Skip to content
  • Type:
    Categories:
    Sub-Categories:

    The Research Handbook on Health, AI and the Law explores the use of AI in healthcare, identifying the important laws and ethical issues that arise from its use. Adopting an international approach, it analyses the varying responses of multiple jurisdictions to the use of AI and examines the influence of major religious and secular ethical traditions.

  • Type:
    Categories:

  • Type:
    Categories:
    Sub-Categories:

  • Type:
    Categories:
    Sub-Categories:

    Health care delivery is shifting away from the clinic and into the home. Even prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the use of telehealth, wearable sensors, ambient surveillance, and other products was on the rise. In the coming years, patients will increasingly interact with digital products at every stage of their care, such as using wearable sensors to monitor changes in temperature or blood pressure, conducting self-directed testing before virtually meeting with a physician for a diagnosis, and using smart pills to document their adherence to prescribed treatments. This volume reflects on the explosion of at-home digital health care and explores the ethical, legal, regulatory, and reimbursement impacts of this shift away from the 20th-century focus on clinics and hospitals towards a more modern health care model. This title is also available as Open Access on Cambridge Core.

  • Type:
    Categories:
    Sub-Categories:

  • Type:
    Categories:
    Sub-Categories:

  • Type:
    Categories:

  • Type:
    Categories:
    Sub-Categories:

    Links:

  • Type:
    Categories:
    Sub-Categories:

  • Type:
    Categories:
    Sub-Categories:

    As the Israel-Hamas war provokes claims about unacceptable speech, the ability to debate difficult subjects is in renewed peril.

  • Type:
    Categories:
    Sub-Categories:

  • Type:
    Categories:
    Sub-Categories:

    As Biden’s campaign shifts into high gear, you don’t need fantasy to believe he can win.

  • Type:
    Categories:
    Sub-Categories:

  • Type:
    Categories:
    Sub-Categories:

  • Type:
    Categories:
    Sub-Categories:

  • Type:
    Categories:

    Changing America’s founding document may seem prohibitively difficult, but there’s a proven path to getting it done.

  • Type:
    Categories:
    Sub-Categories:

  • Type:
    Categories:
    Sub-Categories:

    Senate Republicans’ brief in the Supreme Court surprisingly argues just that.

  • Favorite

    Benjamin Sachs & Kate Andrias, The Chicken-and-Egg of Law and Organizing: Enacting Policy for Power Building, 124 Columbia L. Rev. (forthcoming 2024).

    Type:
    Categories:

  • Type:
    Categories:
    Sub-Categories:

    In his famous 1960 article, William Prosser identified four privacy torts: Disclosure of Private Facts, False Light Invasion of Privacy, Appropriation of Likeness, and Intrusion Upon Seclusion. Although each was recognized in the Second Torts Restatement and by various courts, the false light tort seems to have foundered. Indeed, starting in the late 1980s, prominent courts rejected it and many academics have expressed grave misgivings about it. Often interpreted as a kind of ‘defamation lite,’ the tort seems to its critics an ill-defined wrong that clever lawyers invoke to evade important limitations on defamation liability. Drawing from case law and an important but underappreciated body of prior scholarship, this article elucidates the distinctive content and role of false light as an authentic invasion-of- privacy tort and explains why its recognition is especially important in our digital world. To appreciate its value requires, first and foremost, grasping that its closest tort sibling is not defamation, but instead public disclosure. Like that tort and unlike defamation, false light applies only to a subset of subject matters – those that are genuinely private and are not newsworthy – and only when highly offensive images or messages pertaining to the plaintiff are widely disseminated to the public. In short, as Melville Nimmer once noted, the sound judgment undergirding false light is this: if causing humiliation or grave offense by disseminating accurate depictions or accounts of private matters is actionable, it should be no less actionable when the putative representations are false. In an era of deepfakes and other privacy-invading misrepresentations, courts should embrace the tort of false light.

