-its-green-guides-use-environmental-marketing-claims.

[11] SEC Announces Enforcement Task Force Focused on Climate and ESG Issues, SEC (Mar. 4, 2021), https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2021-42.

[12] Andrew Ramonas, SEC Abandons ESG Enforcement Group Amid Broader Backlash (1), Bloomberg Law (Sept. 12, 2024, 3:17 PM), https://news.bloomberglaw.com/esg/sec-quietly-dissolves-climate-and-esg-enforcement-task-force.

Understanding The Copyright Office’s New Guidelines on Artificial Intelligence

By: Phoebe McCullough

The rise of generative artificial intelligence (AI) over the past few years has already resulted in many questions—and lawsuits—in regards to intellectual property law.1 Whether or not copyright law applies to images produced by generative AI is one such question.2 As of January 19, 2025, we finally have some guidance.3

The United States Copyright Office has prepared a three-part AI report on the legal and policy issues related to copyright and AI4. The second part of the report, which tackles the issue of copyrightability of images and “output” of generative AI, is now available to the public.5 The report, which was developed over 2023, took into account over 10,000 comments from the public, whose backgrounds ranged from law to the arts to public interest.6 Some of the Office’s conclusions include the following:

a) The use of AI tools to assist rather than stand in for human creativity does not affect the availability of copyright protection for the output.
b) Copyright protects the original expression in a work created by a human author, even if the work also includes AI-generated material.
c) Copyright does not extend to purely AI-generated material, or material where there is insufficient human control over the expressive elements.
d) Whether human contributions to AI-generated outputs are sufficient to constitute authorship must be analyzed on a case-by-case basis.
e) Based on the functioning of current generally available technology, prompts do not alone provide sufficient control.7

The gist of these conclusions is that there must still be some significant human involvement in the creation of a work that includes AI generated material. An author of a work can use AI to aid in their process, but AI cannot completely replace that author’s labor. Where AI is used merely as an aid, the work still qualifies for copyright protection. The author’s original expression is still protected, even where AI is utilized. But, where the human author does not have enough control over the expression found in the work, the work is not protectable.

The Office clarifies in these conclusions that purely AI generated material is not protectable by copyright. Additionally, there is no bright line rule for whether or not a human has contributed enough to an AI generated work to be considered the author. This is something to be determined on an individual basis. The Office did decide that merely entering a prompt is not enough of a contribution to consider the human entering the prompt as the author of the work.

In short, a work containing AI generated content will likely receive copyright protection if a human has contributed significantly to the expression found in the work.

Sources:

[1] Gil Appel et. al, Generative AI Has an Intellectual Property Problem, HARV. BUS. REVIEW (Apr. 7, 2023), https://hbr.org/2023/04/generative-ai-has-an-intellectual-property-problem.

[2] Id.

[3] Copyright Office Releases Part 2 of Artificial Intelligence Report, U.S. COPYRIGHT OFFICE (Jan. 29, 2025), https://www.copyright.gov/newsnet/2025/1060.html#:~:text=The%20Office%20confirms%20that%20the,protection%20for%20AI%2Dgenerated%20outputs.

[4] Id.

[5] Id.

[6] COPYRIGHT AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, PART 2: COPYRIGHTABILITY

[7]Id.

Trends Within the United States on Using Artificial Intelligence in Court

By: Viktor Friedland

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has been rapidly growing in recent years and has firmly established itself within the mainstream conscious. There are a multitude of free resources allowing individuals access to generative AI tools where a user can simply input a series of prompts to generate a product. These generative AI tools can be fairly all encompassing, such as Chat GPT, to more specifically targeted tools such as Canva which is specifically made for quickly generating multiple images based on user prompts. The legal field is no exception to this with as companies such as LexisNexus1 and Thomson Reuters2 have also created AI powered tools to entice users into their ecosystems. Despite the continuous growth of AI in usage and development, regulations on the use of AI by lawyers has been slow to develop. 

