Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CpELaw CA1
CpELaw CA1
CpELaw CA1
ISSUE:
THE MAIN ISSUE IN THE AMAZON.COM LLC V. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION
AND FINANCE CASE WAS WHETHER OUT -OF-STATE RETAILERS, SUCH AS AMAZON, WERE
REQUIRED TO COLLECT AND REMIT SALES TAX IF THEY HAD AFFILIATES OPERATING WITHIN
THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
CASE INTRODUCTION:
THE CASE REVOLVES AROUND THE GROWING DOMINANCE OF E -COMMERCE AND THE
CHALLENGES FACED BY STATES IN COLLECTING SALES TAX FROM OUT - OF-STATE ONLINE
RETAILERS. THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION AND FINANCE ARGUED THAT
AMAZON'S AFFILIATE S IN THE STATE CONSTITUTED A PHYSICAL PRESENCE, OR NEXUS, AND
THEREFORE, THE COMPANY SHOULD BE OBLIGATED TO COLLECT SALES TAX.
CASE BACKGROUND:
PRIOR TO THE CASE, NEW YORK ENACTED A LAW COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE "AMAZON
TAX" OR "AMAZON LAW" IN 2008. THE LAW EXPA NDED THE DEFINITION OF PHYSICAL
PRESENCE TO INCLUDE AFFILIATE MARKETERS OPERATING WITHIN THE STATE. IT REQUIRED
ONLINE RETAILERS TO COLLECT AND REMIT SALES TAX IF THEY HAD AFFILIATES IN NEW YORK
WHO EARNED COMMISSIONS FOR REFERRING CUSTOMERS.
CASE ANALYSIS:
AMAZON ARGUED THAT THE LAW VIOLATED THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION, WHICH GRANTS CONGRESS THE POWER TO REGULATE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE. THE COMPANY CONTENDED THAT THE PRESENCE OF AFFILIATES DID NOT
CONSTITUTE A PHYSICAL PRESENCE, AS ESTABLISHED BY EARLIER COURT RULINGS, AND
THEREFORE, IT SHOULD NOT BE OBLIGATED TO COLLECT SALES TAX.
THE COURT ANALYZED THE CASE BASED ON THE LEGAL CONCEPT OF NEXUS AND WHETHER
NEW YORK'S LAW WAS CONSISTENT WITH EXISTING PRECEDENT. IT EXAMINED WHETHER THE
PRESENCE OF AFFILIATES CREATED THE NECESSARY PHYSICAL PRESENCE TO ESTABLISH A
SUBSTANTIAL NEXUS WITH THE STATE, TRIGGERING THE OBLIGATION TO COLLECT AND REMIT
SALES TAX.
CASE SUMMARY:
THE COURT ULTIMATELY UPHELD NEW YORK'S LAW AND RULED IN FAVOR OF THE NEW YORK
STATE DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION AND FINANCE. IT HELD THAT THE PRESENCE OF AMAZON'S
AFFILIATES IN THE STATE CONSTITUTED A PHYSICAL PRESENCE AND ESTABLISHED THE
REQUIRED SUBSTANTIAL NEXUS FOR THE COLLECTION OF SALES TAX. AS A RESULT, AMAZON
AND OTHER SIMILAR O UT-OF-STATE RETAILERS BECAME SUBJECT TO THE SALES TAX
OBLIGATIONS IN NEW YORK.
CASE CONCLUSION:
THE AMAZON.COM LLC V. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION AND FINANCE
CASE MARKED AN IMPORTANT LEGAL PRECEDENT IN THE REALM OF
E-COMMERCE LAW
E-COMMERCE TAXATION. IT ESTABLISHED THAT STATES CAN REQUIRE OUT-OF-STATE
RETAILERS TO COLLECT AND REMIT SALES TAX IF THEY HAVE AFFILIATES OPERATING WITHIN
THEIR JURISDICTIONS. THE RULING HAS HAD IMPLICATIONS FOR ONLINE RETAILERS ACROSS
THE UNITED STATES, AS STATES HAVE SOUGHT TO EXPAND THEIR TAX BASES AND CAPTURE
REVENUE FROM E -COMMERCE TRANSACTIONS.
