In the last couple days I have had several students share current events that range from the meaningful to the very, very silly. All are fun, and a continual reminder of the relevance of law and ethics in our world. I decided to share all the links here, and more importantly, it inspired me to do a “Student Choice” week every semester. Enjoy!
Starting with the silly: this very mean man sued his wife for fraud when she had ugly babies. I hope he wins enough money to pay for his daughter’s therapy bills!
In the “don’t forget to read the fine print” category, this couple is being sued for libel for posting a negative review.
Finally, our most useful current event of the week, an end of the year list! I love end of the year lists and countdowns. This list is of the important tech laws that have been enacted this year.
Thanks to all the students who shared. Keep them coming!
6 Comments
Renee Schwacke posted on December 11, 2013 at 1:10 pm
With respect to the silly lawsuit, I was first shocked to learn that a man would even think to sue his wife for having ugly babies, but clearly their marriage had more problems than just the looks of their children. The fact that the wife decided to hide her extensive plastic surgery from her husband reveals that their marriage was based on a lie. It reminds me of purchasing a used car without the car facts. Marriage of course should hopefully be based on much more than superficiality, but it’s also important to know the facts of the person you choose to marry before you make that commitment.
Callum Johnstone posted on December 22, 2013 at 9:44 pm
I am absolutely shocked that it is illegal to unlock you phone and move to another carrier. Firstly I would say that this is almost unenforceable, the process of unlocking a phone is relatively simple an takes no more than an hour at most. Secondly as a consumer I resent being locked into an agreement with a supplier that extends into perpetuity, especially cell phone carriers who excel in being awful and are essentially undifferentiated. Lastly this is bad for the market in general, the incentive moves to generating sales as opposed to providing service to the customer.
Eugene Kang posted on December 26, 2013 at 7:31 pm
Maybe it’s because Callum is my Integrated Project teammate but I have to agree with his assessment. However, I’m thinking that the restrictions on phone unlocks are less from the carrier and more on the manufacturer’s end. Cell phone manufacturers are most likely trying to generate competition amongst service carriers bidding for their products. As a result, carriers are forced to impose contractual restrictions upon the consumer in order to increase/maintain their margins that are influenced by the manufacturer. These companies are not without blame as they are able to rack up service fees and other charges in the duration of the aforementioned contracts. The resulting limitations upon the consumer, albeit frustrating, may be interpreted as collateral damage of the competitive landscape.
Pazit G posted on January 5, 2014 at 10:23 pm
Another one with respect to the silly lawsuit, and in following to Renee’s comment-I am shocked not so much by the lawsuit (people do “silly” things…), but by the fact he won! I agree that in a healthy marriage the wife’s $100,000 worth of surgeries probably should have been brought up at some point, however I don’t know if I would go as far as Renee to say this means that their marriage was based on a lie (and even if it was- is that grounds for a lawsuit??). I mean, there’s also the reasonable person standard, which it doesn’t seem like the husband followed. He probably didn’t bother to get to know her that well either if he didn’t see ANY photos of her from before the surgery. He also didn’t seem to notice the looks of his first and second children because he obviously waited until the third to sue her (I’m not judging the kids’ looks, but in my opinion they resemble each other a lot)… if you think this discussion is getting a bit off track, this is exactly my point and the reason why I don’t think it’s the courts’ business to get into these matters of our personal lives.
Kerlyne Jean posted on January 10, 2014 at 10:32 pm
As a yelp enthusiast and avid online shopper, the story about the $3500 fine from KlearGear definitely caught my eye. New forums for feedback and reviews allow consumers the opportunity to share their experiences with businesses and offer unbiased (though not always) information about the good and bad. The thought that companies would go as far as implementing ways to prevent this exchange and even punish customers (with financial hardships at that!) for such an act is rather appalling.
The day of “the customer is always right” seems to be antiquated. With the amount of fraud and credit card theft that occurs during the holidays I can understand a customer trying to make others aware. KlearGear definitely could have addressed the concerns and handled the situation differently.
It reminds us how much web activity could potentially affect a business. Had this been word of mouth and not posted somewhere it would be a non-issue. With changing technologies and global access to consumers, companies are seeking ways to protect themselves from angry consumers. We sign away our rights every day without being aware, there should be a requirement to to post this disclosure in the submit payment section. But honestly, sometimes we online shoppers do get a little trigger happy, so who knows if that would stop me.
Matt Schuster posted on January 12, 2014 at 3:29 pm
I see two major conflicting arguments that would both support the “competitive market” position.
Locking in a consumer to one carrier disincentivizes the carrier from investing in new solutions to differentiate itself from peers. However, the ability to unlock a phone undermines a carrier’s competitive advantage that was achieved through partnership with the phone manufacturer. If companies such as T-Mobile can forego this investment, it arguably puts them at an unfair competitive advantage to other carriers and allows them to artificially deflate prices.
In the end, I expect the market will develop the most effective solution by encouraging companies to take Apple’s lead in versioning products that are both “locked” and “unlocked”. This solution allows the carrier to discount service packages appropriately and also provide increased consumer choice. I could see a relationship developing whereby the manufacturer offers a discount to the carrier for unlocked phones. The manufacturer would sell at a higher price point for locked phones because of its higher value to the carrier.