On October 28, 2021, the U.S. Copyright Office adopted exemptions to provisions in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) which will allow for technological protection measures (TMPs) to be bypassed if certain conditions are met.[1] The DMCA was enacted in 1998 to implement two World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) treaties and address various copyright-related issues.[2] The provision at issue, title 1, prohibited the “circumvention of technological measures employed by or on behalf of copyright owners”.[3] These measures were put in place to ensure that only the copyright owner could make alterations to the copyright-eligible features of their product, such as software.[4] However, under this new ruling, the restriction will not apply to those who use a copyrighted work for non-infringing purposes for three years.[5]
Prior to this ruling, if a copyright owner licensed its product to a third party and the third party circumvented a technological measure in some way without the owner’s permission, the third party would be found to have infringed the owner’s copyright.[6] Since software is often protected by copyright, any alteration to it could be seen as an infringement.[7] As a result, the right to repair movement spread across the country.[8] Many have argued that if they are prohibited from altering a product’s software, they are unable to make repairs to it, and thus they are at the mercy of the manufacturer.[9] For example, a farmer who purchases a new tractor equipped with an electronic feature would often be without the legal right to make repairs, since certain repairs would be seen as circumventing a technological measure without the owner’s permission.[10] The U.S. Copyright Office’s ruling remedies this concern by giving purchasers three years to circumvent the product’s technological measures for non-infringing uses without fear of recourse by the copyright owner.[11]
There has been some concern regarding how this ruling will affect the security of medical devices. Peter Pitts, President of the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest, opined that this ruling will open the door to anyone hacking into secure medical devices and claiming it is for purposes of repair, calling it an “open season” for medical device hacking.[12] Pitts said that the unintended consequence of this ruling is that a once hard to track illegal activity becomes a hard to track legal activity and puts patient safety and security at risk.[13] However, this exemption will only be granted if one can show that their ability to make non-infringing uses of their copyrighted work will be adversely affected by the safeguards put in place by the DMCA.[14]
[1] Exemption to Prohibition on Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems for Access Control Technologies, 37 C.F.R. § 201 (2021).
Back in 2011, a largely bi-partisan Congress passed the “America Invents Act,” (AIA) a pivotal piece of legislation that completely overhauled the patenting process.[1] Prior to the passing of the Act, patent practitioners sought a means of exercising patent review that was not left entirely to the discretion of the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) or the district court. Thus, under the AIA, the Patent Trials and Appeals Board (PTAB) was created. In the past 10 years, however, the PTAB has been under fire, being hailed by some as a “means for big tech companies to steamroll small inventors,” and the body of law responsible for stifling innovation and devaluing US patents.[2] After a recent pivotal Supreme Court Decision, both political parties have offered their ideas to drastically change the law body, each addressing the issue from different perspectives.
The PTAB is an administrative law body within the USPTO whose sole focus is to determine issues of patentability.[3] These issues are presented to the court in the form of examination appeals, inter partes review, covered business method review, derivation proceedings, and Post Grant Review.[4] The court itself is made up of statutory members, such as the Director of the USPTO, and administrative patent judges (APJs) who are appointed by the Secretary of Commerce.[5] Each APJ is required to be “persons of competent legal knowledge and scientific ability” and sufficiently qualified to be of skill in a technical field.[6]
Proceedings in the PTAB are remarkably similar to those in an Article III court, such that proceedings are initiated by a petition and preliminary response, trials are conducted, and final written decisions are issued. Despite the law body’s statutory support, the authority of the PTAB was challenged this past summer at the Supreme Court in United States v. Arthrex. In a majority opinion written by Justice Roberts, the Court held that the exercise of power held by the PTAB must be at some level, subject to the discretion of the Director of the USPTO, an un-elected officer nominated by the President.[7] While Arthrex does on some level address the PTAB’s unchecked authority, the majority opinion avoids the discussion of whether or not the court is unconstitutional as a whole. Instead, it gives a signal to practitioners who want the PTAB to be reformed that they are unlikely to find that relief from the Supreme Court.
In addition to the constitutional challenges, the PTAB has been widely criticized for its institution of inter partes review (IPR). IPR is a proceeding instituted post grant of a patent, wherein a third party can challenge the validity of a patent under either a novelty or non-obviousness claim.[8] To file an IPR, a third party must pay at minimum $19,000 and submit prior art that they believe renders the granted patent, or a portion of the patent, invalid.[9] IPR proceedings have long been abused by large corporations who are capable of paying the initial filing fee and keeping patent holders in limbo. Some even believe that IPR proceedings are partially responsible for the devaluing of the US patent.[10]
To resolve some of the issues posed by the PTAB, each party in Congress has introduced a bill post-Arthrex to address the failing US patent system. First, Senator Leahy (D-VT) introduced the “Restoring the American Invents Act” bill in September that aims to expand the PTAB’s jurisdiction to include obviousness-type double patenting, codify the Arthrex decision, and strongly encourage district court stays pending PTAB review among other things.[11] Senator Leahy in his bill is sending a signal that the PTAB is here to stay, and that its authority should be expanded. According to some, the bill would reinforce high-quality patents by eliminating low-quality patents in PTAB review while also incentivizing patent owners to draft high quality patents, thus increasing their chance of surviving a PTAB challenge.[12]The bill, of note, has had an mixed initial response and has been popular among some tech companies.[13]
Conversely, House Representative Thomas Massie (R-KY) introduced a bill on November 4th, 2021 titled “Restoring America’s Leadership in Innovation Act of 2021” that proposes to eliminate the PTAB as well as IPR.[14]With this proposal, Republicans in the House are taking a strong stance against the AIA and the PTAB, proposing a complete overhaul of the patent system. Representative Massie, an MIT grad, has been on the record saying that the AIA and the Supreme Court have eroded the “strength and value” of the US patent.[15]
The role of the PTAB remains to be a point of partisan debate. While both parties acknowledge that reform in the patent system must happen, neither proposal appears to have the same amount of support as the original AIA bill when it passed over 10 years ago. As for now, both proposed bills are in their infant stage and show no sign of progressing through Congress. Both parties will continue to maintain that the law body is flawed, but until there is a resolution, the PTAB will continue to be a vestige of the USPTO that is here to stay, at least for now.