The closest thing to a nation-wide rule regulating lawyers and AI usage has only recently been officially laid out by the ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility in July 29, 2024.3 Stated in Formal Opinion 512, the American Bar Association has laid out a series of ethical issues to consider and highlighting numerous ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct that are applicable to AI usage.4 There have also been a recent instance in New York which involved a lawyer who failed to fact check that the AI program they were using fabricated a legal case which was then improperly included in their legal brief to the court.5 As a result of this, the attorney was sanctioned and fined.6 While the ABA Formal Opinion will certain be impactful and the infamy of the NY sanctioning has alerted attorneys of the risks of fully relying on AI, the bulk of AI regulation in legal practice has come directly from individual courts and states. 

Though not universal, there is a growing trend in individual courts and judges issuing standing orders and local rules on AI usage particularly on disclosing its usage. Among the federal courts 9 out of the 13 circuits has had at least one district judge who created an order on AI usage and disclosure in court.7 Only the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has directly released a statement about creating a circuit wide rule on AI usage.8 After much pushback from attorneys, the Fifth Circuit ultimately decided against issuing a new rule regarding checking the “accuracy of any AI-generative material filed with the court.” 9

There has also been an influx of standing orders and local rules issued by judges and courts at the individual state level. Currently at least 5 states have had at least one judge or state level court enact court orders or rules on the use and disclosure of AI in legal proceedings.10 Certain states have also been developing state wide guidance policies such as Idaho’s policy manuals for use of AI in Office of Administrative Hearings.11 The Delaware Supreme Court also recently enacted an interim policy on the use of AI tools by judicial officers and court personnel.12 Perhaps most striking is the recently passed policy on AI issued by the Illinois Supreme Court which acknowledge the growing rise of AI use within the legal profession and promoted its use, so long as it “complies with legal and ethical standards.”13

For now it appears that the disclosure and use of AI by lawyers in practice is still relatively uncharted territory. However as time goes on it is inevitable that more courts, judges, and states will begin implementing guidance and regulations on the use of AI in legal proceedings in court and practice.

Sources:

[1] LexisNexis Launches Nexis+ AI an Advanced Generative AI-Powered Decision Intelligence Platform to Transform Company Research, LexisNexis (Jul. 17, 2024), https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/pressroom/b/news/posts/lexisnexis-launches-nexis-ai-an-advanced-generative-ai-powered-decision-intelligence-platform-to-transform-company-research.

[2] CoCounsel: The legal AI Assistant and Tool Essential for Legal Teams, Thomson Reuters (Aug. 26, 2024), https://legal.thomsonreuters.com/blog/legal-ai-tools-essential-for-attorneys/.

[3] ABA issues first ethics guidance on a lawyer’s use of AI tools, A.B.A., https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2024/07/aba-issues-first-ethics-guidance-ai-tools/ (last visited Jan. 17, 2025).

[4] Id.

[5] Dan Mangan, Judge Sanctions Lawyers for Brief Written by A.I. With Fake Citations, Cnbc (Jun. 22, 2023, 3:53 PM), https://www.cnbc.com/2023/06/22/judge-sanctions-lawyers-whose-ai-written-filing-contained-fake-citations.html.

[6] Id.

[7]  Tracking Federal Judge Orders on Artificial Intelligence, Law360, https://www.law360.com/pulse/ai-tracker (last visited Jan. 17, 2025).

[8] Jacqueline Thomsen, Fifth Circuit Won’t Adopt AI Rule After Attorney Pushback, BL (Jun. 11, 2024, 10:19 AM EDT), https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/fifth-circuit-wont-adopt-ai-rule-after-attorney-pushback.

[9] Id.

[10] Artificial Intelligence Court Order Tracker, Ropes & Gray, https://www.ropesgray.com/en/sites/artificial-intelligence-court-order-tracker (last visited Jan. 17, 2025).

[11] See Id.

[12] Sara Merken, Delaware Top Court Sets Rules on AI Use for Judges, Staff, Reuters (Oct. 22, 2024, 5:17 PM), https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/delaware-top-court-sets-rules-ai-use-judges-staff-2024-10-22/. 