  • Type:
    Categories:

    Links:

    When a resident of an anti-abortion state goes to a prochoice state to get an abortion, which law applies to that person? To the abortion provider? To anyone who helps them obtain the abortion? Since Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization overruled Roe v. Wade, states have passed conflicting laws regarding abortion, and courts will need to determine whether anti-abortion states can apply their laws to persons or events outside their territory either through civil lawsuits or criminal prosecution. This article canvasses the major disputes likely to arise over conflicts of abortion law and the arguments on both sides in those cases. It addresses both common law analysis and the constitutional constraints on application of state law under the Full Faith and Credit Clause and the Due Process Clause, and it comes to some conclusions both about what laws should apply in different fact settings and how the choice of law analysis should proceed.Since Dobbs focused on the “history and tradition” behind rights under the Due Process Clause, and because the constitutional test for “legislative jurisdiction” that regulates when a state can apply its law to a controversy is partly based on the Due Process Clause, we start with the prevalent approaches to conflicts of law available to judges at the time the Bill of Rights was adopted in 1791 and when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in 1868, focusing on the “comity” approach championed by Justice Joseph Story. We consider also the First Restatement’s vested rights approach in vogue between the end of the nineteenth century and the middle of the twentieth century. We then move to modern choice of law analysis to determine which law applies when a person leaves their state to obtain an abortion. We will consider the Second Restatement’s “most significant relationship” test, the “comparative impairment” approach, the “better law” and “forum law” approaches, as well as the emerging Third Restatement of Conflict of Laws rules being drafted right now by the American Law Institute.One set of cases involves conduct that is wholly situated within the borders of the anti-abortion state. That state has full authority under the Constitution to regulate its internal affairs and to apply its laws to people who distribute or use anti-abortion medication there or who otherwise assist residents in violating its laws prohibiting or limiting access to abortion. Anti-abortion states have full authority to regulate conduct within their borders. However, the First Amendment protects people who provide information about the availability of abortion services in other states where it is legal, and the constitutional right to travel should protect those who transport someone out of state to get an abortion in a prochoice state or who subsidize the cost of such out-of-state travel.A second set of cases concerns cross-border torts where conduct in a prochoice state has effects in an anti-abortion state. Courts traditionally apply the law of the place of injury to those cases if it was foreseeable that the conduct would cause the injury there. But there are traditional exceptions to the place of injury rule that should apply in the abortion context when the place of conduct defines the conduct as a fundamental right and immunizes the actor from liability or places a duty or an affirmative privilege on the abortion provider to provide the care. Courts should depart from the place of injury rule in those circumstances when conduct is wholly confined to the immunizing (prochoice) state, and that means that an anti-abortion state cannot legitimately punish an abortion provider in a prochoice state who provides care there in reliance on rules of medical ethics that require the care to be provided. Nothing would violate rule of law norms more severely than placing a person under a simultaneous duty to provide care and a duty not to provide that care. On the other hand, anti-abortion states have full authority to regulate out-of-state conduct that does spill over the border into the anti-abortion state, such as shipping abortion medication to a recipient there. Difficult issues of foreseeability and proximate cause arise when an abortion provider prescribes abortion medication in a prochoice state but knows or suspects that the patient will be taking the medication back to the anti-abortion state to ingest. In some fact settings, the foreseeability issue is significant enough that it may rise to a constitutional limitation on the powers of the anti-abortion state to apply its law to out-of-state conduct or to assert personal jurisdiction over the abortion provider. In other cases, the place of injury has the constitutional authority to apply its law to out-of-state conduct that the actor knows will cause unlawful harm across the border but it may or may not have personal jurisdiction over the nonresident provider.A third set of cases involve bounty claims, tort survival lawsuits, or wrongful death suits that an anti-abortion state might seek to create by giving claims to one of its residents against the resident who left the state to get the abortion. Such cases may be viewed as “common domicile” cases by the anti-abortion state since both plaintiff and defendant reside in the anti-abortion state. That may tempt the anti-abortion state to apply its laws to an abortion that takes place in another state even though both conduct and injury occurred in a state that privileges the conduct and immunizes the defendant from liability. However, the law of the place of conduct and injury should apply in those cases since the prochoice law is a “conduct-regulating rule,” and choice of law analysis, traditional rules, and constitutional constraints on legislative jurisdiction all require deference to the law of the prochoice state in such cases. Courts sometimes apply the law of the common domicile when the law at the place of conduct and injury is not geared to regulating conduct there, but the opposite is true for laws directed at conduct, and this article will show why prochoice laws that define abortions as a fundamental right are conduct-regulating rules. The same is true for the question of criminal prosecution. An anti-abortion state has no legitimate authority to punish a resident who leaves the state to get an abortion in a state where abortion is protected as a fundamental right.

