Blog Post

Pro-Patent or Anti-Petitioner? Proposed Changes to PTAB Under New Leadership

By: Rachel Jung

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) is a tribunal within the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) dedicated to hearing patent cases, including patent invalidity challenges.[1] Since its establishment in 2012 by the America Invents Act (AIA), it has been a preferred venue over federal district courts due to its expedited procedures and lower costs.[2] However, there are fears that a recent development might cause it to fall out of favor with petitioners: on October 17, 2025, John Squire, the newly appointed director of USPTO, announced sweeping policy changes that could severely limit the scope of cases reviewed by the PTAB.

When a petition for an invalidity proceeding is filed at the PTAB, it first undergoes pre-institution review.[3] The issue at this stage is whether there is a certain likelihood that the petitioner can prove non-patentability so that the claim deserves a full trial. [4] The Board can also refuse to institute a trial on discretionary grounds regardless of the merits. [5]

The AIA vests the USPTO director with the authority to make institution decisions. [6] However, it has been standard practice for the director to delegate the authority to panels of judges at the PTAB.[7] That partially changed in March of this year, when Coke Morgan Stewart, Deputy Director of the USPTO, created a bifurcated process giving the director authority over the discretionary screening and leaving only the merits-based institution review to the PTAB.[8]

On October 17, 2025, less than a month after being sworn in as new Director, John Squires announced in an open letter that he was “reclaiming” the power over merits-based determinations as well.[9] The policy is open to feedback until November 17.[10] If implemented, this new rule would enable the director to personally examine both the merits and the discretionary factors alongside a three-judge panel.[11] Petitioners would no longer receive institution decisions written by judges that span dozens of pages, but short “summary notices” amounting to “thumbs up or down decisions.” [12]

Squires explains that the previous delegation model has created an appearance of self-incentivization at the PTAB by placing the power to institute and the power to adjudicate within one organization. [13] In his words, the Board has effectively been “filling its own docket.” [14] Moreover, he states the proposed change will more closely adhere to the intent of Congress in passing the AIA. [15] Overall, he believes this measure will enhance the transparency and integrity of the PTAB. [16]

Supporters of this new policy argue that large corporations have had too much leeway in “wearing down smaller innovators” through PTAB processes. [17] They believe that by making it harder to challenge patents, it can enable inventors to “rely on the strength of their patents” and be encouraged to create more innovation. [18]

On the other hand, critics hold that Squires might have effectively eliminated an avenue for patent litigation. They maintain that the Director’s heavy involvement in the institution review process might be perceived as affecting the fairness and reasonableness of the decision. [19]The brevity of the “summary notices”, they add, only increases the unpredictability – petitioners might be denied access to a Board proceeding without knowing why. [20] Their conclusion is that due to the uncertainty surrounding institution review, many petitioners are likely to be deterred from filing at the PTAB. [21]

Whatever the arguments on both sides, it is clear that the doors to the PTAB will be more heavily guarded after this rule. In fact, the Deputy Director’s adoption of the bifurcated process in March has alone yielded a 206% increase in the number of discretionary denials in the third quarter of 2025 as compared to all of 2024. [22]

Considering that PTAB proceedings are often used as a defense strategy against patent infringement claims, [23] companies will now be motivated to invest more money into freedom to operate analyses – searches for active patents that their invention might infringe on – in early stages of product development, obtain licenses from patent owners, or design around existing patents. [24]

Furthermore, experts predict increased demand for other means of challenging patents. [25] One alternative is ex parte reexamination, a process where patent examiners at the USPTO, not the PTAB judges, reexamine the validity decision.[26] More parties might resort to court litigation. [27]

With such uncertainty ahead, intellectual property professionals would be wise to monitor the evolving situation and adapt their strategies accordingly.

