Publications and Announcements

Something Is Rotten in the State of Healthcare: Accountability, Affordability, and the Court of Public Opinion

Current Volume, Featured Articles, Media & Communications, Recent Publications, Science & Technology Leave a comment

By: Isabelle Breier Many countries worldwide recognize a right to health and provide legal recourse for securing that right. By contrast, for many Americans, there is no legal right or remedy that enables them to access healthcare if they cannot afford it. While there are some statutes and measures in place, such as the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) and Medicaid, coverage remains piecemeal and access to healthcare is not guaranteed. Conditioning people’s access to healthcare upon their ability to pay violates the foundational bioethical principle of justice. In the United States, individuals and advocates use social media to fill this vacuum, raising awareness and funds through platforms like GoFundMe and X.com (formerly Twitter). In the absence of government-provided healthcare or a right to health, the American public sometimes functions as a healthcare access mechanism via social media. However, this insufficient and inequitable stopgap cannot replace effective governance. The public is filling a vital and unmet need through social media advocacy, but there are many drawbacks to effectively delegating this authority to the public instead of the government, including the public’s capriciousness and lack of legal accountability. The government should take proactive steps to ensure that healthcare

Continue

Gray Advice

Artificial Intelligence, Current Volume, Data Analytics, Featured Articles, Health & Biotechnology, Machine Learning, Recent Publications, Science & Technology Leave a comment

By: Keith Porcaro Debates over economic protectionism or the technology flavor-of-the-month obscure a simple, urgent truth: people are going online to find help that they cannot get from legal and health professionals. They are being let down, by products with festering trust and quality issues, by regulators slow to apply consumer protection standards to harmful offerings, and by professionals loath to acknowledge changes to how help is delivered. The status quo cannot continue. Waves of capital and code are empowering ever more organizations to build digital products that blur the line between self-help and professional advice. For good or ill, “gray advice” is changing how ordinary people get help with legal issues and healthcare issues, and even how they perceive professionals. This Article begins the work of articulating what makes a high-quality digital advice product, and how regulators and professionals can engage with the reality of how people seek and find help today. Download Full Article (PDF) Cite: 25 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 48

Continue

AI & Marginalized Communities Symposium

DLTR Blog, Scholar Interviews Leave a comment

By Joshua Angelo Last month, Duke Law’s Center on Law, Race & Policy hosted numerous scholars and experts for its AI & Marginalized Groups Symposium. I had the pleasure of attending both the Symposium’s Lunch Keynote and its Criminal Justice panel. In the Lunch Keynote, Dr. Charlton McIlwain discussed his concerns about the impact of artificial intelligence on marginalized communities. In the Criminal Justice panel, numerous experts, including Duke’s own Professor Brandon Garrett, explored AI’s often concerning implications for law enforcement and criminal justice. Lunch Keynote: Dr. Charlton McIlwain is the Vice Provost for Faculty Engagement and Development at New York University, as well as a Professor of Media, Culture, and Communications, and Founder of the Critical Race and Digital Studies Program. Dr. McIlwain began his presentation by noting that he approaches matters both as a historian and as a social scientist, with each perspective informing his viewpoint regarding technology. The presentation then turned to Dr. McIlwain’s concerns about AI, beginning with the prospect of algorithmic discrimination. Dr. McIlwain first discussed the targeted advertising of predatory mortgage loans to Black and Hispanic individuals, a practice known as “reverse redlining.” He noted the role that digital advertising can play in facilitating

Continue

Tribes and AI: Possibilities for Tribal Sovereignty

Artificial Intelligence, Current Volume, Featured Articles, Machine Learning, Recent Publications Leave a comment

By: Adam Crepelle Artificial Intelligence (AI) has permeated every facet of modern existence. Governments across the globe are exploring its applications and attempting to establish regulatory frameworks. Numerous scholars have proffered recommendations for governing AI at the local, national, and international levels. However, as is often the case, Indian tribes have been neglected in AI policy discussions. This oversight is significant because the 574 federally recognized tribes are sovereigns with their own judicial, education, and healthcare systems. Due to their relatively small populations and geographic isolation, tribes stand to benefit significantly from the services AI can perform. Moreover, tribes are uniquely well-suited to implement AI. This is the first law review article dedicated to exploring how AI can enhance tribal sovereignty. This article begins with a history of tribal sovereignty and then provides an overview of AI. Subsequent sections delve into the ways AI can augment tribal legal systems, healthcare, education, cultural preservation endeavors, economic development, and administrative capacity. By illuminating the intersection of AI and tribal sovereignty, this article seeks to foster a more inclusive discussion of AI. Download Full Article (PDF) Cite: 25 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 1

Continue

Unintentional Algorithmic Discrimination: How Artificial Intelligence Undermines Disparate Impact Jurisprudence

Data Analytics, Machine Learning, Recent Publications, Surveillance Tech Leave a comment