[13] Illinois Supreme Court Announces Policy on Artificial Intelligence, Ill. Courts, https://www.illinoiscourts.gov/News/1485/Illinois-Supreme-Court-Announces-Policy-on-Artificial-Intelligence/news-detail/ (last visited Jan. 17, 2025).

How Many Clicks Does it Take to Get a Subscription Cancellation?

By: Timothy Fitzpatrick

We today live in a world dominated by the internet. In turn, dominating the internet is a litany of major problems. One of these major problems is that which drains wallets via automatic renewals of memberships and subscriptions, and which often entices consumers via free trials. It is known as the negative option subscription, and it has been taken on once again by the FTC.

In October, the Federal Trade Commission, or FTC, announced that it has finalized a rule further regulating negative option subscriptions.[1] These types of subscriptions include those free-trial and automatic renewal subscriptions that have come to control how we access things on the internet, from streaming services to Amazon Prime memberships to New York Times subscriptions. They are defined by their continuity for as long as the consumer does not cancel them, and more often than not by how many roadblocks there are to that cancellation.[2] The new FTC rule will change that by requiring that they be as easy to cancel as they are to enter.[3]

Billed as a “click-to-cancel” rule, is a response to a steady increase of complaints to the FTC regarding negative option subscriptions.[4] Since the pandemic, the number of daily complaints on average has nearly doubled as our world has become more reliant on internet-based services and, by extension, more subjected to online subscriptions.[5] While the FTC has had negative option rules since 1973, which at the time concerned prenotification and continuity plans for book clubs and newspaper deliveries, new problems have since arisen.

The new rule, set to go into effect January 14th, 2025, and requiring compliance by May 14th, does much more than just require negative option plans to be as easy to cancel as they are to enter.[6] It also requires that notice is provided up front when a consumer enters an automatically renewing subscription as well as express consent from the consumer to enter.[7] Furthermore, the rule will crack down on the misrepresentation of subscriptions in advertising to ensure that consumers know what they’re getting into.[8] Violators of the rule will have to provide redress and may even face civil penalties.[9]

In passing the finalized rule, the Commission was split three to two with Commissioner Melissa Holyoak providing a dissenting opinion.[10] In the dissent, Holyoak stated that the new rule was far too broad and unlikely to survive a legal challenge.[11] Holyoak also stated that the allegedly rushed-out rule was a political maneuver for the Commission Chair’s “favored presidential candidate,” Kamala Harris, who just weeks later would lose the election.[12]

Despite the strong dissenting opinion, the change will likely be one that is welcomed by the public without regard to political stance; there were 16,000 comments on the notice of proposed rulemaking, many of which had been written by consumers celebrating the proposal.[13] With the rule’s entry onto the Federal Register, it is all but certain that we will soon need far fewer clicks to cancel our subscriptions.

Sources:

  1. Mitchell J. Katz, Federal Trade Commission Announces Final “Click-to-Cancel” Rule Making it Easier for Consumers to End Recurring Subscriptions and Memberships, FTC (Oct 16, 2024), https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/10/federal-trade-commission-announces-final-click-cancel-rule-making-it-easier-consumers-end-recurring
  2. FTC Focuses on Subscription Offerings and Negative Options, Reed Smith (July 18, 2023), https://www.reedsmith.com/en/perspectives/2023/07/ftc-focuses-on-subscription-offerings-and-negative-options 
  3. Katz, supra note 1.
  4. Negative Option Rule, 89 Fed. Reg. 90537 (Nov. 15, 2024) (to be codified at 16 C.F.R. pt. 425).
  5. Katz, supra note 1.
  6. Negative Option Rule, 89 Fed. Reg. 90537 (Nov. 15, 2024) (to be codified at 16 C.F.R. pt 425).
  7. Id.
  8. Id.
  9. Id.
  10. Dave Michaels and Joseph Pisani, Ending Subscriptions Will Get Easier With New “Click-to-Cancel” Rule, Wall St. J. (Oct. 16, 2024, 6:43 PM), https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/canceling-subscriptions-is-torture-the-government-wants-to-make-it-easier-for-you-7ad7a247
  11. Melissa Holyoak, Dissenting Statement, FTC (Oct. 16, 2024), https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/holyoak-dissenting-statement-re-negative-option-rule.pdf 
  12. Id.