[1]What is the Patent Trial and Appeal Board?, Winston & Strawn LLP, https://www.winston.com/en/legal-glossary/patent-trial-and-appeal-board (last visited Nov. 1, 2025)

[2]Daniel C. Cooley et al., PTAB Basics: Key Features of Trials Before the USPTO, Finnigan, https://www.finnegan.com/en/insights/articles/ptab-basics-key-features-of-trials-before-the-uspto.html (last visited Nov. 7, 2025).

[3]Id.

[4]Id.

[5]Id.

[6]John A. Squires, An Open Letter from America’s Innovation Agency (2025), https://assets.law360news.com/2404000/2404840/squires%20letter.pdf.

[7]USTPO Proposes New Institution Rules and Director Takes Over Merits-Based Institution Decision (Oct. 23, 2025), https://www.morganlewis.com/pubs/2025/10/uspto-proposes-new-institution-rules-and-director-takes-over-merits-based-institution-decisions. 

[8]Squires, supra note 5.

[9]Kass, supra note 7.

[10]Id.

[11]Id.

[12]Squires, supra note 5.

[13]Id.

[14]Id.

[15]Id.

[16]Ryan Davis, Patent Landscape Shifts as Squires Takes on Key PTAB Role, Law360 (Oct. 21, 2025, 10:25 PM), https://www.law360.com/articles/2401378/.

[17]Id.

[18]Id.

[19]Id.

[20]Id.

[21]Ryan Davis, PTAB Discretionary Denials, Reexam Bids Way Up: Report, Law360 (Oct. 14, 2025, 9:32 PM), https://www.law360.com/articles/2398603.

[22]See Davis, supra note 17.

[23]Id.

[24]Id.

[25]Id.

[26]Id.

Access Granted? NIH’s New Policy Shakes Up Drug Licensing

January 26, 2026

By: Anushree Gulvady-Hayes

Bethesda, Maryland 09/12/2020: View of the main historical building (Building 1) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) inside Bethesda campus. U.S. Public Health Service seal is seen on top of it

Beginning October 1, 2025, the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) will require any organization seeking to license NIH-owned patents to submit an Access Plan outlining how they will promote patient access to the resulting products. [1]

The new Intramural Research Program (IRP) Access Planning Policy has drawn both industry criticism and advocacy group praise. Supporters view it as a long-overdue step towards ensuring that publicly funded discoveries are accessible and affordable. Critics, however, warn the policy could disincentivize companies from licensing NIH-owned patents and slow the translation of federally funded research into market-ready products.

The NIH is the largest public funder of biomedical research in the world with a $40 billion budget for medical research [2]. As a non-profit institution, the NIH itself does not develop, distribute, or commercialize its technologies; it relies on licensing agreements to turn its inventions into new products. In 2024, NIH-generated technologies brought in $210.6 million in royalty income, with 235 patent applications, 131 issued U.S. patents, and executed 291 licenses. [3]

In announcing the policy, NIH acknowledged that “all too often patients across the country and across the globe may be unable to access products they need — for example, a treatment for their disease may not yet exist, or it might exist but be out of reach because it is too expensive or difficult to administer.” [4] The agency says the new policy is designed to provide equitable access for underserved communities in the United States and for populations in low- and lower-middle-income countries.

Under the new policy, applicants interested in commercial licenses to NIH-owned patents, including drugs, biologics, or devices for treating human disease, must submit plans describing measures to promote patient access to those licensed products.[5] Examples include: 

  • Partnering with public health, non-profit, or patient advocacy organizations;
  • Evaluating product appropriateness, such as drug delivery method (e.g., single dose regimen or reduced cold-chain requirements) for the applicable patient populations; 
  • Optimizing dose, formulation, and manufacturing processes to reduce production costs;
  •  Investing in manufacturing innovations that can reduce prices and expand access; and 
  • Avoiding price increases that outpaces inflation.