By: Vincent Calderon Artificial intelligence holds the capacity to revolutionize the economy by capturing efficiencies. These benefits, ostensibly, should pass down to consumers, thereby benefitting the general public. But the immense complexity of AI systems is bound to introduce legal hurdles for plaintiffs and frustrate our disparate impact jurisprudence. Specifically, demonstrating causation and proffering a less discriminatory alternative are herculean tasks for a plaintiff seeking to prove a disparate impact upon which legal relief may be granted. The courts have already begun to wrestle with these issues, primarily in the housing and employment sectors. With the rapid surge of AI systems, courts should expect further inquiry into how these programs interfere with our established antidiscrimination framework. This Note outlines how each step of a plaintiff’s successful disparate impact analysis is hindered by the opaque ways in which AI operates. This Note then proposes several policy reforms to mitigate these consequences. Download Full Article (PDF) Cite: 24 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 28

Continue

Can ChatGPT Keep a Secret? An Evaluation of the Applicability and Suitability of Trade Secrecy Protection for AI-Generated Inventions

Intellectual Property, Machine Learning, Recent Publications, Trade Secrecy 2 comments

By: Gina L. Campanelli The rising popularity of generative artificial intelligence has sparked questions around whether AI-generated inventions and works can be protected under current intellectual property regimes, and if so, how. Guidance from the U.S. Copyright Office and recent court cases shed some light on the applicability of copyright and patent protection to AI-generated products; namely “authors” and “inventors” are limited to natural persons. But further developments in copyright and patent law are still lagging behind generative-AI’s rapid growth. Trade secrecy emerges as the most viable path forward to protect AI-generated works and inventions because ownership of trade secrets is not limited to natural persons. But trade secrecy has its drawbacks too, primarily inadequate protection outside of misappropriation. Further, trade secrecy precludes disclosure, which hinders greater scientific development and progress. This Note examines the suitability and applicability of copyright, patent, and trade secret protection for AI-generated works and inventions and posits alternative protection schemes. Download Full Article (PDF) Cite: 24 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 1

Continue

Decoding Cryptocurrency Taxes: The Challenges for Estate Planners

Cryptocurrency, eCommerce, Science & Technology, Technology and Financial Reporting Leave a comment

By: Max Angel In this article, Angel explores the unique challenges of estate planning with cryptocurrency, which include accurately valuing those assets, preserving their value, and addressing the complex tax implications of transferring cryptocurrency to heirs. Download Full Article (PDF) Cite: 23 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 137

Continue

Beyond Patents: Incentive Strategies for Ocean Plastic Remediation Technologies

Intellectual Property, Patents & Technology, Science & Technology One comment

By: Jacob Stotser With a garbage truck’s worth of plastic being dumped in the ocean each minute, there is a dire need for effective technological solutions aimed at mitigating the marine plastic pollution problem. However, the reliance of the U.S. patent system on market demand to incentivize this type of innovation has proven insufficient in light of the peculiarities of “green” technologies. To remedy this, this article proposes a multi-faceted incentivization approach that looks beyond the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to stimulate the development of remediation technologies through comprehensive regulatory interventions, the establishment of prize funds and other alternative incentive mechanisms, and targeted reforms to patent procedures. Download Full Article (PDF) Cite: 23 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 114

Continue

Barcoding Bodies: RFID Technology and the Perils of E-Carceration

Science & Technology One comment

By: Jackson Samples Electronic surveillance now plays a central role in the criminal legal system. Every year, hundreds of thousands of people are tracked by ankle monitors and smartphone technology. And frighteningly, commentators and policymakers have now proposed implanting radio frequency identification (“RFID”) chips into people’s bodies for surveillance purposes. This Note examines the unique risks of these proposals—particularly with respect to people on probation and parole—and argues that RFID implants would constitute a systematic violation of individual privacy and bodily integrity. As a result, they would also violate the Fourth Amendment. Download Full Article (PDF) Cite: 23 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 89

Continue

Virtual Gaming, Actual Damage: Video Game Design That Intentionally and Successfully Addicts Users Constitutes Civil Battery

Articles, eCommerce & Business Leave a comment

By: Allison Caffarone In recent years, there has been increased academic interest in both the neurological effects of compulsive gaming and the potential tort liability of game developers who scientifically engineer games in order to addict users. Scholars from various disciplines are currently debating the scope and potential solutions to the problems associated with Gaming Disorder, now a globally recognized illness. This article contributes to this discussion by offering a multidisciplinary analysis of the scope of video game addiction, its neurological bases, and its relation to the legal rights and responsibilities of victims and game developers. In addition, this article explores the practical significance of, as well as normative and moral foundations for, holding video game developers accountable. It argues the novel theory that video game developers who succeed in their expressed intention to rewrite the neural pathways of gamers should be held liable for the intentional tort of battery. It further contends that private redress based on an intentional battery cause of action is preferable to actions grounded in negligence or failure to warn because in a battery suit, there is no need to prove that the plaintiff was harmed—offensive contact suffices. Moreover, battery claims may be preferable as

Continue