Braedon B. Morrow

I. Introduction

Since its inception in 1906, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) has prohibited student-athletes from promoting or endorsing a commercial product or service, even if they are not paid to do so.[1] Put simply, this means that student-athletes may not profit off of their name, image, and likeness (NIL) if they wish to maintain their NCAA eligibility.[2] For decades the system made sense; however, the current modernization of college athletics has given rise to the need for change. In its 2018–2019 fiscal year, the NCAA earned $1.12 billion in revenue, most of which was generated from its Division I Men’s Basketball Tournament.[3] In 2018, all Division I Football Bowl Subdivision schools earned revenues totaling $8.78 billion.[4] College athletics is no longer all about amateurism. Plainly put, it is now a multi-billion-dollar business that allows everyone to make money but the student-athletes themselves. Make no mistake, student-athletes receive several valuable benefits such as a full scholarship, room, board, healthcare, and a stage to showcase their talents to professional scouts, but a blanket restriction on the ability of student-athletes to make money from third parties is outdated and archaic. The issue ultimately boils down to fairness: all non-athlete college students can profit from their name, image, and likeness, but the students who are actually in the public eye, the student-athletes, cannot do so without losing their eligibility to compete.[5]

Continue reading →

Virginia Stewart

I. Introduction

On March 1, 2020, President Trump proclaimed that the outbreak of coronavirus, or COVID-19, in the United States constituted a national emergency.[1] In response, several states took legislative action in order to protect businesses, among other things, against tort claims related to  COVID-19.[2] The Louisiana Legislature followed other states by enacting Louisiana Revised Statutes § 9:2800.25, which grants to certain types of entities protection from liability for claims related to COVID-19.[3] Although effective June 13, 2020, the law is retroactive to March 11, 2020, when Louisiana declared its state of emergency related to COVID-19.[4] In relevant part, the statute provides:

No natural or juridical person, state or local government, or political subdivision thereof shall be liable for any civil damages for injury or death resulting from or related to actual or alleged exposure to COVID-19 in the course of or through the performance or provision of the person’s, government’s, or political subdivision’s business operations unless the person, government, or political subdivision failed to substantially comply with the applicable COVID-19 procedures established by the federal, state, or local agency which governs the business operations and the injury or death was caused by the person’s, government’s, or political subdivision’s gross negligence or wanton or reckless misconduct. If two or more sources of procedures are applicable to the business operations at the time of the actual or alleged exposure, the person, government, or political subdivision shall substantially comply with any one applicable set of procedures.[5]

Continue reading →

by Braxton Duhon

I. Introduction: An Explosive Case

Angela Bolger, like many Amazon Prime[1] customers, often used Amazon to order items that she needed.[2] On one such occasion, Bolger searched the internet for a replacement laptop battery and ultimately ordered one from Amazon.[3] Amazon then shipped Bolger a Lenoge[4] laptop battery, which she received a few days later.[5] After opening the Amazon-branded box, wrapped in Amazon-branded shipping tape, Bolger installed and began to use her new laptop battery.[6] The laptop battery exploded within the first few months of use, placing Bolger in the hospital for two weeks because of serious burns.[7] Bolger then filed suit against Amazon seeking compensation for her injuries under the theory of strict products liability.[8]

The Bolger case is not as straightforward as it initially appears because Lenoge––the original manufacturer––is a third-party seller that utilizes Amazon to sell its product and fulfill such sales.[9] Ultimately, the California Court of Appeal held that Amazon was potentially liable under strict products liability for the sale of a defective third-party laptop battery on its site when the original manufacturer was part of the “Fulfillment by Amazon” (FBA) program and Amazon played an integral role in the overall production and marketing process.[10] Because of Amazon’s unique distribution structure under the FBA program, other courts have struggled to apply traditional strict products liability laws.[11] Continue reading →

by M. Max Sternberg

1. Introduction

On August 11, 2020, and after months of speculation, the Big Ten Conference canceled all fall sports, including football, due to safety concerns in light of the COVID-19 pandemic.[1] Later that same day, the Pac-12 Conference followed suit and also canceled all fall sports.[2] However, on September 16, the Big Ten reversed course and announced that it will in fact have a football season starting October 24, 2020.[3] Furthermore, on September 24, the Pac-12 decided to play a seven game conference only football season starting November 6.[4] As a result, only three (3) schools in the Division 1 Football Bowl Subdivision have canceled the season outright.[5] Canceling the college football season presents new and unique legal questions for those conferences and schools that do not play football, and for the NCAA as well.[6] Alternatively, the conferences and schools that do play football will face their own set of challenges. What’s more, the situation surrounding the decision to play or not to play is constantly changing. Since the first draft of this post, the Big Ten and the Pac-12 have both reinstated football.[7] In light of this evolving situation, and in hopes of providing some clarity, this blog post will address some of the new legal issues raised by either playing or not playing college sports this fall, particularly college football. Continue reading →

by Hunter Hewell, Senior Associate 

I. Introduction

Much like in the federal court system, Texas courts require each party in a suit to pay for their own attorney’s fees.[1] Some circumstances, however, allow for fee-shifting, in which the prevailing party may recover its attorney’s fees from the opposing party.[2] This fee-shifting arrangement is subject to certain requirements: (1) it must be authorized by statute or contract and (2) the party seeking its attorney’s fees must prove the reasonableness of the fee.[3] Although these requirements seem straightforward, courts throughout Texas have struggled with what methodology must be used and what facts the party seeking its attorney’s fees must present to determine the reasonableness of attorney’s fees once a fee-shifting authorization statute is invoked.[4] In 2019, the Texas Supreme Court passed down the Rohrmoos ruling, which specifically addressed what methodology courts and attorneys must use to determine how attorneys’ fees should be apportioned under these circumstances.[5]

Continue reading →