Assistant professor of law at @olemiss.bsky.social . Using this to rate SCOTUS oral args. Rating guide: https://briandowning.medium.com/notes-on-rating-supreme-court-oral-advocacy-0859f8952930. Former Google lawyer/eng.
Brian Downing
Loading...
Otherwise, compliance in tech will implement EU rules by default. My paper, Bargaining with the Brussels Effect, discusses how the U.S. might productively enter the modern regulatory sphere in tech with proposed approaches across privacy, content regulation, antitrust, & AI. ssrn.com/abstract=679...
Gorsuch gives us the path to a bit more than a GVR: Twombly killed the “but there are questions of fact about intent!” way of beating 12b6s for plaintiffs. And Fed Cir was wrong to imply gov-mandated labels induce. Nor does repeating that you’re a generic. Remand with just that.
Some of the EU’s ideas are good. Others don’t take speech and security concerns as seriously as most U.S. users would like. To best influence tech company behavior, the U.S. needs to enter the regulatory game domestically and start to bargain with the international rules.
That’s bad news for Rs and their secret new evidence of intent, since the D. Crt. dismissed with prejudice. Rs may not get leave to amend, putting them in the odd spot of asking SCOTUS to save that for them. Probably not gonna happen.