[2] Jeff John Roberts, Apple Tried to Kill More Patents Than Anyone Else, By Far, Fortune (Jan. 21, 2016),https://fortune.com/2016/01/21/apple-ptab/.
[3] Janet Gongola, The Patent Trial and Appeal Board: Who are they and what do they do? United States Patent and Trademark Office, https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/newsletter/inventors-eye/patent-trial-and-appeal-board-who-are-they-and-what.
[10]Gene Quinn, A kinder, Gentler “Death Squad”: Ten Years in, Despite Some Reforms, the USPTO is Still Killing U.S. Patents, IP Watchdog (September 19, 2021) https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2021/09/19/kinder-gentler-death-squad-ten-years-despite-reforms-uspto-still-killing-u-s-patents/id=137765/.
[11] Restoring the America Invents Act, S. 2891, 117th Cong. (2021).
[12] David Cochran and Zach Sharb, Legislation: Restoring the America Invents Act, JDSupra (October 6, 2021).
Gestational surrogacy legality in New York state is what is needed to combat the immediate concern of declining birth rates. The Child Parent Security Act (CPSA) was introduced in 2020 to legalize gestational surrogacy which has been illegal for a large amount of time. A gestational surrogate is when a surrogate gestates a fetus, formed from an embryo using an oocyte from either the intended mother or an oocyte donor (which is combined with the sperm from either the intended father or a sperm donor.[1] This type of surrogacy differs from traditional surrogacy, an agreement where surrogate also donates the oocyte.[2] Gestational surrogacy is more often seen as less controversial than traditional, and the majority of states have legalized it.
Gestational surrogacy has had a long an arduous journey to legality in New York State beginning with the landmark New Jersey Case, aptly named the Baby M Case. The case concluded that the full surrogacy contract in question was not permitted by New Jersey law. [3] The case was controversial because the surrogate, whose own genetic material was used in a traditional surrogacy, decided that she didn’t want to follow the contract and wished to keep the baby instead.[4] This case had such a profound effect, that it was not until this year that the Child Parent Security Act has been signed into law. [5]
There have been several recent controversies surrounding women’s reproductive health that have not helped the declining birth rate currently plaguing the U.S. From the Texas abortion law to cryopreserved embryo storage spaces malfunctioning resulting in the loss of dozens of frozen embryos.[6] This sort of news is a light at the end of a currently dark tunnel. The CPSA allows for relaxed surrogacy eligibility and calls for reasonable compensation.[7] This overhaul for New York State surrogacy legislation could not have come at a better time than when the overall birth rate in the United States has been significantly lowered by the pandemic-related financial stresses facing many Americans.[8] The fact that this legislation was introduced at the same time as this decline in birth rate seems too strong of a correlation to be coincidental. But in any case, it could help bring the U.S. back on its footing and also make up for the current upsets in women’s reproductive health.
[1] Kate Swanson Et Al., Understanding gestational surrogacy in the United States: a primer for obstetricians and gynecologists, Ajog, April 2020, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002937820300582.
[4] Elizabeth Chuck, New York state, long a holdout against legalizing surrogacy, overturns ban, Nbc news (Apr. 3, 2020, 3:04 PM), https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/new-york-state-long-holdout-against-legalizing-surrogacy-overturns-ban-n1176071.
[6] Gerard Letterie & Dov Fox, Lawsuit frequency and claims basis over lost, damaged, and destroyed frozen embryos over a 10-year period, 79 Seattle Reproductive Medicine, Seattle, Washington; and School of Law, Center for Health Law and Policy and Bioethics, University of San Diego, San Diego, California (2020).
September 1, 2020 marks the publication of the 21st edition of The Bluebook.[1] Weighing in at just 16 ounces (365 pages), the latest edition is a wraith of its former self, having shed over 195 pages and 7 ounces of dead weight.[2]Unfortunately, nearly 9 ounces of dead weight remain.
Ostensibly, legal citations are important for two reasons. First, citations identify the document or other source material to which the writer is referring, ideally making it easy for the reader to locate the source material for further review.[3]Second, citations help the reader distinguish between new and unique ideas, and those borrowing from the ideas of others. The two most often used systems of citation in the United States are The Bluebook and the ALWD Guide to Legal Citation[4], however The Bluebook is taught at most US law schools and employed by most federal courts.[5]
Unfortunately, in contrast to haircare, the rules of the Bluebook are anything but simple and finite, and thousands of law students fritter away countless hours with their noses buried deep within its pages. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law at George Mason University School of Law, agrees The Bluebook is a waste of time and effort, arguing:
Every year, law review editors across the country spend thousands of man-hours editing articles to make sure that they conform to the Blue Book rules, taking Blue Book tests, and engaging in other Blue Book-related activities…. This time could easily be spent in more productive ways, such as studying, research, clinical work, or even working on your tan at the beach.[6]
I don’t tan. I fry like the Colonel’s chicken, but I was required to take a citation exam based on The Bluebook to earn a position on Syracuse University’s Journal of Science and Technology. Though my experience on the journal has been fantastic, the exam was too long and entirely unnecessary, and I’m certain my performance almost no impact on my acceptance to the journal. And, I’m not the only student who feels this way.[7]
In his article, Beyond The Bluebook: Teaching First-year Law Students What They Need to Know About Legal Citation, Peter Nemerovski, Professor of Legal Writing at The University of North Carolina Law School, cites (pun unintended) several theories as to why The Bluebook remains central to legal education today. First, The Bluebook has been taught and used within the legal profession for nearly 100 years.[8][9] Second, uniformity in citations is important and a single standard helps drive uniformity.[10] Third, compliance with a standard is an indicator of quality and professionalism.[11] Fourth, the longevity of The Bluebook can be attributed to pride and greed.[12] And fifth, study of The Bluebook requires a process of reasoning analogous to the study of law.[13]
Vinny Gambini and Mona Lisa Vito would agree none of these arguments hold water. Regardless, each of these arguments is purely academic when considering the purpose of legal citations. A centuries old, highly complex, and debatably uniform system of citations provides no benefit toward the identification and location of source material when Google is a click away. Like the pyramids of Egypt, the Bluebook is both antiquated and excessive.[14] It’s no surprise noted jurist and former circuit court judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit called for The Bluebook to be burned.[15] Computerized search technology has rendered The Bloatbook entirely unnecessary.
