For most Americans, the right to a jury trial seems foundational: something guaranteed, immutable, and distinctly public. But for tens of millions of workers and consumers, that right has quietly disappeared.[1] Not through constitutional amendment or legislation, but through boilerplate contract language few ever read and none can negotiate. In a sharp dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg once warned that the Supreme Court had transformed the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) into a regime that “subordinates employee-protective labor legislation” and forces workers to “go it alone.”[2] Justice Ginsburg’s warning was prophetic. Mandatory arbitration clauses—now standard in employment contracts, consumer agreements, and online terms of service—require individuals to waive their right to bring disputes before a judge or jury.[3] Instead, claims are resolved in private, confidential proceedings before arbitrators whose decisions are effectively final.[4] What was once a voluntary mechanism for resolving disputes between sophisticated commercial parties has metastasized into a structural feature of everyday economic life.

When potential misconduct in a company comes to light, many focus on one overriding concern: what will regulators do when they find out? However, long before an agency opens an investigation or a subpoena arrives, a different process has already been long underway, one that may ultimately shape the company’s legal exposure more than the government’s first move. This internal compliance process—consisting of initial reporting triage, internal investigations, documentation controls, risk assessments, and remedial decision-making—frequently determines how regulators later interpret the company’s knowledge, intent, and good faith.

Internal investigations conducted in the early stages of a potential compliance issue play a critical role in determining how regulators and courts later assess a company’s conduct.[1] Decisions about who conducts the investigation, how it is scoped, what is documented, and how findings are addressed can significantly affect enforcement outcomes, privilege disputes, and litigation risk.[2] Thus, liability is shaped not only by the underlying conduct, but by how the company responds before regulators arrive.

            Within the past decade, there have been several high-profile cases where companies have shielded themselves from mass tort litigation on common avenues such as class actions or multi-district litigation by declaring bankruptcy.^[1] The Johns-Manville Corporation case in the 1980s was one of the pioneer mass tort litigation bankruptcies that not only originated what would soon be referred to as the Texas Two-Step, but created a rabbit hole as to how mass torts should be handled within the bankruptcy system.^[2] This case concerned personal injury liabilities of claimants involving asbestos exposure, which is why section 524(g) was created, “to strengthen the trust/injunction mechanisms and offer similar certitude to other asbestos/trust injunction mechanisms that meet the same kind of high standards with respect to the rights of the claimants.”^[3] The question remains, can you give the same treatment to all tort victims? Does it matter what the mass tort is? In today’s climate, the realms of these cases include but are not limited to claims within the opioid crisis, products liability, and sexual misconduct.^[4]

How much can you trust a company that advertises AI as “unbiased,” “fully automated,” or “guaranteed to improve outcomes”? Since ChatGPT burst onto the scene in late 2022, generative artificial intelligence has taken the marketplace by storm.^[1] As businesses scramble to embrace the technology, many have pivoted to marketing AI-powered products that promise to revolutionize everything from legal services to e-commerce.^[2]

^[1] Kathleen Benway et al., Consumer Protection/FTC Advisory: The FTC Takes Aim at Deceptive AI Claims, Alston & Bird (Oct. 2, 2024) https://www.alston.com/en/insights/publications/2024/10/the-ftc-takes-aim-at-deceptive-ai-claims [https://perma.cc/F39Y-LT7R].

^[2] Id; FTC Announces Crackdown on Deceptive AI Claims and Schemes, Federal Trade Commission (Sept. 25, 2024), https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/09/ftc-announces-crackdown-deceptive-ai-claims-schemes [https://perma.cc/5XJ3-7PB2].

Paris Hilton has spent much of her public life navigating a double-edged sword: visibility brings opportunity, but it also invites exploitation. In recent months, Hilton has stepped into a new role as a digital rights advocate, urging lawmakers to confront one of the most disturbing byproducts of artificial intelligence (“AI”): non-consensual AI-generated deepfake pornography.^[1] Her testimony and lobbying efforts highlight a growing realization that deepfakes are not just a problem that impacts celebrities, but a real threat to privacy, autonomy, and human dignity as AI continues to develop.^[2] By framing deepfake pornography as a violation of consent rather than a technological curiosity, Hilton has helped reorient public debate around the human cost of synthetic media abuse.^[3]

For over 100 years, the State of Delaware has set the benchmark in corporate law.[1]  The jurisdiction has served as the dominant forum for business formation and corporate governance in the United States, even reaching a global presence, with lawyers from all over the world being well-versed in the foundational legal decisions developed by Delaware courts.[2] Delaware’s specialized Court of Chancery, whose jurists are experts in corporate law, has formed several of the paradigmatic corporate law doctrines that have shaped the practice of business law.[3] However, there has been a recent exodus of corporations from Delaware to reincorporate in other jurisdictions.[4] Most notably, Texas, Nevada, Wyoming, and Oklahoma have emerged as competitors to Delaware, and have attempted to write favorable business laws to attract corporations to reincorporate within their respective forums.[5] Texas, Nevada, and Oklahoma have gone a step further and have developed their own business trial courts to rival Delaware’s Court of Chancery.[6] Will the emergence of business courts in other jurisdictions dethrone Delaware as the corporate law capital of the world?