13. Katz, supra note 1.

Is Your Local Park Safe? The Hidden Risks of Synthetic Turf Grass

By: Madison McCarthy

14,900+ Football Field Turf Stock Photos, Pictures & Royalty-Free Images - iStock | Football turf, Football field overhead, Football player

Synthetic turf is everywhere—from your kid’s playground to local sports fields to professional stadiums. Praised for its durability and low maintenance, it’s clear why this grass alternative has gained popularity. However, beneath the lush green surface, synthetic turf fields raise concerns about health risks, environmental impact, and a lack of regulatory oversight.

The health impacts of synthetic turf are among the most pressing issues in the debate over its regulation. Research has shown that certain materials commonly used in synthetic turf, particularly crumb rubber infill, can contain potentially harmful chemicals, including heavy metals, the “forever chemicals” known as PFAs, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs).1, 2 Studies linking these chemicals to cancer and respiratory issues have raised alarms, especially when considering that young athletes spend years playing on these fields.3, 4

In addition to health risks, synthetic turf fields pose substantial environmental concerns. Unlike natural grass, which can help mitigate urban heat, synthetic turf can exacerbate the urban heat island effect, with field temperatures sometimes exceeding 160°F on hot days.5 Furthermore, the synthetic fibers used in the turf grass blades contribute to microplastic pollution, contaminating water sources and threatening local ecosystems.6, 7 Lastly, when fields reach the end of their lifespan—usually within 8 to 10 years—the disposal of synthetic turf poses significant waste management challenges.8 The tires recycled to create these fields ultimately end up where they came from: landfills.9

Beyond the environmental damage, there are additional concerns for athletes’ safety. While great for softening athletes’ impacts, the turf’s surface has been linked to various potential health issues, from skin and respiratory irritations to increased rates of ACL injuries and concussions.10, 11, 12, 13, 14 Additionally, synthetic turf can become extremely dangerous on hot days, reaching temperatures up to 60 degrees hotter than natural grass.15, 16 This presents a considerable risk of heat stroke for athletes and children.17

Despite these risks, regulatory oversight is sorely lacking in the U.S., leading to a patchwork of state and local rules with inconsistent standards.18 Although the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Synthetic Turf Council have provided oversight regarding synthetic turf’s contents,19, 20 they have not provided comprehensive guidance detailing the long-term effects on athletes’ safety and health.21 Additionally, misinformation is being rapidly spread by turf field producers using limited inconclusive tests to gain localities’ trust.22 Companies claiming to be PFA-free have been found to be inaccurate.23 Without regulatory oversight, communities face challenges in addressing misinformation and managing synthetic turf independently.

Some states, like California and New York, have taken proactive measures, funding studies, and limiting the use of certain materials in synthetic fields.24, 25, 26, 27 As Kelly Shannon McNeil, associate director of the nonprofit Los Angeles Waterkeeper, put it, “[w]e’re looking at all of the different ways we can limit exposure to PFAS in our communities, and banning synthetic turf would be an immediate opportunity to do so.”28 New York has also taken steps to ban PFAs found in synthetic turf grass blades. A recent bill has been approved to amend the environmental conservation law to include a ban on PFAs in carpets, including “synthetic turf.”29 New bills are being introduced to eliminate the use of crumb rubber in synthetic turf fields; however, they are still in the early phases.30

Meanwhile, other states have adopted little oversight, meaning millions of players—kids and adults—are exposed to potential risks.31, 32 PEER Science Policy Director Kyla Bennett, a scientist and lawyer formerly with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), states that “[o]ur current embryonic state of regulation makes it difficult to trace the life cycle impacts of these highly toxic chemicals from production to disposal.”33 In other words, conducting long-term research on this subject may be difficult without federal regulation mandating that turf fields be produced similarly.