An adaptation of Posner’s standard of citation was used for the references contained in this blog post.[16] Though Posner’s theories of economics are questionable, his alternative method of citation is exactly what the legal profession needs.
If you can’t find it Google it; I will be outside trying to catch a tan.
[8] Peter Nemerovski, “Beyond The Bluebook: Teaching First-year Law Students What They Need to Know About Legal Citation”, Arizona L. Rev. 56:4, 84 (2014)
[9] Shapiro and Krishnaswami, “The Secret History of The Bluebook”, Minn. L. Rev. 100, 1563 (2016)
On September 3, 2018, musical artist Machine Gun Kelly released an attack single (commonly called a “diss track” within the music industry) against fellow rapper Eminem (“Marshall Mathers”) on World Star Hip Hop’s YouTube account. The lyrics to Kelly’s song, Rap Devil, included various attacks against Eminem, but most notably included the following lyric: “I think my dad’s gone crazy. Yeah Hallie, you right. Dad’s always mad cooped up in the studio yelling at the mic.” When Kelly released his music video on World Star Hip Hop’s YouTube account, these lyrics included a sample of an audio recording over the lines “I think my dad’s gone crazy”—implying, arguably, that the pre-recorded voice was Eminem’s daughter Hallie Jade Scott Mathers.
Notably, when Machine Gun Kelly released the attack single for sale on iTunes—through the music label Bad Boy Records (a subsidiary of Interscope Records)—the line “I think my dad’s gone crazy”, that was included in his YouTube release, was partially censored and removed from the master recording of the song. Not only was the line “crazy” completely removed, but the underlying pre-recorded audio was also removed from the recording released to iTunes.[i]
Basic intellectual property law (“IP”) explains this discrepancy. If Machine Gun Kelly did not own the recording included within his pre-release on YouTube, he cannot include this audio recording within his master track sold to the public; unless he owns a license to use the pre-recording in his own song. Now, we may ask: why can the pre-recorded audio still be published on YouTube, but not iTunes? The answer to this involves both IP law and contract law.
From a legal standpoint, Machine Gun Kelly faces potentially less liability for a release of the pre-recorded track within the sample of his song on YouTube, because a copyright holder (attempting to assert a claim for copyright infringement) must generally first undergo the internal procedures outlined by YouTube’s user agreement, when trying to pursue a copyright infringement action within the medium of YouTube’s website. However, in the traditional medium of releasing and selling music to the public, there is no internal issue of dealing with a reproduction of copyright-protected material on a self-contained website. Rather, distributing this copyright material to the public for direct sale would be governed solely by IP law (Copyright Act of 1976) and not the contract law implications attached to a service provider like YouTube.
As such, under the hypothetical situation where Machine Gun Kelly did not have the permission—of the entity who owns and recorded the line “I think my dad’s gone crazy”—to use the recording within Kelly’s YouTube version of Rap Devil, that entity would first need to file an internal claim against World Star Hip Hop for copyright infringement on YouTube’s interface.[ii] Upon notice of a potential IP violation, the owner of the pre-recorded sound bite (“I think my dad’s gone crazy”) can submit a request to remove the video from YouTube under an internal complaint of copyright infringement.[iii] Thereafter, the entity may also pursue a claim against World Star Hip Hop within the traditional bounds of IP law—if in fact there was an unauthorized derivative use of the recorded lyrics under the Copyright Act of 1976.[iv] As mentioned above, if the use was not permitted and the line was still used in the version of the song sold on iTunes, this procedure would not apply and a strict application of 17 U.S.C. § 501-513 would allow an immediate IP action against Kelly’s hypothetical use.
Nevertheless, Machine Gun Kelly (or executives at Interscope Records) made the preemptive decision to remove the pre-recorded audio from the final version of Rap Devil sold to the public. The label clearly understood that selling a song with a lyric of questionable ownership exposed the artist to more liability—or “heat”—than is typically warranted through the release of a diss track.
[i] For a full version of Machine Gun Kelly’s YouTube music video, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fp0BScQSSvg; (0:23 to 0:25) “I think my dad’s gone crazy”.
On April 12, 2012, a federal district court in Montana invalidated the Federal Government’s approval of the first phase of Rock Creek Mine construction, a major copper and silver mine. The mine was to be constructed beneath the Cabinet Mountains Wilderness in northwest Montana.[1] The miners proposed digging under the boundary of the federal wilderness area to reach large deposits of copper and silver.[2] Heleca Mining Company, is attempting to develop two large mines – the Montanore and Rock Creek projects – in the Cabinet Mountains.[3] The land, which contains high elevation streams that are among the purest water sources in the United States, harbors vital populations of bull trout and grizzly bear.[4] These trout, depended on the cold waters and protected by the Endangered Species Act, are facing increasing threats due to global warming.[5] The area is also home to one of the last five grizzly bear population in the United States today.[6]
A coalition of conservation groups and cultural leaders within the Ksanka band of the Ktunaza Nation have filed various lawsuits challenging the permits.[7] In 2017 a district court in Montana invalided the permits for The Montanore Mine on the grounds that they violated the Endangered Species Act.[8] In the current litigation, challenging the permits for the Rock Creek Mine, the federal court also found that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Forest Service violated the Endangered Special Act by not considering the impact of the full mine proposal on federally protected grizzly bear and bull trout.[9] Heleca Mining Company attempted to break the permitting process into small steps.[10] They first sough permits for the exploration phase of the project which were granted by the government.[11] The federal court ruled that the government could not grant permits for an exploratory stage of a project without first considering the impact on environment resources once the full project was underway.[12]
While gathering minerals under the wilderness area does not alone violate the Wilderness Act, the miners must show that their activities will not disturb surface resources – wilderness and water.[13] The company was unable to show that the roadbuilding, human activity and the mines potential to dewater Cabinet lakes and streams would not impact both grizzly bear and bull trout populations.[14] In 2019, U.S. Forest Service issued a biological opinion relating only to Phase I of the project.[15] In the recent decision, the federal court said, “Unsurprisingly, removing Phase II from consideration drastically reduced both the scope of the activity and the potential environmental impacts. […] For comparison, Phase II, or mine development, would involve the removal of 10,000 tons of ore per day with a production life of 26 to 30 years. Mine activity would disturb over 400 acres of land, cause drawdown of stream levels, and require the construction of roads.”[16] “On the other hand, Phase I involves only the excavation of an evaluation adit (mine shaft). Construction of the ad it is anticipated to take two years and the estimated disturbance area encompasses approximately 19.6 acres.”[17]
The Court ultimately decided that the Defendant’s approval of Phase I without considering the effects of Phase II was arbitrary and capricious. It amounted to a “piecemeal chipping away of habitat for endangered species.”[18] Several of the plaintiff’s blame the Trump Administration, and the Center for Biological Diversity has sued the administration over environmental actions over 250 times since 2016.[19] The Trump Administration repeatedly and purposefully ignored scientists over the course of This presidency and now they are dealing with the legal consequences.