This past fall, the Vanderbilt Commodores football team finished their season with a 10-3 record, earning a spot in College Football’s Top 25 and consideration for the NCAA’s new College Football Playoff tournament.^[1] One of the team’s biggest contributors was quarterback Diego Pavia.^[2] Pavia finished second in Heisman Trophy voting, college football’s biggest individual honor.^[3]

Since 2021, NCAA College Football has become increasingly commercialized.^[4] As financial considerations and repercussions of each decision become more pronounced, so does the opportunity for litigation and creation of a new body of law. In October 2025, the Sixth Circuit dismissed the defendant’s appeal in Pavia v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n.^[5]

Can printing a banner make someone a foreign agent? In 2019, a Pennsylvania church asked the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) this exact question.^[1] If the Church, as originally planned, included an international foundation’s logo on the banner and allowed members of the foundation to carry the banner, then the Church would become an agent of the international foundation.^[2]  As an agent, the Church would be required to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (“FARA”) despite the fact that the banner was set to be printed and carried in the United States.^[3]

While registration may sound like little more than filing paperwork, in reality, registering as an agent under FARA can be expensive and burdensome. In addition to the $305 filing fee, those filing as agents under FARA must make extensive disclosures to the DOJ.^[4] These disclosures span from handing over the names, addresses, and nationality of officers and everyone who does the work of an officer, to disclosing in detail the nature of all oral agreements and potential acts the agent might take on behalf of the principal.^[5]  It is also a continuing responsibility; every six months, agents must file supplemental statements, which cost $305 per foreign principal the agent has a relationship with

In contemporary America, few industries have expanded as rapidly or as aggressively as online sports betting. Not too long ago, sports betting was merely a Las Vegas vice. Now, it’s only an app notification away. Gambling used to be a niche pastime reserved for high rollers in smokey casinos or blue-collared workers jam packed in an underground gambling ring hoping to bring home a few extra bucks.^[1] Sports betting has undergone a metamorphosis, transforming into a mainstream acknowledged addiction that can be exacerbated at the touch of a button.^[2] The chokehold and reach that sportsbooks have on gamblers has blurred the lines between entertainment and serious risks. From television commercials, social media, podcasts, and everything in-between, sports gambling has conquered the attention and bank accounts of millions.^[3] In this new era, artificial intelligence, personalized algorithms, and data exposure leave the door open to vulnerable gamblers to succumb to predatory data use and financial instability.^[4] It is undeniably true that a systematic, algorithmic ecosystem lies behind the phone screen, turning sports gambling from a game of chance to a data-driven machine where the house always wins.^[5]

Over the last twenty years, digital piracy has evolved from peer-to-peer file sharing into organized, monetized streaming operations. Early platforms like Napster and BitTorrent popularized the free exchange of digital files, but contemporary piracy sites have adopted professional web design, advertising functions, and even subscription models that emulate legacy media services.^[1] Sports piracy can be especially lucrative—live sports broadcasts command  massive audiences and generate billions of dollars in rights fees.^[2] However, once a digital pirate gains access to broadcast delivery infrastructure, content can be restreamed globally at a low cost.^[3] This creates a situation where consumers gain free and immediate access to programs, while rights-holders lose exclusivity, broadcasters lose subscribers, and advertisers lose reliable audience metrics. Annual losses from live sports piracy have been estimated at tens of billions of dollars.

When the Supreme Court struck down the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) in Murphy v. NCAA on May 14, 2018, eliminating the federal ban on sports betting, it opened the door for the emergence of the NBA’s most recent gambling scandal.^[1] On October 23rd of this year, Portland Trail Blazers coach Chauncey Billups, Miami Heat guard Terry Rozier, and former Cleveland Cavaliers player and assistant coach Damon Jones were just three notable names amidst the thirty-four individuals who were arrested for taking part in illegal sports betting and rigged poker games backed by the Mafia.^[2] Rozier has been accused of using and exchanging insider NBA information to place bets, receive payments, or receive a share of profits from other bettors on at least seven NBA games between March 2023 and March 2024.^[3] In three of those games, players reportedly withdrew themselves from play to help ensure the gamblers’ bets would pay off.^[4] In the aftermath of this scandal, growing concerns and debates over the expanding legalization of sports betting have become increasingly urgent.^[5]

On May 30, 2025, Taylor Swift announced the end of a battle she had been engaged in since August of 2018. Swift finally reclaimed the rights to her first six albums and all associated videos, art, photography, and content from Shamrock Capital.^[1] Swift gets to turn the page on this era and claim a win for herself and other established artists; however, the same cannot be said for newer artists.