The NIH will not consider any license application that lacks an Access Plan. [6] However, the agency may grant waivers if access planning would make commercialization unfeasible or hinder the overall public benefit. [7]

The draft policy, published in 2024, attracted 48 public comments from universities, companies, and advocacy groups. [8] The majority commended the NIH’s commitment to expanding access. Others, however, expressed concern about compliance uncertainty, limited control over downstream pricing decisions by insurers and pharmacy benefit managers, and a lack of detail regarding enforcement mechanisms such as license termination or NIH’s potential use of march-in rights. [9] One commenter cautioned, “Rigid pricing restrictions could deter the licensing and investment needed to bring NIH inventions to market.” [10]

The Bayh-Dole Coalition, representing universities, venture capital firms, and industry groups, has been especially critical, arguing the policy “undermine[s] the incentives companies require to assume the risks and expense of turning these discoveries into useful products.” [11]The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 allows universities and small businesses to retain ownership of patents from federally funded research, a framework long credited for incentivizing commercialization of federally funded inventions. [12]

How the NIH ultimately implements the policy, and whether it successfully enhances affordability without dampening commercialization, remains to be seen. What is clear is that the Access Planning Policy marks a significant shift toward linking public investment in science with a stronger commitment to public benefit.

 [1] U.S. NAT’L INST. OF HEALTH, NOT-OD-25-136, NIH INTRAMURAL RESEARCH PROGRAM ACCESS PLANNING POLICY (2025). https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-25-136.html.

 [2] U.S. NAT’L INST. OF HEALTH TECH. TRANSFER, ANNUAL REPORT (2024).

 [3] U.S. NAT’L INST. OF HEALTH TECH. TRANSFER, supra note 2.

[4] U.S. NAT’L INST. OF HEALTH, supra note 1.

[5] Id.

[6] Id.

[7] Id.

[8] U.S. NAT’L INST. OF HEALTH, COMPILED PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH (NIH) OFFICE OF SCIENCE POLICY (OSP): REQUEST FOR INFORMATION ON DRAFT NIH INTRAMURAL RESEARCH PROGRAM POLICY: PROMOTING EQUITY THROUGH ACCESS PLANNING. (July 22, 2024).

[9] Id.

[10] Id.

[11] Id.

[12] 35 U.S.C. § 200.

Workplace Reclassifications & Advancing Technological Infrastructures in 911 Operations

By: Haileigh Farrell

Photo Credits: Pexels

Introduction

On October 26, 1999, the Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999 (911 Act) was put into effect. The 911 Act’s objective was “to improve public safety by encouraging and facilitating the prompt deployment of a nationwide, seamless communications infrastructure for emergency services.”

Almost 26 years later, the American public continues to rely and entrust 911 lines during medical emergencies, natural disasters, and other life-threatening events. 

In Onondaga County, where Syracuse University College of Law sits, the Onondaga County Department of Emergency Communications 2024 Annual Report echoes this demand and a commitment to excellent community service. As one of the largest accredited 911 centers in the entire state, the Department provides “calltaking and dispatch services to nearly half a million people and ~100 public safety agencies.” Last year, 523,660 incoming emergency calls were received by the Department of Emergency Communications. In 2024, its average answering speed for 911 calls was 9.78 seconds. Just as impressively, via a contract with an over the telephone translation service, the Department provides interpreters for more than 140 different languages.

Recent changes in workplace classifications and advancing technology also show how this sector is continuing to transform. 

Workplace Reclassifications

Historically, 911 professionals have been categorized as “Office and Administrative Support.” However, in September 2025, the Senate approved the Enhancing First Response Act (S.725). Via this bill, the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) would “reclassify Public Safety Telecommunicators as a ‘Protective Service Occupation’ in the federal Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) system.” For reference, Office and Administrative Support Occupations include customer service representatives, receptionists, and bill and account collectors. Notably, “[t]he legislation was introduced by Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), and in addition to Sen. Cantwell, was co-sponsored by Sens. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska), Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.), Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.V.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Ted Budd (R-N.C.), Angus King (I-Maine), John Thune (R-S.D.), Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) and Mike Crapo (R-Idaho).”