[1]Federal Court Halts Proposed Rock Creek Mine In Montana’s Cabinet Mountains, EarthJustice (Apr. 15, 2021), https://earthjustice.org/news/press/2021/federal-court-halts-proposed-rock-creek-mine-in-montanas-cabinet-mountains.
[9] Associated Press, Federal Court Halts Proposed Rock Creek Mine, Clark Ford Valley Press & Mineral Independent (Apr. 21, 2021), https://vp-mi.com/news/2021/apr/21/federal-court-halts-proposed-rock-creek-mine/.
Whether or not you are a vehicle owner, it is likely that in the last year, you have received an automated scam call that went something like this; “Hello this is ___ we’re calling to alert you that your car warranty is expiring/has been extended”. After this initial pre-recorded message, the call will almost always include a promotion to renew or cancel the renewal of that warranty. After the pitch, you will be asked to provide personal information such as your social security number, credit card and banking information and driver’s license number.[1] Generally speaking, this type of information should never be conveyed over the phone unless you are able to verify that you are in fact dealing with a legitimate company with whom you have previously established a business relationship.[2] The simple truth is that these calls have nothing to do with your car warranty, and everything to do with trying to get you to willingly release your sensitive personal information.
It follows, not only are these calls annoying, they are also dangerous. According to the Federal Communications Commission (hereinafter FCC), this scam isn’t new, however it has quickly become the preferred method of cheating unknowing victims out of their hard-earned money.[3] The FCC has further indicated that warranty “robocalls” represented the highest call complaint filed by consumers in 2020.[4] Specifically, between June and December of last year alone, Americans filed just short of 200,000 “Do Not Call” complaints, a number which the Federal Trade Commission (hereinafter FTC) says, represents only a small fraction of calls actually received.[5]
You might be asking, are these calls illegal? The short answer is yes. The FTC banned almost all pre-recorded automated telemarketing calls in 2009, with the exception of political calls, charitable solicitations and debt collections.[6] It goes without saying that these robocalls do not fall into any of these categories. More troubling, is the fact that these scams are nearly impossible to trace and are being operated both domestically, as well as overseas.[7] Essentially, the calling operation (scammer) will purchase information or “leads”, in this case phone numbers, from third-party data providers (some more legitimate than others) which then allows those calling operations to facilitate their massive scamming campaigns.[8] Unfortunately, if you have ever: phoned a business that utilizes caller I.D., checked the “sign me up for emails” box while online shopping, registered to vote, applied for credit, or donated to a charitable organization it is likely that you have unknowingly auctioned off your contact information to one of these third-party data providers.[9]
Being that it is nearly impossible to stop the sale of your information from a third-party data provider to a calling operation, the best alternative is to limit the number of calls you receive. Initially, you should feel some assurance in knowing that major U.S. carriers offer at least some level of protection.[10] Additionally, the Traced Act, a bi-partisan piece of legislation signed in 2019, reduces the statute of limitations previously imposed on government agencies and law enforcement officials, in their efforts to punish companies and individuals that break telephone consumer-protections laws.[11] Beyond the measures already implemented by the government and major carriers, there are several steps you can take to limit the amount of scam calls you receive. AT&T, Verizon, Sprint and T-Mobile each offer both free and premium services that block spam calls and provide users with a “nuisance” warning, sign up for these.[12] Further, consumers can purchase third-party apps for both Android and iOS operating systems that offer a wide range of call blocking features.[13] Hiya, Nomorobo, and RoboKiller are a few examples of subscription based services that protect users by constantly updating a database of numbers used by calling operations, numbers which are then blocked when they inevitably dial your phone.[14] Although third-party apps are available for purchase, the FCC has provided several steps the cost-conscious consumer can take instead of purchasing additional apps.[15] Don’t answer calls from numbers you don’t recognize, never hit a button or answer “yes”, avoid providing personal information, ask your phone company about additional tools you can implement to stop these calls, and register your number on the “Do Not Call List”.[16]
Although it is unlikely that car warranty scam calls will cease to exist in the near future, there are several steps that you and your loved ones can take in an effort to keep your information private. Scam calls are not only annoying, they are also dangerous. While blocking scam calls from your phone is certainly worthwhile, spreading awareness of these dangers is of equal importance in the fight to protect our information as we continue to progress through the digital era.
[5] Martha White, Who’s Making Those Annoying ‘Your Car Warranty Has Expired’ Calls, and Why Won’t They Stop?, Money (Mar. 11, 2021), https://money.com/car-warranty-calls/.
On March 31st, 2021, New York became the 16th state to make the recreational use of Cannabis (“marijuana”) legal after Governor Andrew Cuomo signed into law Senate Bill S854A (“the Bill”).[1] Under this new legislation, it is now legal for individuals in New York who are twenty-one years and older to possess up to three ounces of marijuana on their person, and up to five pounds in their private residence.[2] Further, the Bill expunges the records of all people who were convicted of marijuana-related offenses that are no longer criminalized.[3]
Because marijuana’s legality is such a controversial topic, in order to form an accurate opinion, it is important to understand its background in the United States, including its classification by the federal government, New York’s rationale for legalization, and some potential positives and negatives of the substance.
Right now, marijuana is listed as a Schedule I substance under the Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) drug scheduling chart.[4] By definition, this means that marijuana is federally described as a substance “with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.”[5] Other substances under this classification include heroin, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), and peyote.[6]
Notwithstanding the illegality of marijuana on a federal level, Colorado and Washington became the first two states to legalize its recreational use in 2012.[7] Now, nine years later, New York has decided to join the bandwagon of states who chose to make marijuana recreationally legal. There are several reasons for the Bill’s enactment, and it is difficult to take a dualistic approach in forming an opinion about its passing.
