Intangible Harms, Tangible Consequences: Analyzing the Impact of TransUnion on Standing to Sue for Data Breach

Scholars and practitioners predicted that the 2021 Supreme Court case TransUnion v. Ramirez would essentially nullify the private right of action—a key enforcement mechanism for many consumer privacy laws. This Article analyzes federal courts (N=96) interpreting TransUnion in data breach contexts. Our contribution is twofold: (1) identifying tests courts employ to determine whether data breach plaintiffs have alleged sufficient “injury in fact” to establish Article III standing, and (2) highlighting the areas of inconsistency in how courts employ those tests. The analysis serves to ground the scholarly debate about the implications of TransUnion in holding breached entities accountable. Despite the fears expressed by privacy advocates, our results indicate that TransUnion has not effectively nullified the private right of action. Our findings show 60% of plaintiffs (n=58) successfully established injury in fact based on intangible data breach harms. Nevertheless, we found inconsistencies among the lower courts; scholars’ and practitioners’ concerns that data breach plaintiffs’ access to federal courts post-TransUnion may depend on geography are not unfounded

Federalism and the Blue Sky Laws: Reevaluating U.S. Securities Regulation

Securities regulation in the United States is an important example of federalism-in-action, given the overlapping jurisdiction of state and federal authorities over securities-related matters. However, the existing system has long been criticized as both overly burdensome and ineffective at achieving its core aims. In particular, the extensive network of state securities laws, often referred to as the “blue sky” laws, has been the subject of, and has exacerbated, many of these critiques. Tensions between federal and state activities in this area are ongoing and subject to numerous reform proposals. Yet, recent proposals to refashion the U.S. securities regulatory scheme have ultimately been unworkable and unrealistic, limited to proposals for either complete federal control of securities regulation or near-exclusive state authority in this same area. These proposals overlook key benefits built directly into the existing system

The Devil Wears Dupes: Legal Implications of “Dupe Culture” in the Fashion Industry and How Trademark Law Should Adapt

The proliferation of dupes in the fashion industry—affordable imitations of high-end designs—has created a complex intersection of intellectual property challenges, ethical concerns, and consumer behavior shifts. While dupes democratize fashion by providing low-cost access to high-end aesthetics, they undermine brand integrity, dilute designer creativity, and exacerbate labor and environmental issues tied to fast fashion. Current trademark law, centered on the Lanham Act, insufficiently addresses these challenges, particularly when dupes avoid direct counterfeiting and exploit legal gray areas. This article critiques the limitations of existing protections, evaluates alternative legal reforms, including updates to anti-dilution provisions and the use of blockchain technology, and explores the broader implications of dupe culture for designers, consumers, and the marketplace. It argues for a balanced framework that integrates strengthened anti-dilution laws with proactive blockchain authentication, aiming to protect originality while fostering market transparency and accessibility. Ultimately, this article underscores the need for nuanced solutions that preserve the creative spirit of fashion while addressing modern challenges

Toward a Politically Neutral Approach to K-12 Pedagogy

Professors Linda McClain and James Fleming have written an intellectually stimulating book manuscript, “What Shall Be Orthodox” in Polarized Times? It is a privilege to have been afforded access to an early iteration of the book and an opportunity to share our thoughts about it. We (with “we” and its related “our” and “us” denoting Cameron and John) were inspired by Professors McClain and Fleming to reflect about the relationship between pedagogy and the Constitution

Revolutionizing the System: Designing a Safe Order of Protection Mediation Program

Consider a situation where an African American man, Tony, residing in a rural southern jurisdiction, holds an order of protection against his partner, John, who is also an African American man. Furthermore, the presiding judge, an elderly white man, was known for denying orders of protection even when sought by white women, which creates an atmosphere where seeking court intervention might result in embarrassment and judgment for the client. This embarrassment and judgment stems from the stereotypes that mostly people who have engaged in criminal behavior belong in court; additionally, survivors experience shame about why they are appearing before a judge. Moreover, the alleged abuser is also averse to the order of protection, particularly with the specific details surrounding the situation. With its assurance of confidentiality, the appeal of mediation assumes a central role in these situations

Competition is for the Ring, Not the Court

Dolph Ziggler and JD McDonagh performed in a ring in front of a crowd of 20,000 people. Their match was broadcast worldwide. Ziggler placed everything on the line in a match where he wagered his entire career with World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) for the Intercontinental Championship. Back and forth the two fought. Ziggler brought an early onslaught against McDonagh. Punches and kicks rained down. McDonagh, in a turn of luck, slipped through the ropes and reversed the onslaught onto Ziggler. After the pummeling, McDonagh threw Ziggler over the ropes onto the cement floor. The referee started counting down . . . 10 . . . McDonagh slammed Ziggler’s head against the announcer’s table . . . 6 . . . and against the steel steps leading to the ring . . . 1. The match ended. No one won. Disqualification. The next day, WWE released Dolph Ziggler, ending his 19-year career with the company. A veteran of the industry, Ziggler’s newfound freedom would be a boon for any smaller wrestling organization because his fame from the WWE would draw crowds to their shows. Unfortunately for those smaller promotions, Ziggler’s contract contained a 90-day non-compete clause which prevented Ziggler from performing under similar promotions. This begs the question: who won

Responsible Realism About Artificial Intelligence: How AI is Shaping Legal and Dispute Resolution Practice, Education, and Scholarship

This article synthesizes the views of legal scholars examining how generative artificial intelligence (AI) is affecting legal and dispute resolution practice, education, and scholarship. They share a perspective of responsible realism – recognizing both the promise and the perils of AI. It is already reshaping how lawyers, neutrals, educators, students, and scholars work – and its influence will only grow.The scholars identify clear benefits: broader access, greater efficiency, and new support for professional learning. They also warn of serious risks, including bias, deskilling, and erosion of judgment. Avoiding both hype and panic, they analyze developments, offer realistic strategies, and propose policies to promote responsible use and curb misuse.This article distills their main insights into a concise and usable framework. It highlights shared themes, contrasting emphases, and practical takeaways for lawyers, neutrals, educators, students, and institutions

How AI Can Help Mediators Say What They Really Mean

This article critiques the widespread use of the terms “facilitative” and “evaluative” to describe mediation techniques. Despite their popularity in scholarship and practice, these labels are inconsistently defined, frequently misunderstood, and fundamentally flawed. Drawing on a survey of mediation experts, the article documents significant confusion about how professionals interpret these terms – and how they think that others interpret them. It builds on Leonard Riskin’s critique of the facilitative-evaluative framework, which shows that the language not only oversimplifies complex processes but also risks confusing parties and undermining informed decision-making. As an alternative, the article proposes a behavioral vocabulary that reflects mediators’ values and describes their actions in plain language. It argues that artificial intelligence (AI) tools, such as the Real Practice Systems Coach, can promote better communication by using clear terminology. The article suggests that AI tools might be more effective than traditional human-centered reform efforts in promoting the use of clearer language. It urges AI developers, writers, educators, and practitioners to support party decision-making by making mediation easier to understand

Silenced on Campus: Unveiling the Injustice of Speaker-Based Restrictions in Public University Spaces

The preservation of free speech within public universities is essential to fostering open dialogue and cultivating an environment where diverse perspectives can flourish without fear of censorship. As a result, public universities have often found themselves at the center of First Amendment disputes. While First Amendment freedom of speech cases have traditionally focused on content-based discrimination, the Supreme Court has recently addressed the problematic nature of discrimination based on the identity of the speaker as well. In the landmark case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Court stated: “The First Amendment protects speech and speaker, and the ideas that flow from each.