On one hand, this shift highlights the important lifesaving measures, such as cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) instructions, that telecommunicators have tirelessly facilitated with the highest degree of composure. On the other, this regrouping sheds light on the technological infrastructures operators are interfacing with and newer responsibilities operators are being tasked with given advancing multimedia transmissions they are having with the public.

Advancing Technological Infrastructures

Below are just a few of the various technological systems, multimedia transmissions, and modes of artificial intelligence (AI) transforming the landscape of 911 operations. 

  1. Geofencing

When there is an efflux of emergency calls, geofencing narrows in on the geographic epicenter creating the highest volume of calls. Calls from within that radius receive a scripted message stating evacuation procedures and critical safety instructions while external calls are pushed to live personnel for assistance. 

  1. Mapping Technology

When a member of the public calls 911 but cannot provide coordinates, an address, or a reference point as to where they are, mapping technology can provide dispatchers with their answer. Such technology may provide details as precise as what floor an individual is on in a multi-level building. This may be especially useful for rural areas, remote areas, or outdoor areas with copious acreage.

  1. Text Message Links & Live Streaming

With Carbyne APEX, a cloud-based NG911 call-handling platform with powers driven by AI, dispatcher-directed live video and messaging is available. As a call is taking place, a link is texted to the caller to facilitate live video streaming.

  1. AI Screening

Under this approach, an operator first answers the call and dictates whether it is an emergency or non-emergency call. Then, the call is shifted to the automated system to gather pertinent information, which is estimated to save two to three minutes per call. Afterwards, the dispatcher will go back to handling the call.

  1. Background Noise Reduction & Speech Recognition

With these features, inaudible background noises can be identified and keywords associated with emergencies are flagged. Additionally, real-time speech-to-text transcription call handling tools and automatic call transcriptions are available.

Conclusion

As for S.725, it will be interesting to monitor changes in public perception and policy. As for this new, advantageous technology, it will be essential for such changes to be communicated with transparency, honesty, and visibility. As demonstrated by a March to July survey of 2,000 Americans this year, “16% of those surveyed believe 911 calls are being answered by AI instead of live dispatchers without disclosing, according to Robots Reveal Yourself: The AI Call Report by Answering Service Care published Sept. 22.”

Sources:

 The FCC, 911 and E911 Services, Federal Communications Commission (Sept. 25, 2025), https://www.fcc.gov/general/9-1-1-and-e9-1-1-services.

Id.

Department of Emergency Communications, Emergency Communications – 911, Onondaga County, https://onondaga.gov/911/.

Onondaga County Department of Emergency Communications, 2024 Annual Report 19 (J. Ryan McMahon, II & Julie K. Corn 2024).

Id. at 18.

 Id. at 22.

 Chris Nussman, U.S. Senate Passes Bill to Recognize 9-1-1 as a Public Safety Occupation, NENA (Sept. 11, 2025), https://www.nena.org/news/709853/U.S.-Senate-Passes-Bill-to-Recognize-9-1-1-as-a-Public-Safety-Occupation.htm

 Id.

 Id.

Colby Leigh Pechtol, Public Safety Telecommunicator Reclassification: Status and Considerations for Congress,Congress.Gov (June 6, 2025), https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF12747.

Press Release, U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, & Transportation, Senate Passes National Legislation Officially Recognizing 9-1-1 Operators as Members of the First Responders System (Sept. 12, 2025) (on file with the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation).

Pechtol, supra note 10.

Id.

NTIA, Improving 9-1-1 Operations with Artificial Intelligence, National Telecommunications and Information Administration (Aug. 2, 2024), https://www.ntia.gov/category/next-generation-911/improving-911-operations-with-artificial-intelligence.

Id. 

Peter S. Pynadath, How New 911 Technology Helped Rescue an Injured Hiker in Cosmopolitan Park, Columbia Missourian (Oct. 8, 2025), https://www.columbiamissourian.com/news/local/how-new-911-technology-helped-rescue-an-injured-hiker-lost-in-cosmopolitan-park/article_265cc3db-749f-4f1b-bd4d-b86d66264cc3.html#:~:text=But%20because%20Boone%20County%20Joint,the%20hiker%20and%20his%20dog.