Governor Cuomo’s rationale for legalization mentions several positive effects that it will have on our State. For example, Cuomo said that with a nine-percent statewide sales tax, a four-percent county and local tax, and another tax per milligram of THC,[8]annual tax revenues could amount to over $300 million.[9] After covering the costs of its regulation, tax revenues would go towards different beneficial aspects of society (e.g., schools, drug treatment and prevention programs, as well as health and housing programs designed to help communities that were most affected by marijuana’s illegality).[10] It is also suggested that legalization will create jobs, increase consumer safety, phase out black markets by taking money away from illegal drug organizations, decrease crime rates, and free up police resources.[11]
However, these pros are met with a noteworthy number of cons. For example, it is possible that with its legalization, marijuana will bear costs on New York and its taxpayers that outweigh its tax revenues.[12] Some of these costs would include paying for increased emergency room visits and medical care for the uninsured, and an increase in victims of marijuana-related driving accidents.[13] Legalization may also increase use by teenagers, which is especially harmful because marijuana’s effects are more adverse on the human brain during stages in which it is still developing.[14]
Public concern about automobile safety is another legitimate criticism of legalization.[15] Between 2013 and 2016, the number of fatal accidents in which at least one driver tested positive for THC increased by ninety-two percent in Colorado, and twenty-eight percent in Washington.[16] Since 2016, marijuana-related traffic deaths have remained higher than the national average in both Colorado and Washington.[17] Interestingly, the New York Bill provides that “the odor of burnt cannabis shall not provide probable cause to search any area of a vehicle that is not readily accessible to the driver and reasonably likely to contain evidence relevant to the driver’s condition.”[18] This text may seem like a legal adaptation to ensure citizens maintain their protection against unreasonable searches guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment; however, it isn’t difficult to see why this sort of protection may entice DUI virgins to dabble, or cause routine high-drivers to push their limits even further.
While states seem to be following a progressive pattern of making marijuana recreationally legal, it is important not only to acknowledge the societal benefits, but the potential detriments as well. As legalization is still a relatively new concept, each recreational state will continue to serve as a subject in the United States’ case study on whether legalization really is a good thing. As for New York, it seems that only time will tell.
During the recent pandemic, the world has had to rethink how it does…everything. Our profession is no exception. The pandemic forced rapid change, particularly adoption of technology and letting go of traditionalism in the field, but seeds were sown long ago.
In 2020, the Association of American Law Schools recognized that technology would be a critical component to the 21st century.[1] Anna Williams Shavers wrote in 2001 of the discretion law schools have regarding coursework and how they were beggining to include tech based electives such as intellectual property.[2] Data showed that such courses were being selected more often than more traditional electives.[3] Around 1981 it was said of legal education that “innovation…comes hard, is limited in scope and permission, and generally dies young.”[4] Sadly, this sentiment was evidenced by the fact that few professors bothered to incorporate educational technologies that were available.[5]
Despite the limited interest broadly, proponents recognized the potential value: increased and easier access to information, better accommodation for students with disabilities and different learning styles, collaboration with students beyond the confines of the classroom or campus.[6] The American Bar Association, however, took an interest in a study done on distance learning and created a specific set of guidelines that ultimately showed their distaste for it due to a concern about limited personal interaction.[7] While not explicitly prohibiting distance learning, they did lump it in with correspondence study which could not be used to earn credits.[8] Even so, it’s clear that even 20 years ago, it was known that technology had a place in legal education.
Contrary to earlier technological innovations, the internet was a game changer.[9] The indifference towards technology and innovation was beginning to change.[10] While schools began offering online courses in the early 21st century, around 2015, some schools were researching the possibility of taking things to the next level and offering full online JD programs.[11] One writer offered a this hope, “ideally, over the next decade a growing number of administrators will encourage and reward innovation in legal education and a growing number of law professors will engage deeply with technologies that enable innovation.”[12] Four years later, in 2019, Syracuse University launched their hybrid JD program—and ABA approved program combining both online an in person requirements.
Over time, changes in legal education and practice would be driven by changes in the students.[13] Students would be arriving at law school having been raised on technology.[14] Schools and the field will need to adapt as technology is more deeply embedded into the K12 and undergraduate spaces, as future law students will ask more of their institutions and the profession.[15]
In practice, lawyers are often resistant to change and technology.[16] It could be due to risk aversion, commitment to a status quo, worry about fewer billable hours, or fear of tech taking over jobs.[17] Reasonable or not, it has been easy for the legal industry to hold fast to these concerns and stay still. Newton’s first law says, in part, that an object at rest will remain at rest until acted upon by a force.[18] In 2020, the legal world was met with a force by the name of COVID-19.
Thankfully, the legal world rose to the occasion and embraced change. From attorneys to judges, old and young, professionals took to video for depositions and hearings, for example.[19] Attorneys and other legal professionals have seen benefits during this time that many hope will remain: less travel time and expense, greater efficiency and flexibility.[20] It has been easier to provide pro bono services without fiscal and geographical limitations. Firms that often connected via conference call, got on video as well and appreciated seeing one another![21] Not to mention that law schools HAD to transition to virtual instruction and students still took classes and got their JDs. Challengine? Yes. But clearly possible.
It is true that with everything being virtual the level of connection that comes with sharing a physical space is lost, but people are finding that the video alternatives are a close second.[22] By and large forced growth and adoption of technology in the field has been a good thing and is opening eyes to the possibilities of new and still effective ways of practicing.
There is a program at the University of Pennsylvania Law school, Future of the Profession Initiative, that focus on technological advancements in the profession.[23] The initiative’s Executive Director, Jennifer Leonard, said in an article published in February 2020, mere weeks before the world would be upended by COVID-19, that “The future of law is going to be very different than the law profession has been to this point. The successful lawyers of tomorrow will need to be adaptable in a way that lawyers have never needed to be in the past.”
So, what does it all mean? Hopefully, it means that even once we get to the other side of COVID-19 we will continue to move forward and think innovatively about the study and practice of the law, bearing in mind what has been learned and accomplished over the last year and embracing the possibilities of technology, innovation and change in both the study and practice of the law.