While the U.S. lags in regulatory action, other countries have taken a different approach. The European Union, for instance, will phase out crumb rubber infill prospectively, given its potential health and environmental risks, and is moving toward banning microplastics in synthetic fields altogether by 2030.34, 35, 36 Canada has also been exploring changes to address safety and environmental concerns related to synthetic turf, and several provinces have initiated studies into alternatives that could lower health risks.37

Moreover, many advocates are calling for a unified regulatory approach in the U.S. and suggest that the federal government set baseline standards to ensure nationwide safety. Proposed measures include mandating safer materials, implementing heat-mitigation guidelines, and establishing rules to hold field operators liable for injuries related to synthetic turf risks.38, 39

However, there may be another option: organic grass. Advocates are pushing to include organically maintained natural grass in discussions over synthetic turf use.40 Since synthetic turf must be replaced every 8 to 10 years, and no current recycling program exists, these fields can cause more harm than good when they end up in landfills.41, 42 States that replace the fields with organic grass instead might resolve these underlying issues.

For now, synthetic turf fields remain popular for their low maintenance and resilience, but as awareness grows, so does the call for greater accountability. Until stricter regulations or change take hold, experts advise that parents, players, and coaches exercise caution—especially on hot days—and keep pushing for transparency about the materials in their local fields.

Sources:

[1] Synthetic Turf/Recycled Tire Crumb Rubber, NAT. TOX. PROGRAM, (November 2015), https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/topics/syntheticturf.
[2] Evaluation of potential carcinogenicity of organic chemicals in synthetic turf crumb rubber, 169 ENV’T RESEARCH 163-72 (Elsevier, Feb. 2019), https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013935118305528?via%3Dihub.
[3] Artificial Turf: Cancers Among Players, ENV’T. HUM. HEALTH, INC., https://www.ehhi.org/turf-cancer-stats.php.
[4] https://mountsinaiexposomics.org/artificial-turf/.
[5] Id.

[6] Mara Silgailis & Amy Goldsmith, The Turf is Artificial, But the Harm is Very Real, CLEAN WATER ACTION (Sept. 2024), https://cleanwater.org/2024/09/16/turf-artificial-harm-very-real.
[7] Dangerous Play: Studies find harmful ‘forever chemicals’ in artificial turf fields, PENNENV’T RSCH. POL’Y CENTER (March 2024), https://environmentamerica.org/pennsylvania/center/updates/dangerous-play-studies-find-harmful-forever-chemicals-in-artificial-turf-fields/#:~:text=Sadly%20the%20problems%20with%20synthetic,acute%20mortality%20in%20coho%20salmon.
[8] Candy Woodall, ‘Running out of room’: How old turf fields raise potential environmental, health concerns, YORK DAILY RECORD (Nov. 18, 2019), https://www.ydr.com/in-depth/news/2019/11/18/old-artificial-turf-fields-pose-huge-waste-problem-environmental-concerns-across-nation/2314353001/.
[9] Kathryn Dressendorfer, Artificial Turf: Why we shouldn’t choose plastic over plants, SURFRIDER FOUND., (July 4, 2023), https://www.surfrider.org/news/artificial-turf-why-we-shouldnt-choose-plastic-over-plants.
[10] Katerina Kerska, Injuries Related to Artificial Turf, NAT’L CENTER FOR HEALTH RSCH., https://www.center4research.org/injuries-related-to-artificial-turf/.
[11] Artificial Turf Health Risks, INST. FOR CLIMATE CHANGE, ENV’T HEALTH, AND EXPOSOMICS (July 2024), https://mountsinaiexposomics.org/artificial-turf/.
[12] Corey Grunberg, Turf Leads to More ACL Injuries: Fact or Fiction?, CUROVATE (Jan. 21, 2021), https://curovate.com/blog/turf-leads-to-more-acl-injuries-fact-or-fiction/.
[13] Mark Cote, Turf vs. Grass Injuries: What Athletes Need to Know, MASS. GEN. BRIGHAM (Jan. 30, 2024), https://www.massgeneralbrigham.org/en/about/newsroom/articles/turf-vs-grass-fields-sports-injury-prevention.
[14] Are ACL Tears More Common on Grass or Synthetic Turf?, MODERN TURF https://modernturf.com/are-acl-tears-more-common-on-grass-or-synthetic-turf/.
[15] Natural grass vs artificial turf: Everything sports organizations need to know about player safety, injury risk and, and legal implications, CAPILLARY FLOW (Sept. 13, 2023), https://www.capillaryflow.com/reports/examining-the-turf-safety-injuries-and-legal-implications-in-the-debate-between-natural-grass-and-artificial-turf-for-sports-surfaces.
[16] Health Impacts of Synthetic Turf, VIRGINIA DEP’T HEALTH (July 31, 2024), https://www.vdh.virginia.gov/environmental-health/public-health-toxicology/health-impacts-of-synthetic-turf/#:~:text=Heat%20Illnesses,fields%20can%20reduce%20temperatures%20temporarily.
[17] Katerina Kerska, Injuries Related to Artificial Turf, NAT’L CENTER HEALTH RSCH., https://www.center4research.org/injuries-related-to-artificial-turf/#:~:text=our%20article%20here.-,Heat%2DRelated%20Illness%20and%20Injury,turf%20field%20got%20much%20hotter.&text=For%20example%2C%20on%20a%2090,when%20it%20gets%20this%20hot.
[18] Philip Zuccaro, David C. Thompson, Jacob de Boer, Andrew Watterson, Qiong Wang, Song Tang, Xiaoming Shi, Maria Llompart, Nuno Ratola & Vasilis Vasiliou, Artificial turf and crumb rubber infill: An international policy review concerning the current state of regulations, 9 ENV’T CHALLENGES 100620 (Dec. 2022), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envc.2022.100620.