Id.

Id.

The Cobb County Department of Emergency Communications, Cobb 911 Announces Major Tech Upgrades, Becoming the Largest to Launch an AI-Enhanced Phone System in Metro Atlanta, Cobb County Gov (Aug. 6, 2025), https://www.cobbcounty.gov/911/news/cobb-911-announces-major-tech-upgrades-becoming-largest-launch-ai-enhanced-phone-system.

Id.

CBS Broadcasting Inc., How 911 Dispatchers Are Using AI to Handle Nonemergency Calls on Busy Nights, CBS News (Jul. 2, 2025), https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/video/how-911-dispatchers-are-using-ai-to-handle-nonemergency-calls-on-busy-nights/. 

Id.

Id.

Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency, Artificial Intelligence in Emergency Communications Centers, CISA.Gov (Mar. 2025), https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/2025-03/25_0328_s-n_ai-implemen-ecc_infographic_508C.pdf.

Id.

Jennifer Rodriguez, Are 911 Calls Answered by AI? What Americans Think — and What the Government Says, Miami Herald (Oct. 6, 2025), https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article312404993.html.

Sleep, Stress, and Military Readiness: Oura’s Partnership With the Department of Defense

By: Monica Dugan

Finnish health brand Oura recently suffered a PR nightmare linked to their partnership with the United States Department of Defense.

Oura and the DoD have been partnered since 2019, with the goal of supporting U.S. service members and their health. Oura cites four goals of this partnership: stress management and resilience; optimization of fitness, physical stress, and recovery; managing fatigue-risk; and early illness detection.

Following the tragic loss of seventeen naval soldiers due to an accident linked to fatigue in 2017, the Naval Health Research Center (NHRC) launched the Command Readiness, Endurance, and Watchstanding (CREW) program to better understand how fatigue impacts our armed forces. The NHRC chose Oura Rings to track sleep and health biometrics, and plans to launch a volunteer study with 1,600 naval service members to study crew fatigue. Oura will distribute Rings to the service members in the study, which will gather users’ biometric data and provide commanders and coordinators with real-time insights. In an effort to bring the work of Oura and the DoD closer to home, Oura is constructing a manufacturing facility in Fort Worth, Texas, expected to be fully operational in 2026.

Oura’s deployment with the armed forces is still in its relatively early stages. However, initial results have indicated that biometrics observation could be a powerful source for enhancing human performance, optimizing training times, and combatting physical or mental health challenges.

This is also not the only instance where the military has partnered with health companies. In 2021, the wearable biometric company WHOOP partnered with U.S. Army paratroopers to measure soldier stress in extreme Arctic conditions. The soldiers stationed in Alaska wore the WHOOP watches for the duration of the six month study in order to improve soldier resiliency, optimize training methods, and promote the mental well-being of soldiers. The study concluded in May of 2021 and data was analyzed that summer, providing commanders with insight on how to better schedule training and recovery routines for their troops.

Despite the previous successful partnerships between biometric data companies and our armed forces, Oura’s partnership recently caused an uproar. Influencers took to social media in September to publicly denounce Oura, accusing the company of selling users’ data to the government. One Twitter post from September 1 read: “Oura has partnered with Palantir and the Department of Defense, so we probably shouldn’t use these products anymore”. Another Tweet posted in response to the news: “I’ll never get one now. The sad caveat? They’ll make plenty selling their ring and peoples’ data to the military/security state…”. The PR nightmare became so bad that the Oura CEO Tom Hale had to post his first ever TikTok to address the paranoia.

Much of the concern arose from Oura’s working closely with tech company Palantir to facilitate its partnership with the DoD. Palantir is a software company that deploys information to both commercial and government clients. Palantir uses a service called FedStart, which allows companies to bypass the government’s lengthy accreditation process and run their software within Palantir’s already accredited software. Palantir and Oura do not have a partnership; Palantir just provides the security layer that Oura needs in order to partner with the DoD to ensure that Oura’s data is being shared with the highest level of governmental security that Palantir can ensure. 

