Government Regulation of Cybersecurity Practices

Government Regulation of Cybersecurity Practices: FTC v. Wyndham Worldwide Corp.
“You might want to check your [insert business name] account. They’ve been hacked.”

Marie Claire Langlois*

It is a warning heard far too often.  Companies from Target to Sony, from Home Depot to JPMorgan Chase, are all recovering from the malicious attacks of hackers intending to steal thousands of client’s identities for their own benefit.  Kevin Granville, 9 Recent Cyberattacks Against Big Businesses, N.Y. Times, (Feb. 5, 2015), http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/02/05/technology/recent-cyberattacks.html.  Since many times the hacker’s identities are never known, private consumers can only bring legal action against the businesses holding their personal information by alleging insufficient protection for commercially unreasonable cybersecurity practices.  Alison Frankel, Thanks to 3rd Circuit, companies are accountable for lax cybersecurity, Reuters (April 24, 2015), http://blogs.reuters.com/alison-frankel/2015/08/24/thanks-to-3rd-circuit-companies-are-accountable-for-lax-cybersecurity/, ¶ 2. Continue reading “Government Regulation of Cybersecurity Practices”

Comment: PASPA’s Ban on Sports Betting is Misguided

PASPA’s Ban on Sports Betting is Misguided: Save Citizens the Financially and Morally Taxing Trip to Vegas by Allowing States to Legalize Sports Wagering.

Marie Long*

      Not all Americans realize it, but betting on sports is illegal in the United States. It is the classic American duality: morally proscribing only one type of gambling while sanctioning lotteries, slots, and online poker as legal; as though they are somehow different than or more morally acceptable than betting on sports. The Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1991 (“PASPA”) sought to stop the spread of state-sponsored sports gambling and maintain the integrity of professional and amateur sports by banning any wagering by government entities or individuals on “competitive games in which amateur or professional athletes participate.”

Download the full comment by clicking the following link Long Comment – Vol 44 Online – Final.

* Expected J.D. from the University of Baltimore School of Law in May 2015.

Volume 44 Issue 1

Here’s a look at Volume 44 Issue 1:

1) J.L.’s Time Bomb Still Ticking: How Navarette’s Narrow Holding Failed to Address Important Issues Regarding Anonymous Tips, by Andrew B. Kartchner, Law Clerk to the Hon. James A. Teilborg, U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona

2) The Free Labor Standards Act? A Look at the Ongoing Discussion Regarding Unpaid Legal Internships and Externships, by Lauren K. Knight, Director of the Career Development and Externship Office at Savannah Law School

3) The Courts and National Security: The Ordeal of the State Secrets Privilege, by David Rudenstine, Sheldon H. Solow Professor of Law, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University

4) Newborn Screening Programs and Privacy: Shifting Responsibility from the Parent to the Laboratory, by Michael D. Leeb, Staff Editor, University of Baltimore Law Review

5) The Security and Exchange Commission’s Proposed Regulations Under the CROWDFUND ACT Strike a Necessary Balance Between the Burden of Disclosure Placed on Issuers of Securities and Meaningful Protection for Unsophisticated Investors, by Stuart E. Smith, Technology Editor, University of Baltimore Law Review

Practitioner Series: Valuation 101

By Robert Carter¹

Business valuations are utilized in litigation and other proceedings, which are often crucial tools for proving the legitimacy of a claim. Still, the topic of business valuations can be daunting and many misunderstand the development and intrinsic value of business valuations. For simplification purposes, a valuation encompasses the following components: gathering and analyzing relevant information, determining appropriate valuation approaches, applying the corresponding financial models, and report preparation.

Continue reading “Practitioner Series: Valuation 101”

Comment: Plessy, Buckley, and Lefty-Loosey

PLESSY, BUCKLEY, AND LEFTY-LOOSEY: HISTORY DEMONSTRATES THAT THE SPIGOT SEPARATING MONEY AND CANDIDATES WILL CONTINUE TO ROTATE IN AN OMINOUS DIRECTION.

By Kyle S. Kushner*

“Money, like water, will always find an outlet.”

– Justices O’Connor and Stevens in McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93, 224 (2003), overruled by Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310, 366 (2010).

I. INTRODUCTION

In 2012, the first presidential election cycle after the Supreme Court struck down the ban on independent corporate expenditures in Citizens United v. FEC, a mere 216 donors contributed 68% of the total funds raised by “super” political action committees. The 2012 elections also saw 646 individuals reach the maximum overall donation limit recently invalidated by the Court in McCutcheon v. FEC.

The lessons of history counsel that this influx of concentrated private donations into campaign coffers will continue unabated until the last vestiges of campaign finance regulation are eliminated.

Download the full comment by clicking the following link  Kushner Comment – Vol44 Online – Final.

* Kyle S. Kushner is a third-year law student at the University of Baltimore School of Law, where he serves as a member of the Law Review’s Executive Board. Kyle graduated from the University of South Carolina in 2012 after participating on a campaign for South Carolina Attorney General.
He thanks Professor Christopher J. Peters for his guidance and support throughout the writing process.