  • Type:
    Categories:
    Sub-Categories:

    Times v. Sullivan sets a striking principle: without (nearly unobtainable) proof of “actual malice,” public officials can’t win defamation suits. If public persons’ reputations conflict with free discourse, the latter wins. Sullivan is iconic. But it’s increasingly beleaguered, said to immunize lies that tear our polity apart. These fears are well-founded. The Sullivan Regime is broken. But understanding why starts not, as critics suggest, from new technology or constitutional doctrine. It starts from the tort of defamation. What interest does the defamation tort protect? What injury does it redress? Leading accounts look to property, dignity, or other values. But these miss something vital. In our polity, a central, serious harm defamation redresses is democratic disempowerment: the destruction of political efficacy in one’s community. Defamation victims (say, those falsely branded sex offenders) lose more than honor. They lose their ability to be credibly heard, participate in civic discussion, have their voices matter. They are discredited. And in our democracy, where participation is core to personhood, this wrong is profound indeed. This insight shows Sullivan, in balancing vigorous press against defamation suits, wasn’t trading “speech” against “non-speech” (say, politicians’ dignity). Rather, the balance was among speech priorities—vigorous press, and democratically enabled People. Silencing by lawsuits, versus silence by slanders. But Sullivan saw speech on just one side. And in our Viral Age, this error causes crisis: a wave of democratic disempowerment, crashing hardest at democracy’s front lines (school boards, election workers, journalists). Fortunately, seeing the problem shows how we might solve it. End “actual malice” for most public persons, but end all defamation suits brought by the very powerful. Make swifter merits decisions, but re-empower lay juries. Surer defeats for nuisance plaintiffs, but stark damages for egregious defamers. Bold, paradoxical shifts to protect both vigorous critique and democratic participation. And which help tame broader discontents—from baseless conspiracies to bigoted cybermobs. Lastly, most broadly, seeing defamation this way hints at a new private law paradigm: one taking democratic efficacy as a core personal interest (like our bodies, lands, and psyches). Today, this interest faces new threats (like lawless “deplatformings”) but is ill-served by old protectors (like constitutional doctrines). In this context, democracy torts—civil remedies to guard our democratic efficacy—hold great promise.

  • Type:
    Categories:
    Sub-Categories:

    With textualism’s ascendancy, courts increasingly invoke the canon to assume “ordinary meaning” unless the context indicates otherwise and the rule to enforce “plain meaning” regardless of extratextual considerations. Yet the relationship between ordinary meaning and plain meaning can become confused in practice. Courts use the terms interchangeably, and they conflate them doctrinally. Ordinary meaning and plain meaning are distinct. Ordinary meaning is what the text would convey to a reasonable English user in the context of everyday communication. Plain meaning refers to a judgment that whatever the text conveys in context is clear from the text. Thus, a term’s ordinary meaning is also its plain meaning only when it is clear from how the term is used in the statute that its context is ordinary, as opposed to technical. Courts conflate the two, however, when they assume ordinary meaning under the ordinary meaning canon and then conclude that they are therefore bound to enforce that meaning under the plain meaning rule. As a result, they end interpretation prematurely, excluding extratextual aids that might well show that the ordinary meaning assumption should give way. This Article is the first to investigate the relationship between ordinary meaning and plain meaning. It clarifies their differences, identifies the ways in which they are conflated, and evaluates when they should converge. For textualists, greater clarity on this score illuminates when and how to bring ordinary meaning and plain meaning together in a principled manner. For methodological pluralists, understanding the gap between ordinary meaning and plain meaning opens opportunities to argue beyond the text in our increasingly textualist world.

  • Type:
    Categories:
    Sub-Categories:

    “Intentional torts,” “Negligence,” and “Strict Liability” are typically cast as the major categories of tort liability. Conspicuously absent from this list is “Recklessness,” which would seem to fit between intentionality and negligence and is treated in criminal law as a category of its own. And yet recklessness does make sporadic appearances in tort law. Because it lies between categories without constituting a distinct category, recklessness thus can fairly be described as operating “interstitially” within tort law. As we explain, recklessness fulfills this role in two quite different ways. In the law of defamation and fraud, it sets the lower boundary of ‘malice,’ understood as mistreatment of another involving dishonesty or other states of mind inconsistent with good faith. A quite different collection of tort settings in which recklessness plays an important role – one that includes the application of assumption of risk to recreational activities – are those in which courts are prepared to relieve actors of liability notwithstanding that their actions generate a significant risk of harm. In this domain, recklessness marks an upper rather than a lower boundary, namely, the point at which conduct becomes so unjustifiably dangerous that liability will attach. We conclude by suggesting that attention to the different ways in which recklessness serves as a fine-tuning mechanism in tort law may illuminate philosophical debates about the nature of recklessness, as well as jurisprudential inquiries concerning interstitial legal concepts.