REFERENCE:
AMAZON.COM LLC V. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION AND FINANCE, 102
A.D.3D 70 (N.Y. APP. DIV. 2012).
CASE ANALYSIS 2
ISSUE:
THE MAIN ISSUE IN THE FACEBOOK, INC. V. DUGUID CASE WAS THE INTERPRETATION OF AN
AUTOMATED TELEPHONE DIALING SYSTEM (ATDS) UNDER THE TELEPHONE CONSUMER
PROTECTION ACT (TCPA). THE KEY QUESTION WAS WHETHER THE DEFINITION OF AN ATDS
INCLUDES SYSTEMS THAT CAN DIAL STORED PHONE NUMBERS AUTOMATICALLY, EVEN IF
THEY DO NOT USE A RANDOM OR SEQUENTIAL NUMBER GENERATOR.
CASE INTRODUCTION:
THE CASE CENTERS AROUND THE APPLICATION OF THE TCPA, WHICH PROHIBITS THE USE OF
AUTOMATED TELEPHONE DIALING SYSTEMS FOR MAKING UNSOLICITED CALLS OR SENDING
UNWANTED TEXT MESSAGES. FACEBOOK, INC. ARGUED THAT ITS PLATFORM DID NOT FALL
UNDER THE DEFINITION OF AN ATDS, AS IT REQUIRED HUMAN INTERVENTION TO INITIATE THE
MESSAGES.
CASE INTRODUCTION:
THE CASE CENTERS AROUND THE APPLICATION OF THE TCPA, WHICH PROHIBITS THE USE OF
AUTOMATED TELEPHONE DIALING SYSTEMS FOR MAKING UNSOLICITED CALLS OR SENDING
UNWANTED TEXT MESSAGES. FACEBOOK, INC. ARGUED THAT ITS PLATFORM DID NOT FALL
UNDER THE DEFINITION OF AN ATDS, AS IT REQUIRED HUMAN INTERVENTION TO INITIATE THE
MESSAGES.
CASE BACKGROUND:
THE PLAINTIFF, NOAH DUGUID, ALLEGED THAT FACEBOOK HAD SENT HIM UNSOLICITED TEXT
MESSAGES WITHOUT HIS CONSENT, VIOLATING THE TCPA. FACEBOOK COUNTERED THAT ITS
PLATFORM DID NOT MEET THE DEFINITION OF AN ATDS BECAUSE IT DID NOT USE A RANDOM
OR SEQUENTIAL NUMBER GENERATOR TO STORE OR PRODUCE PHONE NUMBERS FOR
DIALING.
CASE ANALYSIS:
THE COURT ANALYZED THE LANGUAGE OF THE TCPA AND THE DEFINITION OF AN ATDS. IT
EXAMINED WHETHER A SYSTEM MUST HAVE THE CAPACITY TO GENERATE RANDOM OR
SEQUENTIAL PHONE NUMBERS TO BE CONSIDERED AN ATDS. FACEBOOK ARGUED THAT ITS
PLATFORM DID NOT HAVE THE CAPABILITY TO AUTOMATICALLY DIAL STORED NUMBERS
WITHOUT HUMAN INTERVENTION
E-COMMERCE LAW
AND THAT A RANDOM OR SEQUENTIAL NUMBER GENERATOR WAS A CRUCIAL COMPONENT
OF AN ATDS.
CASE SUMMARY:
CASE CONCLUSION:
THE FACEBOOK, INC. V. DUGUID CASE CLARIFIED THE DEFINITION OF AN ATDS UNDER THE
TCPA. THE COURT'S RULING PROVIDED A NARROWER INTERPRETATION, REQUIRING THE USE
OF A RANDOM OR SEQUENTIAL NUMBER GENERATOR FOR A SYSTEM TO BE CONSIDERED AN
ATDS. THIS DECISION HAS SIGNIFICANT IMPLICATIONS FOR COMPANIES ENGAGING IN
AUTOMATED COMMUNICATIONS, AS IT SETS A PRECEDENT FOR DETERMINING LIABILITY
UNDER THE TCPA.
