Month: April 2020

By: Dalton Powell At its core, agency law governs fiduciary relationships between two distinct parties (the principal and agent) in interactions with third parties. The three separate relationships within agency (principal-agent, agent-third party, and principal-third party) create binding legal rights and obligations. To be a principal or agent, one must be a person. The Restatement (Third) of Agency’s definition of person attempts to distinguish legally recognized persons from purely organizational entities and mere instrumentalities. The emergence of AI computing, and the ongoing development of truly autonomous computer systems, will test traditional agency law with questions like who or what can be a person. At present, the Restatement views computer programs as mere instrumentalities of the using person and thus not a separate person capable of being a principal or agent. This Note will analyze the tension created within agency law’s definition of personhood by the existence of autonomous systems. Download Full Article (PDF) Cite: 18 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 306

By: Michelle Jackson Biometric technology promises to reshape the modern economy. With the increased prevalence of biometric technology comes a heightened risk of data breaches and identity theft. To protect consumers, state legislatures have enacted biometric privacy laws. As more state legislatures define the intangible harm of data misuse, some federal courts have restricted what constitutes an injury sufficient to create Article III standing. This analysis misapplies Spokeo and undermines legislative efforts to protect individual privacy. Because of the important interests at stake with biometric information privacy, federal courts should follow the Ninth Circuit and recognize the misuse of that data as a sufficient injury to constitute standing. Consumers usually cannot opt out of new biometric technologies implemented at airport gates, shopping centers, and workplaces. The federal courts also should not use standing doctrines to opt out of the intangible harms characterizing the information age. Download Full Article (PDF) Cite: 18 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 293

By: John A. Balletta After two-and-a-half decades of labor peace in Major League Baseball, storm clouds of a player strike are brewing as the operating Competitive Bargaining Agreement comes under fire. That same CBA includes Attachment 56, the most expansive allowance of wearable technology of the four major American professional sports. While the privacy of the athletes’ data might be the foremost concern under Attachment 56, there are a myriad of untapped arenas involving the use and dissemination of data from wearables, including issues in good-faith contracting and contract and trade negotiations. After situating the wearables provisions in the context of the CBA and describing the approved technologies, this Note will identify three infrequently discussed problems in Attachment 56 before positing ways around these concerns. Download Full Article (PDF) Cite: 18 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 268