  • Type:
    Categories:
    Sub-Categories:

    Links:

    There is anger among many at the growing recognition that this conservative Supreme Court is marching, not resting. That little of the past--like precedent--will constrain it. And that the decisions of the preceding terms--overturning Roe v. Wade, expanding the "right to bear arms," ending affirmative action, among other extraordinary decisions--are just the beginning of a long and cold jurisprudential winter. Many on the Left have responded by proposing ambitious strategies for resisting the Court. There are calls for court packing, and for the impeachment of faithless justices. Two of the most prominent among younger American law professors have declared the "need is not to reclaim the Constitution, as many would have it, but instead to reclaim America from constitutionalism." This response is a mistake. The right strategy to answer people who believe that they are doing right is not to try to convince them their principles are wrong. It is to show them that they are not following their principles. The answer to the growing originalist majority on the United States Supreme Court is not to attack originalism, but to show how incomplete and inconsistent this Court's originalism has become. That is my aim in this essay. Not because arguments change minds. Necessarily. But because they set the predicate for what would be a principled and appropriate response by Congress. It is time for Congress to reclaim the role that the framers of our second Constitution--the Civil War Amendments--intended for it. Because a principled originalism could not resist that claim, and that claim, more than anything else, would liberate rights in America from their current, narrow judicial hold.

  • Type:
    Categories:
    Sub-Categories:

    This chapter begins with an explanation of why, in the United States, philosophical analysis has become a prominent feature of private law scholarship. Historical, sociological, and constitutional peculiarities of the American experience all figure in our account. It then distinguishes two ways in which philosophy has been brought to bear on private law. The first involves the use of analytical and moral philosophy to critique and develop alternatives to policy-driven, welfarist approaches that tend to dominate elite U.S. legal-academic writing. The second harnesses philosophical analysis to defend the intelligibility of ordinary lawyerly discourse about private law as against reductionists (whether deontological and welfarist) who treat legal concepts as empty vessels to be filled with extra-legal content. Our aim is to help scholars understand the current state of private law scholarship in the U.S. and appreciate the role that philosophy can play in the explanatory, justificatory, and critical aspects of the legal academic enterprise.

  • Type:
    Categories:
    Sub-Categories:

  • Type:
    Categories:
    Sub-Categories:

    There's far more to his hush money case than meets the eye.

  • Type:
    Categories:
    Sub-Categories:

    In the face of war and atrocities, the principles of the 75-year-old document remain sound.

  • Type:
    Categories:
    Sub-Categories:

    For decades, college-admissions offices have quietly imposed higher standards on female applicants.

  • Type:
    Categories:
    Sub-Categories:

    Can AI safety shed any light on old corporate governance problems? And can the law and economics of corporate governance help us frame the new problems of AI safety? The author identifies five lessons — and one dire warning — on the corporate governance of AI and other socially sensitive technologies that have been made vivid by the corporate turmoil at OpenAI.

  • Type:
    Categories:
    Sub-Categories:

    Links:

    Both antitrust and trademark law are, broadly speaking, “unfair competition” regimes. But the power that the law confers on trademark owners has expanded even as the constraints imposed by antitrust have contracted. In recent years, disputes over the use of trademarks as “keywords” used by search engines and their advertisers to target advertising when a consumer searches online have raised both trademark and antitrust issues. While U.S. trademark law generally considers keyword advertising to be pro-competitive and nonconfusing, a significant court of appeals case held that attempts to suppress such advertising did not violate the antitrust laws. Despite this unfortunate result, disputes over keyword advertising can still teach us important lessons about trademark theory, particularly the economic theory that trademark rights are justified to lower consumers’ search costs.

  • Type:
    Categories:
    Sub-Categories:

    Blocked at the federal level, Massachusetts must act by passing a new state law.