[19] Synthetic Turf Field Tire Crumb Rubber And Exposure Characterization Research Under The Federal Research Action Plan, Response to Comments from External Peer Reviewers, U.S. ENV’T PROT. AGENCY (April 2024), https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2024-04/epa-atsdr-tire-crumb-study-response-to-external-peer-review-comments.pdf.
[20] Synthetic Turf Council, https://www.syntheticturfcouncil.org/.
[21] Position Statement on the Use of Artificial Turf Surfaces, INST. FOR CLIMATE CHANGE, ENV’T HEALTH, AND EXPOSOMICS (July 5, 2024), https://mountsinaiexposomics.org/position-statement-on-the-use-of-artificial-turf-surfaces/.
[22] Industry Misinformation, SAFE HEALTHY PLAYING FIELDS, https://www.safehealthyplayingfields.org/industry-misinformation.
[23] Sue Chow, Artificial Turf Wars: People Fighting to Protect Their Communities, SIERRA CLUB, (May 30, 2024), https://www.sierraclub.org/loma-prieta/blog/2024/05/artificial-turf-wars-people-fighting-protect-their-communities.
[24] Shreya Agrawal, Once it was hailed as a drought fix — but now California’s moving to restrict synthetic turf over health concerns, CALMATTERS, (Oct. 23, 2023), https://calmatters.org/environment/2023/10/california-synthetic-turf-pfas/ (last visited Nov. 10, 2024).
[25] Synthetic Turf Studies, CAL. OFF. ENV’T HEALTH HAZARD ASSESS., https://oehha.ca.gov/risk-assessment/synthetic-turf-studies.
[26] B. Sakura Cannestra, Santa Clara County to study ban on artificial turf, SAN JOSÉ SPOTLIGHT (Apr. 17, 2024), https://sanjosespotlight.com/santa-clara-county-to-study-ban-on-artificial-turf-athletics-sports-fields-grass/.
[27] Mark Patton, Coastal Commission Denies UCSB’s Project for Artificial Turf at Uyesaka Stadium, NOOZHAWK (Dec. 14, 2023), https://www.noozhawk.com/coastal-commission-denies-ucsbs-project-for-artificial-turf-at-uyesaka-stadium/.
[28] Delilah Brumer, LA City Council committee seeks study of possible ban on artificial turf, LOS ANGELES DAILY NEWS (July 11, 2024), https://www.dailynews.com/2024/07/11/la-city-council-committee-seeks-study-of-possible-ban-on-artificial-turf/ (last visited Nov. 10, 2024).
[29] New York Governor Signs PFAS Bans in Apparel and Carpet, BUREAU VERITAS (Jan. 10, 2023), https://www.cps.bureauveritas.com/newsroom/new-york-governor-signs-pfas-bans-apparel-and-carpet.
[30] S. 7239, 2023 Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (N.Y. 2023), https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2023/S7239 (temporarily suspending the installation of synthetic turf products that contain crumb rubber).