REFERENCE:
CASE ANALYSIS 3
ISSUE:
THE MAIN ISSUE IN THE APPLE INC. V. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. CASE WAS WHETHER
SAMSUNG HAD INFRINGED UPON APPLE'S DESIGN AND UTILITY PATENTS BY CREATING AND
SELLING SMARTPHONES AND TABLETS THAT RESEMBLED APPLE'S IPHONE AND IPAD
PRODUCTS.
CASE INTRODUCTION:
CASE BACKGROUND:
APPLE FILED A LAWSUIT AGAINST SAMSUNG, ALLEGING THAT THE KOREAN COMPANY HAD
INFRINGED ON SEVERAL OF ITS PATENTS, INCLUDING DESIGN PATENTS FOR THE IPHONE'S
DISTINCTIVE APPEARANCE AND USER INTERFACE , BATTLE BETWEEN THE TWO TECH GIANTS.
CASE ANALYSIS:
THE COURT ANALYZED THE PATENTS AT ISSUE AND EXAMINED THE SIMILARITIES BETWEEN
APPLE'S PRODUCTS AND SAMSUNG'S DEVICES. IT CONSIDERED
E-COMMERCE LAW
FACTORS SUCH AS DESIGN ELEMENTS, USER INTERFACE, AND FUNCTIONAL FEATURES TO
DETERMINE WHETHER SAMSUNG'S PRODUCTS CONSTITUTED INFRINGEMENT ON APPLE'S
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS. THE COURT ASSESSED BOTH THE DESIGN AND UTILITY
PATENTS ASSERTED BY APPLE.
CASE SUMMARY:
AFTER A PROTRACTED LEGAL BATTLE, A JURY ULTIMATELY FOUND THAT SAMSUNG HAD
INDEED INFRINGED UPON SEVERAL OF APPLE'S PATENTS. THE JURY AWARDED APPLE OVER
$1 BILLION IN DAMAGES, THOUGH THE AMOUNT WAS LATER REDUCED UPON APPEAL AND
SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS. THE CASE DREW SIGNIFICANT ATTENTION DUE TO ITS IMPACT
ON THE MOBILE DEVICE INDUSTRY AND THE BROADER DEBATE OVER INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THE TECHNOLOGY SECTOR.
CASE CONCLUSION:
THE APPLE INC. V. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. CASE RESULTED IN A SIGNIFICANT LEGAL
VICTORY FOR APPLE. THE RULING ESTABLISHED THAT SAMSUNG HAD INFRINGED UPON
APPLE'S DESIGN AND UTILITY PATENTS, LEADING TO SUBSTANTIAL FINANCIAL
CONSEQUENCES FOR SAMSUNG. THE CASE ALSO RAISED IMPORTANT DISCUSSIONS
SURROUNDING PATENT INFRINGEMENT, DESIGN SIMILARITIES IN CONSUMER ELECTRONICS,
AND THE PROTECTION OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IN THE HIGHLY COMPETITIVE
TECHNOLOGY MARKET.
REFERENCE:
APPLE INC. V. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., 678 F.3D 1314 (FED. CIR. 2012).
CASE ANALYSIS 4
ISSUE:
THE MAIN ISSUE IN THE TIFFANY (NJ) INC. V. EBAY INC. CASE WAS WHETHER EBAY COULD BE
HELD LIABLE FOR TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT BASED ON THE SALE OF COUNTERFEIT TIFFANY
JEWELRY ON ITS ONLINE MARKETPLACE.
CASE INTRODUCTION:
THE CASE CENTERS AROUND THE RESPONSIBILITY OF ONLINE MARKETPLACE PLATFORMS FOR
POLICING AND PREVENTING THE SALE OF COUNTERFEIT GOODS. TIFFANY, A WELL-KNOWN
JEWELRY COMPANY, ALLEGED THAT EBAY HAD NOT TAKEN SUFFICIENT MEASURES TO
COMBAT THE SALE OF COUNTERFEIT TIFFANY PRODUCTS ON ITS WEBSITE.
CASE BACKGROUND:
TIFFANY FILED A LAWSUIT AGAINST EBAY, CLAIMING THAT THE ONLINE MARKETPLACE WAS
LIABLE FOR TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT BECAUSE IT ALLOWED SELLERS TO LIST AND SELL
COUNTERFEIT TIFFANY JEWELRY ON ITS PLATFORM. TIFFANY ARGUED THAT EBAY HAD NOT
DONE ENOUGH TO MONITOR AND REMOVE COUNTERFEIT LISTINGS, THEREBY CONTRIBUTING
TO THE SALE OF INFRINGING PRODUCTS.
