In the popular Netflix series Ozark, money launderer Marty Byrde expends a lot of time and energy mitigating the risks that relate to his work, including his drug cartel client, a pair of farmers, the local pastor, and his own employee and her relatives—but financial regulators never appear to be a blip on his radar. Would the series turn out differently if Marty’s bank had used artificial intelligence to examine his deposits?
In a time when information is increasingly shared through social media, companies—particularly publicly traded ones—must recognize and consider the potential legal ramifications that could arise from statements made by executives, board members, and/or other employees about the company on social media. Though the actions of a certain well-known technology entrepreneur have provided perhaps the most prominent example of these ramifications, there are plenty of other cautionary tales reminding us that a powerful marketing tool that allows company CEOs to connect directly with consumers carries a host of possible legal consequences. Among the most potentially damaging—time-consuming and costly securities-related litigation, both with complaints involving the SEC and private shareholder litigation.
Earlier this month, we discussed the ways in which companies should navigate negative critiques and reputation management in the Age of Social Media. One option includes the pursuit of litigation, often demonstrated through claims for defamation. This course of action can typically be found in the context of a negative review: a company provides a service, customer is unhappy with the service, customer posts negative review about company online. In California, a company that wishes to claim said review has crossed a line must then prove (1) the customer made a false, defamatory statement concerning the company, (2) the customer made an unprivileged publication to a third party, (3) the publisher of the false statements acted at least negligently in its publication, and (4) the statement had a natural tendency to injure or cause special damage.
Algorithms behave pretty much as they are programmed to (for good and ill); augmented reality continues to seep into the auto industry; humans strive for immortality; and more …
Managing reputation is tough when every person with a social media account is a potential critic with global reach. Organizations must contend with the concern that one negative social media posting could destroy hard-earned goodwill built up through years of thoughtful investments and interactions. While social media platforms allow for organizations to efficiently engage with their target audience, they also allow users to easily become the targets of reputational attacks, such as unfounded complaints or smear campaigns. The potential for posts to go viral, the ability for posts to remain with seeming permanence on the internet and the capacity for social media users to mask their identities make it difficult for organizations to mitigate the consequences of an online reputational attack. The good news is that victims of such an attack are not without recourse. Generally, there are four options for responding to a negative social media post:
If, when and how to respond are decisions that must be made by each organization individually after considering several factors, including those discussed below.
“AI will most likely lead to the end of the world, but in the meantime, there’ll be great companies.” –Sam Altman
Artificial intelligence (AI) is a controversial topic. It is easy to imagine a near future where AI solves some of our greatest problems and a relatively more distant future where AI becomes our greatest problem. For now, AI has yet to rebel against us and is proving to be a valuable tool in our everyday lives. AI is being deployed to help companies improve productivity, reduce costs, streamline processes, and unlock analytics and insights that weren’t previously available. Like past disruptive technologies, AI presents new issues under familiar areas of concern. Every company needs to know how their data is being used. AI technology adds a new layer of complexity to that all-too-familiar issue.
With the World Series upon us, here in Los Angeles, all eyes are on the Dodgers, who are in the hunt for their first championship trophy since 1988, a year best remembered for its epic mustaches and Kirk Gibson’s cinematic, two-out, walk-off home run. What may have gotten lost in the excitement, though, is a unique Dodgers fan giveaway that might also be remembered years from now.
We often write about the benefits and pitfalls of social media usage. As companies and big businesses employ social media as an advertising mainstay, one pitfall we frequently encounter is the failure to properly manage a company’s social media handles. Like most pitfalls, these issues can be avoided. At a minimum, companies should have in place a robust and effective social media policy that is up to date on the current relevant laws, including privacy, advertising and employment laws. The policy should also include training, policing and reporting mechanisms that include clear guidance on what can and cannot come through on the company’s social media.
The journey by which the blockchain and its underlying distributed ledger technology (DLT) becomes an everyday aspect of doing business is one of a thousand small steps, many of them legislative and regulatory. In “California’s New Law on Corporate Blockchain Use,” colleagues Sara J. O’Connell and Riaz A. Karamali examine California’s recently signed SB-838, which amends Cal. Corp. Code § 204 (General Corporation Law) and Cal. Corp. Code § 2603 (Social Purpose Corporation Act) to allow certain corporations to use blockchain technology for certain corporate records. (Legislation triggering the formation of a “blockchain working group” that will evaluate the risks and legal implications associated with the use of the technology by state government and California-based businesses was also signed into law.)
Too often, a company with a new, promising product is caught by surprise when a competitor asserts an infringement claim against it on the technology underlying the product. Sometimes, the surprise isn’t that such a claim has been made, but rather that the company’s CGL insurance doesn’t have—or expressly excludes—patent coverage. Over at Policyholder Pulse, our colleague Sean Williams examines this all-too-common quandary and looks at some options for “Plugging the Patent Coverage Gap.”