[31] Liz George, Council Calls for Time to Consider Three-Year Moratorium on Artificial Turf Installation, MONTCLAIR LOCAL, (Oct. 9, 2024), https://montclairlocal.news/2024/10/council-calls-for-time-to-consider-three-year-moratorium-on-artificial-turf-installation/.
[32] Maura Keene, PFAS Legislation Proliferates Across The Nation, AMHERST INDY (Feb. 3, 2023), https://www.amherstindy.org/2023/02/03/pfas-legislation-proliferates-across-the-nation/.
[33] Kyla Bennett, PFAS in Artificial Turf Coats Players’ Skin, PEER, (Mar. 12, 2024), https://peer.org/pfas-in-artificial-turf-coats-players-skin/.
[34] Philip Zuccaro, David C. Thompson, Jacob de Boer, Andrew Watterson, Qiong Wang, Song Tang, Xiaoming Shi, Maria Llompart, Nuno Ratola & Vasilis Vasiliou, Artificial turf and crumb rubber infill: An international policy review concerning the current state of regulations, 9 ENV’T CHALLENGES 100620 (Elsevier, Dec. 2022), https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667010022001767.
[35] P. Zuccaro, et al., The European Union Ban on Microplastics Includes Artificial Turf Crumb Rubber Infill: Other Nations Should Follow Suit, 58 ENV’T SCI. TECH. 2591-94 (2024), https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.4c00047.
[36] Granules and mulches on sports pitches and playgrounds, EUR. CHEM. AGENCY https://echa.europa.eu/hot-topics/granules-mulches-on-pitches-playgrounds (follow “What is the EU doing?” hyperlink).
[37] Supra note 33.
[38] Tamela Trussell, Are Synthetic Playing Surfaces Doing More Harm Than Good?, SIERRA CLUB (May 20, 2023), https://www.sierraclub.org/pennsylvania/blog/2023/05/are-synthetic-playing-surfaces-doing-more-harm-good.
[39] Federal Action – EPA & CPSC, SAFE HEALTHY PLAYING FIELDS, https://www.safehealthyplayingfields.org/recent-action-federal.
[40] Synthetic Turf Fields, Forever Chemicals and the Safer Alternative: Organic Grass, BEYOND PESTICIDES (Mar. 27, 2024), https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2024/03/synthetic-turf-fields-forever-chemicals-and-the-safer-alternative-organic-grass/.

[41] Rebekah Thomson, Synthetic Turf Fact Sheet, MARTHA’S VINEYARD COMM’N (Sep. 2016), https://www.mvcommission.org/sites/default/files/docs/DR%201%202016%20HS%20Athletic%20Fileds%20Correspondence%20R%20Thomson%202016-09-06%202.pdf.
[42] “40,000 lbs in the average athletic field often end up in landfills when its lifespan runs out.” Carmela Guaglianone, As the world heats up, so does the debate around artificial turf, THE NEW LEDE (Aug. 20, 2024), https://www.thenewlede.org/2024/08/as-the-world-heats-up-so-does-the-debate-around-artificial-turf/.

“Taming the Energy Duck”: How Renewable Energy is Affecting Our Power Grid

By: Austin Dewey

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).

[2] Biden Administration Partners with 21 States on Grid Modernization Initiative, S&P Glob. Commodity Insights (May 29, 2024), https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights/en/market-insights/latest-news/electric-power/052924-biden-administration-partners-with-21-states-on-grid-modernization-initiative.