Those with access to such data include unit commanders and performance coaches, who will be able to use the data to optimize training and respond to their units’ needs. Through this technology jungle-gym, users’ data remains secure and complies with the DoD’s strict security requirements. 

The government has a high bar for security in information, and for good reason. In 2017, service members wearing Strava watches unintentionally exposed the location of several military bases. Oura’s partnership with the DoD is enabled to protect information designated IL5 (Impact Level 5), the second-highest level of security control for information within the DoD. This means that the data collected by the servicemembers’ rings is highly protected and encrypted, only for use by the appropriate government personnel, as the information relates to matters of military control and intelligence.

The controversy stems from the fact that many people don’t like Palantir. As a company that specializes in the confusing world of large-scale data analytics, many see it as a “scary tech giant” that provides surveillance information to the government and opens the door to breaches and abuse. Critics of Palantir have accused the company of having “blood on its hands” and fear that the company’s data surveillance capabilities can help police facilitate deportation raids. The company has strongly defended its operation, explaining how its clients always own the data and control its distribution. The truth is that Palantir’s operations are difficult to grasp, even for employees.

Time will tell how effective this governmental experiment between Oura and the DoD is, but social media users should always take the time to research the information they find online, especially when their personal data is involved.

Sources:

 [1] Oura Team, Oura Establishes U.S. Manufacturing to Support Growing U.S. Defense Business, OURA BLOG (Aug. 27, 2025), https://ouraring.com/blog/oura-us-department-of-defense/?srsltid=AfmBOoq_tMSVyZQcRh3icqhNP6lXNYM86eIKyu0TE42-EkbKI7-kmCyX.

 [2] Id. 

[3] Jessica Hagan, Oura Opens Manufacturing Facility to Support U.S. Department of Defense, MOBIHEALTHNEWS (Aug. 27, 2025, 2:15 PM), https://www.mobihealthnews.com/news/oura-opens-manufacturing-facility-support-us-department-defense.

[4]Oura Team, supra note 1. 

[5]Whoop Partners with U.S. Army in Study to Examine Stress in Soldiers, WHOOP: Press Release (Feb. 24, 2021), https://www.whoop.com/us/en/press-center/us-army-study-soldiers-stress/.

[6] Id.

 [7]Laura Miers (@LauraMiers), X (Sept. 1, 2025, 4:16 PM), https://x.com/LauraMiers/status/1962610473632727166.

[8]Adrian (@SillyPutty78), X (Sept. 1, 2025, 5:37 PM), https://x.com/SillyPutty78/status/1962630985297924494. 

[9]@ouraring, TIKTOK (Sept. 2, 2025), https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTMNNNyLD/.

[10]Tekendra Parmar, How Oura Got Caught in a TikTok Conspiracy Storm, INC: TECHNOLOGY (Sept. 4, 2025), https://www.inc.com/tekendra-parmar/oura-ring-got-caught-in-a-tiktok-conspiracy-storm/91235293. 

[11]Christianna Silva, What Oura Ring’s Partnership with the U.S. Military Means for Your Data, MASHABLE (Sept. 2, 2025), https://mashable.com/article/oura-ring-department-of-defense-palantir. 

 [12]Parmar, supra note 10.

[13]Art Clomera, What is DoD Impact Level 5 (IL5)?, IPKEYS BLOG (Mar. 19, 2025), https://ipkeys.com/blog/dod-il5/; Oura Team supra note 1.

 [14]Natalie Sherman, Palantir: The Controversial Data Firm Now Worth £ 17 bn, BBC (Sept. 30, 2020), https://www.bbc.com/news/business-54348456.

[15]Caroline Haskins, What Does Palantir Actually Do?, WIRED: BUSINESS (Aug. 11, 2025, 7:00 AM), https://www.wired.com/story/palantir-what-the-company-does/.

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/.