[1] Anna Williams Shavers, The Impact of Technology on Legal Education, 51 J. of Legal Educ. 407, 407 (2001).
[16] Erika Winston, Is technology making the practice of law better or worse?, TimeSolv, https://www.timesolv.com/blog/is-technology-making-the-practice-of-law-better-or-worse/ (last visited 03.28.21 10:00 PM EST).
[18]Law of inertia. Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/science/law-of-inertia (last visited March 27, 2021).
[19] Catherine Wilson, ‘Awful Impact’: The Long-Lasting Effects of COVID-19 on the Practice of Law, Law.com (December 07, 2020, 10:48 AM), https://www.law.com/dailybusinessreview/2020/12/07/awful-impact-the-long-lasting-effects-of-covid-19-on-the-practice-of-law/?slreturn=20210228140802.
I will admit it, I am a true crime addict. I even subscribe to podcasts called, “Crime Junkie” and “My Favorite Murder.” However, I am not alone in the zealous fascination. According to Edison Research—the leading podcast research organization—two of the top five the most listened to podcasts in 2020 were true crime.[1] Among the most notorious true crime stories is the Golden State Killer AKA the Visalia Ransacker AKA the East Area Rapist AKA the Original Night Stalker AKA EARONS.[2] For over four decades, the serial killer of many names but no true identity, was a Rubik’s cube for not only the police but for websleuths, national media, and — of course true crime podcasts. Until a third cousin of the Golden State Killer (GSK) took a DNA test.[3]
Detectives finally caught the elusive GSK by “harnessing genetic technology already in use by millions of consumers to trace their family trees.”[4] Otherwise known as a familial search. A familial search is a deliberate effort to find close biological relatives after failure to find an exact DNA match.[5] Detectives first used the Golden State Killer’s genetic material from a rape kit to establish a DNA profile on FamilyTreeDNA which allowed them to set up a fake account and search for matching GSK family-customers.[6] Here they identified GSK’s unknown third cousin.[7] A third cousin is someone who shares a great-great grandparent with you.[8] At four generations of separation, family trees exponentially expand resulting in thousands of third cousins.[9] Nevertheless, that third cousin’s genetic match through process of elimination, led detectives to the GSK’s true identity and capture.[10]
Upon the announcement of the Golden State Killer’s capture, investigators and prosecutors assured the public that the genetic information relied on was from people who voluntarily made public.[11] However, a Los Angeles Times investigative report reveals, “the actual investigation was broader and more invasive, conducted without a warrant, and appeared to violate the privacy policy of at least one DNA company.”[12] Law enforcement’s search occurred unbeknownst to the companies, let alone those customers used.[13] According to court discovery records, the DNA-matching effort used to catch this prolific killer involved convert searches of private DNA housed by the two for-profit companies—despite their privacy policies.[14] These searches were warrantless.[15]
While the true crime world roared in celebration at GSK’s creative investigation approach, others cringed. Mummers from legal scholars and some legislators have grown louder voicing rightful concerns that this largely unregulated revolutionary approach is violating the privacy of the people who join DNA databases to learn about themselves — not to help the police arrest their relatives for violent crimes.[16] Since GSK, the floodgates opened and within two years law enforcement has used familial searches to identify more than forty murder and rape suspects in cases as old as a half-century.[17] As recent as this month, law enforcement used familial search to identify and charge an Oregon man in two cold-case murders.[18] The Portland Police Bureau explained that the crosschecking of DNA recovered from the scene with ancestry records led to them to the suspect’s siblings and through process of elimination, eventual the suspect.[19]
Consequently, the question presents itself, in a process that allows for one of the most prolific serial killers to be brought to justice, what is the scholars and legislators concern? And should those concerns worry the 100 million people who have used direct to consumer (DTC) genetic test?[20] According to Science Magazine, if you are white, live in the United States, and a distant relative has uploaded their DNA to a public ancestry database, there’s a good chance an internet sleuth can identify you from a DNA sample you left somewhere.[21] Now, while law-abiding citizens may brush this reality off, Martin Niemöller’s “First They Came” warning poem should set alarm horns blaring.[22]
New York University law professor and expert on DNA searches Erin Murphy warns, “[i]f your sibling or parent or child engaged in [DNA crowdsourcing] activity online, they are compromising your family for generations.”[23] If the capture of GSK demonstrated anything, it showed that anonymity is impossible. GEDmatch, the most common crowdsourcing DNA database and also known for its role in the GSK case, allows users to upload their DNA profile from other websites.[24] It is estimated that GEDmatch only encompasses about 0.5% of the U.S. adult population, if GEDmatch were to rise to 2%, more than 90% of people of European descent will have a third cousin or closer relative and could be found by this way.[25] The GSK case and further Research has shown that by cross-referencing their birth date, sex and postal code, for instance, with publicly available information.[26] A report published by the University of Washington, demonstrated how researchers were able to run searches that let them guess more than 90% of the DNA data of other users.[27]
Moreover, unlike a bank account number or a password that can be changed, once DNA is out there, it’s out there for good.[28] Security flaws in GEDmatch could permit national adversaries to create a powerful biometric database useful for identifying nearly any American.[29] The same University of Washington research team, demonstrated how they exploited the GEDmatch genetic comparison engine without any illegal actions, “[they] went in through the main gates—they did not break in.”[30] As recently as last year, GEDmatch experienced a data breach and hack that not only let the equivalent of twitter bots in, but also opted all users (regardless of their preference) into the law enforcement matching.[31]
Finally, Consumer Reports’ director of privacy and technology policy Justin Brookman warns that, “An individual’s most personal information is still being bought, sold, and traded without clear understanding or consent.”[32] There is a deep concern that access to long-term care insurance can be impacted by the results of genetic testing.[33] Genetic information gathered by DTC genetic companies can be sold to third parties and used internally to benefit the company, with limited information provided to the consumer.[34] Seventy-one percent (71%) of companies (39 of 55) provided information that indicated a consumer’s genetic data could be used internally by the company for purposes other than providing the results to the consumer.[35] Coincidently, the nation’s largest private equity firm Blackstone acquired DTC Ancestry.com for $4.7 billion ($261 per person DNA).[36] Although Blackstone Spokesperson assures they will not have access to user DNA, Alan Butler, interim executive director and general counsel of the Electronic Privacy Information Center rebuts, “[t]he big concern when there is a big deal like this is that investors might be interested in that data for other reasons, and not in the ways that consumers intended when they gave over that information.” [37] DTC genetic testing company 23andMe Inc. also recently entered into a deal to merge with VG Acquisition Corp., a special purpose acquisition company founded by billionaire Richard Branson.[38] American Bar Association’s Business Law Section Cyberspace Committee Chair Theodore F. Claypoole warns that “once your DNA is included in the database for Google, Blackstone, Merck, or the FBI, there is no removing it – and no way to change it.”[39]
So while the excitement of the GSK investigation has drifted into memory, each day more and more people upload their DNA profiles, and we inch closer to the 2% threshold.