[3] California Receives More Than Half a Billion Dollars in Federal Funds to Improve Power Grid, Off. of the Governor of Cal. (Aug. 6, 2024), https://www.gov.ca.gov/2024/08/06/california-receives-more-than-half-a-billion-dollars-in-federal-funds-to-improve-power-grid/.

[4] Cal. Assem. B. 2514, ch. 469, 2010 Cal. Stat.

[5] 2022 CAL. PUC LEXIS 171, 2022 CAL. PUC LEXIS 171

A Digital Dilemma: The Legal Responsibility of Tech Companies for Impacts on Mental Health

By Kaitlin Sommer

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. 

________________________________________________________________________________

[1] Cristiano Lima-Strong and Aaron Gregg, Surgeon General Calls For Social Media Warning Labels, The Washington Post (Updated June 17, 2024), https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/06/17/surgeon-general-social-media-warning-labels/. 

[2] Id.

[3] David Goguen, Lawsuits for Social Media Addiction and Mental Harm, Nolo.com (Updated September 18, 2024), https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/lawsuits-for-social-media-addiction-and-mental-harm.html. 

[4] Id.

[5] Id.

[6] Rachel Scharf, Social Media Apps Don’t Need User Warnings, MDL Judge Told, Law360 (October 10, 2024), https://www.law360.com/cybersecurity-privacy/articles/1889256/social-media-apps-don-t-need-user-warnings-mdl-judge-told. 

[7] Id.

[8]Id.

[9] Id.

[10] Sophie Austin, California Governor Signs Law to Protect Children From Social Media Addiction, AP News (September 21, 2024), https://apnews.com/article/california-social-media-addiction-children-law-bc649326701f892a16be1159bc008d71. 

[11] Id.

[12] George Woolston, AGs Slam TikTok With Youth Addiction, Fraud Claims, Law360 (October 8, 2024), https://www.law360.com/media/articles/1887891/ags-slam-tiktok-with-youth-addiction-fraud-claims.

[13] Id.

[14] Id.

The Dark Side of SEO: How Anti-Abortion Groups Use Search Engine Optimization to Mislead and Manipulate

Created with Canva AI

By: Elle Borgdorff

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).

[13] 2014 Annual Report, Heartbeat International, https://www.heartbeatinternational.org/images/PDF/2014AnnualReport.pdf (last visited Sep. 22, 2024). 

[14] Id.

[15] Pro-Life Search Engine Optimization (SEO), Choose Life Marketing, https://www.chooselifemarketing.com/services/digital-marketing/seo/ (last visited Sep. 22, 2024). 

[16] Id.

[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/

[23] Id.

[24] Id.

How a Gap in Regulations Keeps Human Composting Illusive to New Yorkers

By Tristan Turner

https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/ujEgW7YjPbzWmGYPjC9PxV-1200-80.jpg

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.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

[1]https://csnh.com/blog/the-history-of-cremation/#:~:text=The%20first%20evidence%20of%20cremation,Neolithic%20period%20(9500%20B.C).

[2]https://www.orderofthegooddeath.com/article/whose-green-burial-is-it-anyway/#:~:text=Part%20of%20this%20unpacking%20process,stuffy%2C%20and%20needlessly%20expensive).

[3]https://www.greenburialcouncil.org/disposition-statistics-media.html#:~:text=Vault%20burial%20emits%20approximately%20250,%2C%20watering%2C%20etc.).

[4]https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/greenhouse-gas-emissions-typical-passenger-vehicle

[5]https://www.pulvisurns.com/blogs/news/cremations-are-on-the-rise-which-countries-are-leaders#:~:text=In%202020%2C%20the%20US%20death,2%20million%20people%20chose%20cremation.

[6]https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/is-cremation-environmentally-friendly-heres-the-science

[7]https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2021/A382

[8] https://www.webmd.com/balance/what-is-human-composting

[9]https://recompose.life/faqs/how-does-human-composting-work/

[10] Id.

[11]https://www.timesunion.com/state/article/human-composting-now-legal-remains-elusive-new-18664998.php

[12] Id.

[13]https://regs.health.ny.gov/content/section-775-funeral-establishments

[14]Id.

[15] https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2021/A382