University of Baltimore Law Review

Buy Now, Pay Later, Regulate Never: The CFPB’s Failed Attempt to Govern BNPL Lending

*Colin Livingston

I. Introduction

“Buy now, pay later” programs have quickly become a popular interest-free credit option, with disproportionately high use “among financially vulnerable consumers.”^[1] Retailers offer these programs “through payment platforms like Afterpay, Klarna, and Affirm[,]” allowing consumers to pay for “online or in-store purchases. . . [through] installments over a short period” of time.^[2] According to a 2025 survey, about one in three U.S. adults has used a “buy now, pay later” service for at least one purchase.^[3] Furthermore, the global “buy now, pay later” (BNPL) market is projected “to reach $560.1 billion in 2025. . . [and] expand. . . to approximately $911.8 billion” by the end of 2030, reflecting its rapid growth in how consumers finance and purchase products.^[4] Despite the development of this credit option, BNPL programs are not subject to the same regulatory requirements governing traditional credit card companies, including Regulation Z, which implements the Truth in Lending Act.^[5]

Unscripted Gains and Unseen Losses: How Reality TV Stars Could Win in Court but Still Lose the Fight for Employee Status

*Chauncey Bellamy

I. Introduction

Lawsuits have been piling up against the makers of reality TV.^[1] From Bravo’s The Real Housewives franchise to Netflix’s Love Is Blind, reality TV stars have taken their complaints about unsafe working conditions and substandard pay to the courts.^[2] For instance, Leah McSweeney, former star of The Real Housewives of New York City, alleges that producers “mocked her sobriety, egged on castmates to push her buttons, and created an environment that made it nearly impossible to stay sober.”^[3] Stephen Richardson, a former contestant on Love Is Blind, alleges in a recent class action that producers took away contestants’ phones, wallets, and ID cards and told staff not to give contestants any food.^[4] Jeremy Hartwell, another former Love Is Blind castmate, “revealed that contestants were paid $1,000 per week,” amounting to “roughly $7 per hour for working 20 hours a day and seven days a week.”^[5]

To resolve these complaints, three potential solutions include (1) courts granting reality TV participants “employee” status, (2) participants unionizing to protect themselves from future harm,^[6] and (3) stars funding shows on their own.^[7] Due to the profit motive inherent in the television industry, however, each solution could yield unintended and undesirable consequences, presenting obstacles to meaningful change.^[8]

Keep Your Poker Face: Revisiting the Legality of Gambling in Professional and Collegiate Sports Amidst the NBA’s Betting Scandal

*Madeline Waits

I. Introduction

Do you trust your favorite athletes not to waste your life savings? The sports industry is one of the largest markets in America, and gambling has risen alongside it.^[1] While gambling is legal in thirty-nine states, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico, the underground illegal gambling market poses issues for the legal gambling market, as well as the sports leagues at the heart of the industry.^[2] Athletes, coaches, and other individuals involved in professional sports are prohibited from partaking in gambling related to their own leagues, while collegiate athletes are prohibited from gambling on any sport.^[3] However, the illegal gambling market has captured athletes, coaches, and even those with ties to well-known figures in the sports industry, such as the interpreter for three-time Major League Baseball (MLB) MVP Shohei Ohtani.^[4] In October of 2025, individuals tied to the National Basketball Association (NBA) were arrested, bringing the illegal gambling market back into the spotlight.^[5]

Will the Supreme Court’s Desire to Combat Homelessness Limit FIFA’s Human Rights Goals?

*Calista Heister

I. Introduction

The United States will be one of the host countries of the 2026 FIFA World Cup across eleven host cities.^[1] During this global soccer tournament, host cities will follow a framework to accommodate the large crowds and ensure a safe event for all.^[2] Human rights concerns repeatedly arise during the FIFA World Cup, as well as other sporting events such as the Olympics, when international laws coincide with the domestic laws of host States.^[3] The United States needs to address the potential for human displacement that has occurred at previous events, such as the Paris Olympics.^[4] For the first time, Federation International Football Association (FIFA), the soccer governing body, is implementing a human rights framework called the FWC26 Human Rights Framework that aims to combat the concerns of potential human rights violations, including the displacement of homeless people in American cities.^[5] The United States Supreme Court recently decided, in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, that governing encampments of homeless people does not constitute “cruel and unusual punishment” under the Eighth Amendment.^[6] As the 2026 FIFA World Cup approaches, the Supreme Court’s encampment ordinances decision poses a concern for the safety and fair treatment of those experiencing homelessness who may be displaced.^[7]

Deepfakes in the Courtroom: Challenges in Authenticating Evidence and Jury Evaluation

*Colin Livingston

I. Introduction

In a UK child custody dispute, a mother presented a “heavily doctored recording” in court to portray the father as “violent and threatening” in an effort to deny him access to his children.^[1] The father’s attorney successfully challenged the recording’s authenticity and warned that “it would never occur to most judges that deepfake material could be submitted as evidence.”^[2] Advances in technology and AI have enabled the creation of “deepfake” content that convincingly portrays individuals as doing or saying things that never occurred.^[3] Courts must now assess the authenticity of evidence that may have been altered in ways that make manipulation difficult to detect.^[4] As AI technology advances and deepfakes become easier to produce,^[5] courts can expect more cases that challenge the application of traditional evidentiary rules and frameworks.^[6]