E-COMMERCE LAW
CASE ANALYSIS:
CASE SUMMARY:
THE COURT RULED IN FAVOR OF EBAY, CONCLUDING THAT THE COMPANY WAS NOT LIABLE
FOR TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT. IT HELD THAT EBAY WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE
ACTIONS OF ITS USERS AND THAT IT HAD TAKEN ADEQUATE MEASURES TO ADDRESS
COUNTERFEIT LISTINGS WHEN NOTIFIED BY TRADEMARK OWNERS. THE COURT EMPHASIZED
THAT TRADEMARK OWNERS LIKE TIFFANY HAD THE PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY TO POLICE AND
ENFORCE THEIR OWN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS.
CASE CONCLUSION:
THE TIFFANY (NJ) INC. V. EBAY INC. CASE SET AN IMPORTANT PRECEDENT REGARDING THE
LIABILITY OF ONLINE MARKETPLACE PLATFORMS FOR THE SALE OF COUNTERFEIT GOODS. THE
COURT'S RULING PLACED THE BURDEN OF MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT PRIMARILY ON
THE TRADEMARK OWNERS THEMSELVES, RATHER THAN HOLDING PLATFORMS LIKE EBAY
DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACTIONS OF THEIR USERS. THE CASE HIGHLIGHTED THE
COMPLEX LEGAL ISSUES SURROUNDING ONLINE COUNTERFEITING AND THE ROLE OF
PLATFORMS IN COMBATTING SUCH ACTIVITIES.
REFERENCE:
TIFFANY (NJ) INC. V. EBAY INC., 600 F.3D 93 (2D CIR. 2010).
CASE ANALYSIS 5
ISSUE:
THE MAIN ISSUE IN THE ZAPPOS.COM, INC. CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION
CASE WAS WHETHER ZAPPOS.COM, AN ONLINE RETAILER, COULD BE HELD LIABLE FOR A
DATA BREACH THAT RESULTED IN THE UNAUTHORIZED DISCLOSURE OF CUSTOMERS'
PERSONAL INFORMATION AND WHETHER THE AFFECTED CUSTOMERS HAD LEGAL STANDING
TO BRING A LAWSUIT AGAINST THE COMPANY.
CASE INTRODUCTION:
THE CASE REVOLVES AROUND A SIGNIFICANT DATA SECURITY BREACH THAT OCCURRED AT
ZAPPOS.COM, COMPROMISING THE PERSONAL INFORMATION OF MILLIONS OF
CUSTOMERS. CUSTOMERS ALLEGED THAT ZAPPOS.COM FAILED TO ADEQUATELY PROTECT
THEIR PERSONAL DATA, LEADING TO THE EXPOSURE OF SENSITIVE INFORMATION AND
POTENTIAL HARM.
E-COMMERCE LAW
CASE BACKGROUND:
CASE ANALYSIS:
THE COURT ANALYZED WHETHER ZAPPOS.COM HAD A DUTY TO PROTECT CUSTOMER DATA
AND WHETHER IT HAD TAKEN REASONABLE SECURITY MEASURES TO PREVENT UNAUTHORIZED
ACCESS. IT ALSO EXAMINED WHETHER THE AFFECTED CUSTOMERS HAD LEGAL STANDING TO
SUE, AS THEY NEEDED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THEY SUFFERED ACTUAL OR IMMINENT HARM
AS A RESULT OF THE DATA BREACH.
CASE SUMMARY:
CASE CONCLUSION:
THE ZAPPOS.COM, INC. CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION CASE HIGHLIGHTED
THE LEGAL COMPLEXITIES SURRO UNDING DATA BREACHES AND THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF
COMPANIES IN SAFEGUARDING CUSTOMER DATA. WHILE A SETTLEMENT WAS REACHED, THE
CASE DID NOT ESTABLISH A CLEAR PRECEDENT ON THE LIABILITY OF COMPANIES FOR DATA
BREACHES OR THE LEGAL STANDING OF AFFECTED CUSTOMERS. THE CASE UNDERSCORED
THE IMPORTANCE OF DATA SECURITY AND THE NEED FOR COMPANIES TO IMPLEMENT
ROBUST MEASURES TO PROTECT CUSTOMER INFORMATION.
REFERENCE:
E-COMMERCE LAW
CASE ANALYSIS 1
DESPITE HANGOVER 2'S SUCCESS, ITS PUBLISHER, WARNER BROTHERS, WAS SUED BY TATTOO
ARTIST S. VICTOR WHITMILL FOR USING WHITMILL'S UNCREDITED TATTOO DESIGN WITHOUT
PERMISSION IN THE FILM AND ITS PROMOTIONAL MATERIALS. DESPITE WARNER BROTHERS'
CLAIMS THAT THEIR USE OF THE DESIGN WAS PROTECTED BY THE "FAIR USE" POLICY, WHITMILL
PURSUED THE CASE AND SOUGHT A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION THAT WOULD HAVE
PREVENTED THE FILM FROM HITTING THEATERS ON SCHEDULE. WHILE THE JUDGE DID RULE
AGAINST WHITMILL'S INJUNCTION REQUEST, HE DID AGREE THAT WHITMILL STILL HAD A SOLID
CASE AND COULD PURSUE THE LAWSUIT ON OTHER GROUNDS. AN AGREEMENT WAS
REACHED BEHIND CLOSED DOORS, AND THE FILM WAS RELEASED ON SCHEDULE, THEREBY
CREATING COMEDIC HISTORY.
CASE ANALYSIS 2
GUCCI VS GUESS
IN 2009, TWO OF THE FASHION INDUSTRY'S MOST RECOGNIZABLE NAMES SQUARED OFF
WHEN GUCCI SUED GUESS, ALLEGING THAT THE LATTER HAD VIOLATED SEVERAL OF GUCCI'S
TRADEMARKS. GUCCI HAD ORIGINALLY ASKED FOR $221 MILLION IN DAMAGES BUT SETTLED
FOR $4.1 MILLION. SO WHY DID THAT HAPPEN? THE JUDGE REASONED THAT GUCCI'S CLAIM
THAT IT HAS REPEATEDLY SENT CEASE-AND-DESIST LETTERS TO VARIOUS PARTIES OVER THE
YEARS WAS A FATAL FLAW IN THE COMPANY'S CASE. THESE ENTITIES RANGED FROM
NATIONAL CORPORATIONS TO SMALL-TIME COUNTERFEITERS AND INFRINGERS. WITH
BUDGETARY CONCERNS AND THE FACT THAT MOST OF THEIR EVIDENCE WAS SPECULATIVE,
GUCCI'S DEFENSE DEPARTMENT HAS BEEN STRETCHED THIN.
CASE ANALYSIS 3
STARBUCKS SUED RIVAL COFFEE CHAIN OBSI DIAN GROUP IN 2016 FOR PROMOTING ITS
NEWEST DRINK, THE FREDDOCCINO. STARBUCKS CLAIMED THAT THE NAME'S SIMILARITY
VIOLATES THE COPYRIGHT OF THEIR OWN POPULAR ICED COFFEE, THE FRAPPUCCINO.
DESPITE OBSIDIAN'S EFFORTS TO ASSUAGE CONCERNS BY RENAMING THEIR DRINK "THE
FREDDO," STARBUCKS REMAINED STEADFAST IN THEIR PURSUIT OF THE CASE, AND THE CASE
HAS YET TO BE RESOLVED AS OF MID-LATE 2022.
APPLE VS MICROSOFT
APPLE FILED A LAWSUIT AGAINST MICROSOFT IN 1988, SHORTLY AFTER THE RELEASE OF
WINDOWS 2.0, A SIGNIFICANT UPGRADE TO THE ORIGINAL VERSION. AT THE TIME, APPLE
ACCUSED MICROSOFT OF PLAGIARIZING THE GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACE FOUND ON THE
MACINTOSH SYSTEM W ITHOUT PERMISSION OR A LICENSE. APPLE DID IN FACT GRANT
MICROSOFT PERMISSION TO USE MACINTOSH'S DESIGN ELEMENTS IN WINDOWS. APPLE'S
LEGAL DEPARTMENT DID NOT RECEIVE THE MEMO, AF TER THE RELEASE OF WINDOWS 2.0,
APPLE WAS SO TAKEN ABACK BY THE SUDDENNESS OF THE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS THAT IT
SKIPPED SENDING ANY SORT O F PREEMPTIVE WARNING OR THREAT. AS A RESULT OF THIS
MISUNDERSTANDING, THE COURT RULED IN FAVOR OF MICROSOFT IN 1989, AND ALTHOUGH
APPLE ATTEM PTED TO APPEAL THE DECISION MULTIPLE TIMES, ALL OF ITS EFFORTS WERE
UNSUCCESSFUL.
CASE ANALYSIS 5
AS THE FIRST HIP-HOP SINGLE TO REACH NUMBER ONE ON THE BILLBOARD HOT 100, VANILLA
ICE'S "ICE ICE BABY" LEFT AN INDELIBLE MARK ON POPULAR CULTURE. HOWEVER, ONE OF ITS
WORST QUALITIES IS THAT IT SAMPLED THE BASS LINES FROM UNDER PRESSURE, A HIT SONG BY
QUEEN AND DAVID BOWIE. VANILLA ICE TRIED TO DEFEND HIMSELF FROM THE LAWSUIT
BROUGHT AGAINST HIM BY QUEEN AND DAVID BOWIE FOR THE UN AUTHORIZED USE OF
THEIR SONG BY CLAIMING THAT HE HAD ADDED A SINGLE NOTE TO THE END OF THE RIFF TO
MAKE IT MORE UNIQUE, BUT THIS WAS DEEMED INSUFFICIENT. THE CASE WAS EVENTUALLY
SETTLED OUT OF COURT FOR AN UNDISCLOSED AMOUNT OF MONEY, WITH BOTH QUEEN
AND BOWIE RECEIVING SONGWRITING CREDIT.
THE OMB COLLABORATED WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES AND INTERNET SERVICE
PROVIDERS TO IDENTIFY WEBSITES AND ONLINE PLATFORMS THAT WERE ILLEGALLY
DISTRIBUTING PIRATED OPTICAL MEDIA CONTENT. THROUGH THEIR JOINT EFFORTS, THEY
SUCCESSFULLY SHUT DOWN SEVERAL WEBSITES AND ONLINE MARKETPLACES ENGAGED IN
PIRACY, LEADING TO THE ARREST AND PROSECUTION OF INDIVIDUALS INVOLVED IN THE
ILLEG AL ACTIVITIES.
CASE ANALYSIS 2
FACTORY RAID:
ACTING ON A TIP, THE OMB CONDUCTED A RAID ON A SUSPECTED ILLEGAL OPTICAL MEDIA
MANUFACTURING FACILITY. THEY DISCOVERED A LARGE - SCALE OPERATION PRODUCING
THOUSANDS OF PIRATED DVDS AND CDS. THE RAID RESULTED IN THE SEIZURE OF
COUNTERFEIT OPTICAL MEDIA, EQUIPMENT, AND MATERIALS USED FOR DUPLICATION. THE
INDIVIDUALS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE OPERATION WERE ARRESTED, AND THE FACILITY WAS
SHUT DOWN, EFFECTIVELY DISMANTLING A MAJOR PIRACY NETWORK.
CASE ANALYSIS 3
CASE ANALYSIS 4
THE OMB LAUNCHED A CONSUMER AWAREN ESS CAMPAIGN TO EDUCATE THE PUBLIC
ABOUT THE RISKS AND CONSEQUENCES OF PURCHASING PIRATED OPTICAL MEDIA. THEY
ORGANIZED OUTREACH PROGRAMS, SEMINARS, AND MEDIA CAMPAIGNS TO RAISE
AWARENESS ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF SUPPORTING LEGITIMATE CONTENT CREATORS
AND DISCOURAGING PIRACY. THE CAMPAIGN SUCCESSFULLY REACHED A WIDE AUDIENCE
AND CONTRIBUTED TO A SHIFT IN CONSUMER BEHAVIOR, LEADING TO INCREASED DEMAND
FOR GENUINE AND LICENSED OPTICAL MEDIA PRODUCTS.
CROSS-BORDER OPERATION:
UBER DATA BREACH - IN 2016, UBER EXPERIENCED A DATA BREACH THAT COMPROMISED
THE PERSONAL INFORMATION OF 57 MILLION USERS AND DRIVERS. UBER PAID A $148
MILLION SETTLEMENT TO ALL 50 U.S. STATES AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FOR VIOLATING
DATA BREACH N OTIFICATION LAWS, INCLUDING THE DATA PRIVACY ACT OF 2012. THE
SETTLEMENT ALSO REQUIRED UBER TO IMPLEMENT STRONGER DATA SECURITY PRACTICES.
CASE ANALYSIS 2
CASE ANALYSIS 3
CASE ANALYSIS 4
CASE ANALYSIS 5
CASE ANALYSIS 2
ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS - THE DICT IS ALSO LEADING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS (EHR) SYSTEM IN THE PHILIPPINES. THE EHR SYSTEM AIMS TO
DIGITIZE H EALTH RECORDS AND MAKE THEM ACCESSIBLE TO HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS
ACROSS THE COUNTRY. THE PROGRAM AIMS TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF HEALTHCARE
SERVICES AND REDUCE MEDICAL ERRORS.
CASE ANALYSIS 3
RURAL IMPACT SOURCING (RIS) - THE RIS PROGRAM IS A DICT INITIATIVE AIMED AT
PROMOTING THE OUTSOURCING OF DIGITAL SERVICES TO RURAL AREAS IN THE PHILIPPINES.
THE PROGRAM PROVIDES TRAINING AND SUPPORT TO INDIVIDUALS AND COMMUNITIES TO
ENABLE THEM TO WORK IN THE DIGITAL ECONOMY AND EARN INCOME FROM HOME.
CASE ANALYSIS 4
CASE ANALYSIS 5
SAJID "JAM" AMPATUAN CASE - SAJID "JAM" AMPATUAN, A PROMINENT POLITICAL FIGURE
IN THE PHILIPPINES, WAS INVOLVED IN A HIGH -PROFILE CASE RELATED TO THE CYBERCRIME
PREVENTION ACT OF 2012. IN 2017, AMP ATUAN WAS ARRESTED AND CHARGED WITH
VIOLATING THE LAW AFTER ALLEGEDLY POSTING A PHOTO ON FACEBOOK THAT DEPICTED A
RIVAL POLITICIAN ENGAGING IN A SEXUAL ACT. THE PHOTO WAS DEEMED DEFAMATORY
AND AN ACT OF ONLINE LIBEL, WHICH IS CONSIDERED A CRIMINAL OFFENSE UNDER THE
CYBERCRIME PREVENTION ACT.
CASE ANALYSIS 2
MARIA RESSA CASE - MARIA RESSA, A PROMINENT JOURNALIST AND THE CEO OF PHILIPPINE
NEWS WEBSITE RAPPLER, WAS INVOLVED IN A HIGHLY PUBLICIZED CASE RELATED TO THE
CYBERCRIME PREVENTION ACT OF 2012. IN 2018, RE SSA AND A RAPPLER REPORTER WERE
CHARGED WITH CYBER LIBEL FOR AN ARTICLE PUBLISHED IN 2012 THAT LINKED A
BUSINESSMAN TO MURDER AND DRUG TRAFFICKING. THE COMPLAINANT ALLEGED THAT THE
ARTICLE CONTAINED FALSE AND DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS, AND THE CYBER LIBEL CHAR
GES WERE FILED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE CYBERCRIME PREVENTION ACT.
CASE ANALYSIS 3
CASE ANALYSIS 4
CHRISTOPHER LAO CASE - IN 2011, CHRISTOPHER LAO, A FILIPINO LAWYER, BECAME THE
SUBJECT OF WIDESPREAD ONLINE CRITICISM AND RIDICULE AFTER HE WAS FILMED DRIVING
HIS CAR INTO A FLOODED STREET DURING A TYPHOON. THE INCIDENT WENT VIRAL, AND
LAO FACED A MASSIVE ONLINE BACKLASH. SUBSEQUENTLY, A VIDEO WAS UPLOADED ON
YOUTUBE FALSELY ACCUSING LAO OF CYBERBULLYING AND THREATENING THE UPLOADER.