Companies face growing accountability for the negative social implications of their business practices.^[1] This is seen in the tobacco industry, opioid industry, and now, the firearm industry.^[2] However, in a field where regulation is extremely contested, many cities are forced to navigate a complex legal environment while doing what they can to promote the safety of their citizens. A recent example of this was seen in August 2025 when a jury in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City returned a 62-million-dollar verdict to the City of Baltimore.^[3] This is referred to as “the largest ever verdict a gun dealer defendant has been dealt in American history.”^[4]

As it becomes more commonplace that digital interaction replaces human connection, a new lawsuit raises questions about the lines between code, companionship, and corporate accountability.^[1] The parents of Adam Raine, a 16-year-old who died by suicide,  filed a lawsuit against OpenAI, one of the world’s leading artificial intelligence firms.^[2] They allege that their son developed a harmful psychological dependence on the company’s ChatGPT-4o model, which they claim not only failed to de-escalate his mental health crisis, but provided explicit instructions and even encouragement for his suicide.^[3] Far from an isolated incident, this case casts a grim spotlight on a growing and largely unregulated industry of called “Addictive Intelligence.”^[4] These AI systems are designed not just to assist, but to form deep, emotionally resonant bonds with users.^[5]

Hailey Welch, host of podcast “Talk Tuah,” recently found herself in the middle of a legal crisis after launching her own cryptocurrency, "HAWK."^[1] HAWK debuted on December 4, 2024, rising to a $500 million market cap within hours before plummeting to $60 million shortly after.^[2] The unexpected downfall of HAWK caused outrage, prompting speculation among investors of a potential “pump and dump” scheme.^[3] A “pump and dump” scheme is when promoters boost the price of a cryptocurrency through false or misleading statements, leading to the promoters quickly dumping the asset at the inflated price, causing the cryptocurrency to plummet in price as investors lose confidence in its viability.^[4] Some pointed to insider wallets and crypto snipers, insider traders who exploit market inefficiencies by buying cryptocurrencies at launch then quickly selling the security at its peak price, as the culprits behind the crash.^[5] However, Welch firmly denied any wrongdoing, asserting that no one from her team sold any of their holdings.^[6] Despite the chaos, Welch’s crypto journey ended happier than most. The Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) investigated the incident but ultimately closed the case without filing charges or seeking financial penalties.^[7]

As President Trump makes his return to the White House, the U.S. is once again using tariffs as a major part of its economic policy reform in 2025. How will the 2025 tariffs differ from those implemented in 2018? Why is Trump restoring his stringent tariff policy? Who will feel the impact from these drastic administration changes?

Digital advertising is a critical part of most online business strategies, it enables businesses to reach their customers directly with minimal resistance to the final conversion, whether through a purchase or lead generation.^[1] Meta advertising is among the most rewarding digital advertising platforms for businesses due to its highly targeted advertising capabilities .^[2] However, this precision sparks concerns over consumer data privacy, making Meta the target of numerous lawsuits.

Earlier this month the Supreme Court rendered invalid the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permit authorizing the City and County of San Francisco’s wastewater treatment facility to operate, and to discharge treated wastewater into the Pacific Ocean.^[1] In its holding, the Court found certain portions of the permit deficient under Section 1311(b)(1)(C) of the Clean Water Act (“CWA”), finding that the statute does not support the use of narrative standards.^[2]

KPMG has gained approval from the Arizona Supreme Court to practice law in Arizona, making it the first Big Four accounting, tax, and consulting company set to operate a law firm in the US.^[1] This ruling will certainly change the market for legal services. With lower barriers to entry, will more accounting firms be encouraged to join the legal market? Will these accounting company owned law firms steal the business of existing firm attorneys specializing in tax matters? Will other states follow suit by allowing non-lawyers to own law firms? While the exact implications of the Court’s decision remain uncertain, it is certain that there will be a new, powerful entrant in the market for legal services.

Companies have utilized celebrity endorsements to promote their products for centuries.^[1] In modern times, brands leverage a celebrity’s image and loyal following to bolster sales. Nike is known to create inspirational advertisements which often rely on professional athletes overcoming adversity.^[2] However, Nike is somewhat of an outlier by hiring celebrities whose profession closely aligns to their brand. Many other companies seem to pick somewhat random choices. For example, State Farm Insurance and football player Patrick Mahomes,^[3] Aveeno and actress Jennifer Anniston,^[4] and Allegiant Airlines and singer Carrie Underwood.^[5]