  • Type:
    Categories:
    Sub-Categories:

    Links:

  • Type:
    Categories:
    Sub-Categories:

    Links:

  • Type:
    Categories:
    Sub-Categories:

    Links:

    The Justices of the Supreme Court increasingly claim to be originalists. Yet close examination reveals that the Court’s actual reliance on originalist analysis is highly selective. In large swathes of cases, the avowedly originalist Justices make little or no effort to justify their rulings by reference to original constitutional meanings. Nor do most of them show much disposition to grant certiorari in many cases that might enable them to overrule past, nonoriginalist decisions. This Article defines and documents the phenomenon of selective originalism. Having done so, the Article then explores the cultural and jurisprudential conditions in which selective originalism, which typically abets substantively conservative decisionmaking, has developed and now flourishes. The doctrine of stare decisis, the Article argues, plays an important role in enabling selective originalism. Because it seldom either requires or forbids precedent-based decisionmaking by the Supreme Court, it allows the Court to be originalist when it chooses but not to be originalist when it chooses. In light of this appraisal of the significance of stare decisis in the Supreme Court, the Article criticizes the practice of selective originalism for its inconsistency and disingenuousness. But the Article also explores the obvious question that criticisms frame: Why do the selectively originalist Justices not respond by articulating a more complex doctrine that would seek to justify their only-selective reliance on originalist premises? We would misunderstand selective originalism, the Article argues, if we derided its misleading pretensions and probed no further. The self-avowed originalist Justices almost certainly experience themselves as duty-bound to overturn nonoriginalist holdings in some cases, though not in all, even when the doctrine of stare decisis is too weak to dictate their conclusions as a strict matter of law. And the reasons why, I argue, contain lessons for originalists and nonoriginalists alike: A clear-eyed appraisal of the Justices' functions should inspire the conclusion that the Supreme Court, unlike other courts, is a predominantly lawmaking tribunal that must bear responsibility for the practical and moral desirability of changes that it effects in the fabric of constitutional law. In light of the Court's distinctive functions, conclusions about what the Justices ought to do, and indeed have obligations to do, are often best understood as embodying judgments about judicial role morality in addition to law.

  • Type:
    Categories:
    Sub-Categories:

    Links:

    The Council of Europe, Europe's most important human rights organization, is developing a legally binding instrument for the development, design, and application of AI systems. This “Convention on Artificial Intelligence, Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law” (AI Convention) aims to protect human rights against the harms of AI. The AI Convention may become the first legally-binding international treaty on AI. In this article, we highlight the implications of the proposed AI Convention for the health and human rights protection of patients. We praise the following characteristics. Global regulation for technology that easily crosses jurisdictions. The human rights-based approach with human rights assessment. The actor-neutral, full-lifecycle approach. The creation of enforceable rights through the European Human Rights Court. We signal the following challenges. The sector-neutral approach. The lack of reflection on new human rights. Definitional issues, and The process of global negotiations. We conclude that it is important for the Council of Europe not to compromise on the wide scope of application and the rights-based character of the proposed AI Convention.

  • Type:
    Categories:
    Sub-Categories:

    A majority of the Justices today are self-described textualists. Yet even as these jurists insist that “the text of the law is the law,” they appeal to “substantive” canons of construction that stretch statutory text in the direction of favored values, from federalism to restraining the administrative state. The conflict between these commitments would seem obvious — and indeed, candid textualists have long acknowledged that there is a “tension” here. But textualist theorists have also advanced several arguments to assuage or finesse that tension, and the sheer availability of those arguments has given the textualist Justices’ resort to these devices a respectability that, we argue here, it does not deserve.With the Justices now openly debating the compatibility of textualism and substantive canons, this Article surveys and critically assesses the assorted efforts to square this particular circle. Those strategies include (1) recharacterizing substantive canons as elements of the “background” against which Congress legislates, (2) linking them to “constitutional values,” and (3) restricting their use to resolving “ambiguities.” Each of those defenses, we argue, either commits textualists to jurisprudential positions they ordinarily denounce or, at best, implies such a narrow scope for substantive canons that nothing resembling their current use would survive. The Article thus concludes that textualists should either abandon their reliance on substantive canons or else concede that their textualism is not what they have often made it out to be.

  • Type:
    Categories:

    This Research Handbook deals with the politics of constitutional law around the world, using both comparative and political analysis, delivering global treatment of the politics of constitutional law across issues, regions and legal systems. Offering an innovative, critical approach to an array of key concepts and topics, this book will be a key resource for legal scholars and political science scholars. Students with interests in law and politics, constitutions, legal theory and public policy will also find this a beneficial companion.