Fortunately, there is a growing trend by state and federal law makers to increase regulation of genetic information and cover non-traditional entities like DTC genetic testing companies.[40] Additionally, in an effort to regulate themselves—or avoid federal regulation—popular DTC genetic companies like 23andMe and Ancestry have paired with the Future of Privacy Forum to release industry-based standard Privacy Best Practices for Consumer Genetic Testing Services.[41] Additionally, in July 2020, Consumer Reports issued a white page report called, “Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing: The Law Must Protect Consumers’ Genetic Privacy.”[42] The report highlights the concerning regulatory gaps in direct-to-consumer (DTC) generic testing that reveals the legal void of privacy safeguards to consumers highly sensitive data.[43]
The information shared with DTC genetic testing companies is neither protected nor are the DTC companies are bound to federal law.[44] Although the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has oversight over DTC genetic testing the agency’s concern is validity, not privacy.[45] Similarly, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) can control the marketing practices and discrimination, respectively of genetic testing companies but not privacy.[46] Nor are DTC genetic testing companies regulated under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).[47] HIPPA, the federal law that protects sensitive patient health information from being disclosed without the patient’s consent or knowledge, only applies to entities providing medical health care.[48] As a result, DTC genetic testing companies are largely in control of consumers’ most personal information.[49]
States have varied in their successes in trying to safeguard their resident’s genetic privacy. Some states have passed legislation that prohibits discrimination based on genetic information, but laws specifically aimed at genetic privacy remain rare.[50] Texas, Illinois, and Oklahoma, have laws that protect individuals from compelled disclosure of genetic information pursuant to a court order, such as a subpoena.[51] Illinois and Missouri restricts the sale of collected information by strictly limiting whether and the extent to which DTC genetic test results may be used.[52]
The most aggressive of the state laws are Florida’s Florida Bill Restricting Life Insurers’ Use of Genetic Information (House Bill 1189) and California’s now-vetoed Genetic Information Privacy Act (GIPA). Florida’s House Bill 1189, amends a Florida statute which prohibited insurers use of genetic information for insurance purposes and extends the restriction to life and long-term care insurers from canceling, limiting, or denying coverage or adjusting premium rates based on genetic information.[53] Additionally, those insurers are prohibited from requiring or soliciting genetic information, using genetic test results, or considering a person’s decisions or actions relating to genetic testing in any manner for any insurance purpose.[54] California’s GIPA attempted to extend even farther. GIPA would direct DTC genetic companies on how they can use, sell, and share genetic information.[55] California Governor Newson’s veto of GIPA, is a reflection of disagreement over the bill’s details of how to best safeguard genetic information – not a disagreement with the principle of the bill.[56] He plans to work with the California Health and Human Services Agency and Department of Public Health to find solutions.[57]
The most popular of solutions is merger of Florida and California’s state laws. Consumer Reports suggest that policymakers broadly prohibit the use of genetic data in insurance underwriting and prohibit insurers from discriminating against individuals who do not provide such information.[58] Moreover, Consumer Reports urges lawmakers to resolve the regulatory gap by making genetic data, created via DTC genetic testing, privileged and confidential, and empowering consumers to control who has access to their genetic information.[59] However there is an alternative that American Bar Association’s Business Law Section Cyberspace Committee Chair Theodore F. Claypoole points out, “Americans [should] test their DNA through their doctors – where the results are protected by law . . . rather than through charlatans who provide little but entertainment and may use or sell your DNA for any purpose.”[60]
[1] Edison Research, Edison Research Announces Top 50 U.S. Podcasts for 2020 by Audience Size, Edison Research (Feb. 9, 2021), https://www.edisonresearch.com/the-top-50-most-listened-to-u-s-podcasts-of-2020/.
[2] SF Gate, Here’s how the Golden State Killer got all of his nicknames, SFGATE.COM (Apr. 26, 2018), https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/slideshow/The-East-Bay-Killer-Golden-State-Killer-nicknames-180737.php.
[3] JV Chamary, How Genetic Genealogy Helped Catch The Golden State Killer, Forbes (June 30, 2020), https://www.forbes.com/sites/jvchamary/2020/06/30/genetic-genealogy-golden-state-killer/?sh=5e6596b75a6d
[4] Paige St. John, The untold story of how the Golden State Killer was found: A covert operation and private DNA, Los Angeles Times (Dec. 8, 2020) https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-12-08/man-in-the-window.
[5] Hon. Herbert B. Dixton Jr., If You Think Your DNA Is Anonymous, Think Again!, American Bar Association (May 13, 2020), https://www.americanbar.org/groups/judicial/publications/judges_journal/2020/spring/if-you-think-your-dna-anonymous-think-again/#ref7.
[16] Heather Murphy, Tim Arango, Joseph DeAngelo Pleads Guilty in Golden State Killer Cases, New York Times (Jun. 29, 2020), https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/29/us/golden-state-killer-joseph-deangelo.html.
[17] Heather Murphy, Genealogy Sites Have Helped Identify Suspects. Now They’ve Helped Convict One., New York Times (Jul. 1, 2019) https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/01/us/dna-genetic-genealogy-trial.html.
[18] Neil Vigdor, Oregon Man Is Charged With Two Murders Committed Two Decades Apart, New York Times (Mar. 11, 2021), https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/11/us/christopher-lovrien-orgeon-murder.html.
[20] American Hospital Association, Consumers Buy into Genetic Testing Kits, American Hospital Association (Sept. 16, 2019), https://www.aha.org/aha-center-health-innovation-market-scan/2019-09-16-consumers-buy-genetic-testing-kits.
[21] Jocelyn Kaiser, We will find you: DNA search used to nab Golden State Killer can home in on about 60% of white Americans, Science Mag American Association for the Advancement of Science, https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/10/we-will-find-you-dna-search-used-nab-golden-state-killer-can-home-about-60-white.
[22] Martin Niemöller, First They Came, Amnesty, https://www.amnesty.org.uk/files/2019-01/First%20They%20Came%20by%20Martin%20Niem%C3%B6ller_0.pdf?l6HOtWW1N8umC_ELxnQI6NpaAYbxRCJj= (“First they came for the [], And I did not speak out Because I was not a [] . . . Then they came for me And there was no one left To speak out for me.”).
[23] Gina Kolata, Heather Murphy, The Golden State Killer Is Tracked Through a Thicket of DNA, and Experts Shudder, New York Times (Apr. 27, 2018), https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/27/health/dna-privacy-golden-state-killer-genealogy.html?action=click&module=RelatedLinks&pgtype=Article.
[24] Heather Murphy, Why a Data Breach at a Genealogy Site Has Privacy Experts Worried, New York Times (Aug. 1, 2020), https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/01/technology/gedmatch-breach-privacy.html.
[25] Jocelyn Kaiser, We will find you: DNA search used to nab Golden State Killer can home in on about 60% of white Americans, Science Magazine (Oct. 11, 2018), https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/10/we-will-find-you-dna-search-used-nab-golden-state-killer-can-home-about-60-white.
[26] Kristen V. Brown, How a Third Cousin Could Give Away Your DNA Secrets, The Washington Post (Dec. 4, 2020), https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/how-a-third-cousin-could-give-away-your-dna-secrets/2020/12/04/089339a0-35ef-11eb-9699-00d311f13d2d_story.html.
[27] Peter Ney, Luis Ceze, Tadayoshi Koohno, Genotype Extraction and False Relative Attacks: Security Risks to Third-Party Genetic Genealogy Services Beyond Identity Inference, Paul G. Allen School of Computer Science & Engineering University of Washington (2019), https://dnasec.cs.washington.edu/genetic-genealogy/ney_ndss.pdf.
[29] Antonio Regalado, The DNA database used to find the Golden State Killer is a national security leak waiting to happen, MIT Technology Review (Oct. 30, 2019), https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/10/30/132142/dna-database-gedmatch-golden-state-killer-security-risk-hack/#:~:text=Crowdsourcing%20DNA&text=In%202017%2C%20police%20in%20California,identify%20some%20of%20his%20relatives.
[31] Heather Murphy, Why a Data Breach at a Genealogy Site Has Privacy Experts Worried, New York Times (Aug. 1, 2020), https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/01/technology/gedmatch-breach-privacy.html.
[32] Consumer Reports, The privacy risks of at-home DNA tests, The Washington Post (Sept. 14, 2020), https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/dna-tests-privacy-risks/2020/09/11/6a783a34-d73b-11ea-9c3b-dfc394c03988_story.html.
[33] Justin Brookman, Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing: The Law Must Protect Consumers’ Genetic Privacy, Consumer Reports (Jul. 2020), https://advocacy.consumerreports.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/DTC-Genetic-Testing-White-Paper-4.pdf.
[35] James W. Hazel & Christopher Slobogin, Who Knows What, and When: A Survey of the Privacy Policies
Proffered by U.S. Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing Companies, 28 Cornell J. L. & Pub. Pol’y 35, 43 (2018),
https://ssrn.com/abstract=3165765.
[36] Stephen Gandel, Private equity wants to own your DNA, CBSNews (Aug. 7, 2020), https://www.cbsnews.com/news/blackstone-private-equity-ancestry-com-dna/; Matt Anderson, Blackstone to Acquire Ancestry®, Leading Online Family History Business, for $4.7 Billion, Blackstone (Aug. 5, 2020), https://www.blackstone.com/press-releases/article/blackstone-to-acquire-ancestry-leading-online-family-history-business-for-4-7-billion/.
[37] Stephen Gandel, Private equity wants to own your DNA, CBSNews (Aug. 7, 2020), https://www.cbsnews.com/news/blackstone-private-equity-ancestry-com-dna/.
[38] Kristen V Brown, 23andMe Goes Public as $3.5 Billion Company With Branson Aid, Bloomberg (Feb. 4, 2021), https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-02-04/23andme-to-go-public-as-3-5-billion-company-via-branson-merger.
[39] Theodore F. Claypoole, Privacy Risk of Recreational DNA Testing: States Take Action, The National Law Review (Sept. 8, 2020), https://www.natlawreview.com/article/privacy-risks-recreational-dna-testing-states-take-action.
[40] Scott Loughlin, Katherine Kwong, Sophie Baum, California Governor vetoes bill to establish the Genetic Information Privacy Act, Hogan Lovells US LLP (Sept. 29, 2020), https://www.engage.hoganlovells.com/knowledgeservices/viewContent.action?key=Ec8teaJ9VarqvjDR56S2DcxgHJMKLFEppVpbbVX%2B3OXcP3PYxlq7sZUjdbSm5FIetvAtgf1eVU8%3D&nav=FRbANEucS95NMLRN47z%2BeeOgEFCt8EGQ0qFfoEM4UR4%3D&emailtofriendview=true&freeviewlink=true.
[41] Carson Martinez, Privacy Best Practices for Consumer Genetic Testing Services, Future of Privacy Forum (last updated Feb. 9, 2021), https://fpf.org/blog/privacy-best-practices-for-consumer-genetic-testing-services/.
[48]Id.; Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, https://www.cdc.gov/phlp/publications/topic/hipaa.html (last visited Mar. 22, 2021).
[50] Jake Holland, Daniel R. Stoller, With Congress Quiet, States Step in to Safeguard Genetic Privacy, Bloomberg Law (Sept. 1, 2020), https://news.bloomberglaw.com/privacy-and-data-security/with-congress-quiet-states-step-in-to-safeguard-genetic-privacy.
[53] Jo Cicchetti, Nolan Tully, Florida Bill Restricting Life Insurers’ Use of Genetic Information Signed by Governor DeSantis, Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP (Jul. 1, 2020), https://tinyurl.com/h5bj524e.