THE UPLOADER REPORTED THE INCIDENT, AND LAO WAS CHARGED WITH VIOLATING THE
CYBERCRIME PREVENTION ACT FOR ALLEGEDLY COMMITTING ONLINE LIBEL AND
CYBERBULLYING.
CASE ANALYSISS 5
"SIT WHERE YOU LIKE" (CHINESE VS. AMERICAN CULTURE) - THE CASE REVOLVES AROUND A
CHINESE COMPANY EX PANDING ITS OPERATIONS TO THE UNITED STATES AND
ENCOUNTERING A CULTURAL ISSUE RELATED TO SEATING ARRANGEMENTS IN THE OFFICE. IN
CHINESE CULTURE, SEATING REFLECTS HIERARCHY AND RESPECT FOR AUTHORITY, WHEREAS
AMERICAN CULTURE EMPHASIZES EGALITARIANISM AND PERSONAL PREFERENCE. THE
CHINESE EMPLOYEES MAY FIND IT UNCOMFORTABLE AND DISRESPECTFUL WHEN AMERICAN
EMPLOYEES CHOOSE SEATS WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE HIERARCHICAL STRUCTURE, WHILE
AMERICAN EMPLOYEES MAY SEE THE CHINESE EMPHASIS ON SEATING HIERARCHY AS
UNNECESS ARY AND RIGID.
CASE ANALYSIS 2
“IT’S FINE” (DUTCH VS. BRITISH CULTURE) - THE CASE REVOLVES AROUND A
CULTURAL ISSUE BETWEEN A DUTCH COMPANY AND A BRITISH COMPANY REGARDING THE
INTERPRETATION OF THE PHRASE "IT'S FINE." IN DUTCH CULTURE, IT IS COMMONLY USED TO
EXPRESS SATISFACTION OR AGREEMENT, WHILE IN BRITISH CULTURE, IT CAN CARRY A MORE
NEG ATIVE OR AMBIGUOUS CONNOTATION. CROSS-CULTURAL COMMUNICATION AND
TRAINING CAN HELP EMPLOYEES UNDERSTAND AND APPRECIATE EACH OTHER'S
CASE ANALYSIS 3
“I’M JUST JOKING!” (AUSTRALIAN VS. THAI CULTURE) - THE CASE INVOLVES A
CULTURAL ISSUE BETWEEN AN AUSTRALIAN AND THAI INDIVIDUAL REGARDING THE
INTERPRETATION OF JOKES. IN AUSTRALIAN CULTURE, HUMOR OFTEN INVOLVES SARCASM,
TEASING, AND PLAYFUL BANTER, WHILE IN THAI CULTURE, HUMOR TENDS TO BE MORE
GENTLE AND AVOIDS DIRECT CO NFRONTATION OR CAUSING OFFENSE. ESTABLISHING OPEN
DIALOGUE AND DISCUSSING CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN HUMOR CAN FOSTER
UNDERSTANDING AND PREVENT MISUNDERSTANDINGS. ENCOURAGING INDIVIDUALS TO
PROVIDE CLARIFICATIONS OR EXPRESS THEIR FEELINGS WHEN A JOKE IS MADE CAN HELP
CREATE A SAFE SPACE FOR COMMUNICATION. DEVELOPING EMPATHY AND CULTURAL
SENSITIVITY CAN ALSO CONTRIBUTE TO BETTER MUTUAL UNDERSTANDING AND RESPECT.
CULTURAL ISSUES
CASE ANALYSIS 4
CASE ANALYSISS 5
CULTURAL ISSUES
CASE ANALYSIS 1
CASE ANALYSIS 2
CASE ANALYSIS 3
CASE ANALYSIS 5
CASE ANALYSIS 2
CASE ANALYSIS 3
CASE ANALYSIS 5
CASE ANALYSIS 2
CASE ANALSIS 3
CONTEMPORARY ISSUES
CASE ANALYSIS 4
CASE ANALYSIS 5
CONTEMPORARY ISSUES
CASE ANALYSIS 1
CASE ANALYSIS 2
CASE ANALYSIS 3
CASE ANALYSIS 5
CASE ANALYSIS 2
CASE ANALYSIS 3
CASE ANALYSIS 4
CASE ANALYSIS 5
CASE ANALYSIS 2
CASE ANALYSIS 3