  • Type:
    Categories:

    Links:

    The Facing History team always emphasised the importance of integrating head and heart in learning, especially in learning about hard issues. Madam Ogata, a political scientist from Japan and daughter of a diplomat, was trained at the University of California and became a professor and a dean in Japan before her appointment as the first woman to lead the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. Movements to recognise individual human rights challenge the historical conceptions of borders. Once each individual is understood to be a rights bearer of equal dignity, the rationales of family privacy and state sovereignty no longer shield violations of individual rights from view and action. In the wake of intergroup violence, the usual calls urge reconciliation or sufficient quelling of the disturbance to permit peaceful coexistence.

  • Type:
    Categories:
    Sub-Categories:

    Under the Court’s new rules, the Justices appear not to have made any mistakes.

  • Type:
    Categories:

    The use of generative AI promises to continue to grow rapidly. Consequently, leaders must understand the risks and challenges of this new technology and develop policies and practices to guide its usage. This article explains the areas of concern and offers guidance in addressing them.

  • Type:
    Categories:
    Sub-Categories:

    Links:

    The idea of judicial dialogue entered into scholarly discussion in the late twentieth century and is used in connection with different phenomena at the transnational and domestic levels. In the transnational context, it refers to exchanges among courts and judges that belong to different national and international legal regimes. In the domestic context, judicial dialogue refers to interaction between courts and other branches of government, particularly legislatures. Each phenomenon is associated with a form of politics. Transnational judicial dialogue occurs in a literal sense when judges communicate and network with each other, but it also occurs in a figurative sense when judges engage in comparative legal research and consider each other’s work. Either way, it can resemble a specialized form of international relations, in which courts seek to bolster their own standing by affiliating themselves with more prestigious peers, and to exercise soft power and influence over less prestigious peers. Transnational dialogue is often opaque or invisible to outsiders and usually lacks domestic political ramifications. In a handful of settings, however, judges who make conspicuous use of foreign law by explicitly citing it in high-profile or controversial opinions can expect to face normative criticism for doing so.Dialogue at the domestic level is associated with alternative forms of judicial review that give legislatures the power to override or avoid judicial rulings of unconstitutionality. Such institutional configurations are said to strike a balance between legislative and judicial supremacy, and to take the sting out of the charge that constitutional courts are inevitably ‘countermajoritarian.’ Scholarly use of the dialogue concept envisions a discursive form of constitutional politics that is differentiated from, and superior to, the usual politics surrounding judicial review. However, it is unclear whether such a distinctive and elevated species of politics can be achieved in practice. On the one hand, if ‘dialogue’ is defined in a thin fashion as including any back-and-forth on constitutional questions between legislatures and courts, the concept becomes so broad as to be indistinguishable from ordinary politics. On the other hand, if ‘dialogue’ is defined in a thick fashion as substantive exchange on the merits of constitutional questions, there may be no country capable of satisfying the definition. The case of Canada, often held up as the leading example of judicial dialogue, illustrates the severe definitional challenges surrounding the concept.

  • Type:
    Categories:
    Sub-Categories:

    Links:

  • Type:
    Categories:
    Sub-Categories:

  • Type:
    Categories:
    Sub-Categories:

  • Type:
    Categories:
    Sub-Categories:

    To allow Donald Trump to appear on the 2024 presidential ballot, the courts will need to explain why any ruling that keeps the former president in the running doesn't itself betray the Constitution.

  • Type:
    Categories:
    Sub-Categories:

    Links:

    Scholars and policy makers have long debated whether securities firms should be allowed to bundle the cost of execution services with the cost of research. Investor advocates condemn the practice whereas industry representatives defend it. In 2018, as part of the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive II (MiFID II) legislative regime, the EU forced the unbundling of commission charges, diverging from US legal standards which still allow ‘soft dollar’ payments for research. The EU’s unbundling regime has challenged global financial services firms, which must now comply with conflicting rules across national boundaries. For more than five years, the US Securities and Exchange Commission provided temporary no-action relief to facilitate compliance with MiFID II, but that relief expired in July 2023, presenting an opportunity to reconsider the impact of MiFID II’s unbundling regime and its implications for US regulators and investors. While this article takes a critical view of soft dollar practices, the story of MiFID II presents contested issues of policy analysis as the agency costs inherent in bundled commissions could be offset by the public benefits of additional research. Unbundling also offers a noteworthy example of an innovation in capital markets regulation flowing from Europe to the United States rather than the other way around.

  • Type:
    Categories:
    Sub-Categories:

  • Type:
    Categories:
    Sub-Categories:

    Links: