Experts Matter. Find Yours.

Digital Contracting Is Broken. A Little "Friction" Could Go a Long Way in Fixing It

In mid-October, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced a final “click-to-cancel” rule, which, after its provisions go into effect, will make it easier for consumers to cancel recurring memberships and subscriptions. The rule is an undoubtable victory for consumers who have run into roadblocks attempting to protect their wallets amid the flurry of oversubscription in today’s world, but it also begets an important question: Why is oversubscription occurring in the first place? “One important reason for that problem is that getting into contracts is frictionless, it’s too easy,” said Brett Frischmann, JD, the Charles Widger Endowed Professor in Law, Business and Economics in Villanova University’s Charles Widger School of Law. “The FTC is addressing a real concern in making it easier for people to exit agreements of this sort. But while making it as easy to unsubscribe as to subscribe sounds great – we all like even playing fields and symmetry – it might be better to also make subscribing a little more burdensome, so people understand what they are getting themselves into in the first place.” This idea is the focus of Frischmann’s recent paper, titled “Better Digital Contracts with Prosocial Friction-in-Design,” the publication of which coincides with public dissatisfaction over digital contracting processes. In August, Disney attempted to have a wrongful death lawsuit blocked, citing print in terms and conditions from a one-month Disney+ free trial the plaintiff signed up for in 2019. Since then, other companies have succeeded in recently blocking the commencement of similar lawsuits. In the research, Frischmann and his co-author, Rice University computer scientist Moshe Vardi, describe these contracts as “dehumanizing” and that they “undermine human autonomy and sociality, by design,” citing how they elicit behavior in a pre-determined manner (such as clicking on cue) and often include side agreements with other entities, unbeknownst to the users. “One-click” contracts rely on legal fictions, such as presuming that clicking an “I have read the terms and conditions” button actually means that they have. They are structured this way intentionally. “The idea behind digital contracting is ‘Let’s make the contract as quick as possible before people leave or change their mind,” Frischmann said. “They only want to do the minimum that the law requires, and all the law requires is notice of terms and action that says, ‘I agree.’” For these reasons, he argues, modern digital contracting contradicts the purpose of contract law in the first place; enabling people to reach genuine agreements and cooperate. “It’s antithetical to the underlying values of a contract,” Frischmann said. “Autonomy is undermined because people are not able to exercise autonomy in a meaningful way when they are not actually capable of deliberating about the terms to which they are agreeing. As for being cooperative, there is no relationship. Digital contracts are completely one-sided.” So what can be done to combat this? “Speedbumps,” Frischmann says, referring to measures that can cause friction in the contracting process to better protect the user. Physical road speedbumps represent a useful analogy, because while they make things slightly more inconvenient for the user, they are deployed strategically where other values are at stake, like the safety of children playing outside. “People tolerate speedbumps,” Frischmann says, “because they serve a social purpose. Friction in digital contracts is similar.” With respect to improving digital contracting, there are multiple measures that can be taken that inherently have such friction, but not all of them are always appropriate. Completely Automated Public Turing Test to Tell Computers and Humans Apart (CAPTCHAs), for example, are a type of friction-in-design that serve a useful social purpose (security) and have become normalized and tolerated, but some CAPTCHAs are ableist and others may generate proprietary data. Where he sees the most beneficial friction existing is in comprehension, which in software form could be completing a task or passing a test to prove an individual understands the agreement. Comprehension is the basis for one of Frischmann’s proposed alterations to contract law. Currently, the oft-criticized concept of informed consent is utilized. He argues it should be replaced with demonstrably informed consent, in essence requiring entities to further show that people truly comprehend what they are agreeing to. “Right now, individuals assent to contracts, going along with terms someone else insisted upon,” he said. “But assenting to terms is very different than being informed and consenting. To demand demonstrably informed consent shifts the burden on the provider to generate evidence showing in fact a person understood and agreed.” In the recent Disney case, for example, demonstrably informed consent would have required not just clicking an agreement when signing up for Disney+, but that Disney somehow explained to an individual that if they sign up for a free trial, they cannot take the company to court, and further generating reliable evidence that the individual understood that. If that were the case, perhaps the individual would not have signed up. “Or, they may not have ever gone to the Disney park if they had [signed up],” Frischmann said. This proposed change in contract law, along with the various potential methods of engineered friction in digital contracts all circle back to the same goal: slowing down contracting where it affects people in ways they do not understand. “You can’t have digital contracting built like a highway, where it’s all as fast as possible all the time,” Frischmann said. “For our digitally networked environment, it needs to be built like a neighborhood.”

GOP Casting Doubt on Election Results

Professor of Constitutional Law James Sample was an in-studio guest on MSNBC’s Deadline White House with Nicolle Wallace on October 16, 2024. The segment, which also featured elections lawyer Marc Elias, examined voter access and the measures some high level members of the GOP are taking in advance of Election Day, so they can contest the result if Vice President Kamala Harris wins.

#ExpertSpotlight - Remembering the invasion of Grenada

The U.S. invasion of Grenada in 1983 stands as a key moment in Cold War history, reflecting the complex dynamics of American foreign policy in the Caribbean. Known as Operation Urgent Fury, this military action was a response to political instability on the island and perceived threats to U.S. citizens and interests. The invasion not only shaped Grenada’s future but also influenced global perceptions of U.S. interventionism, raising questions about sovereignty, international law, and regional geopolitics. The significance of this event continues to resonate, offering numerous story angles for journalists. Key sub-topics include: Cold War Geopolitics and U.S. Foreign Policy: Exploring the broader Cold War context, the U.S.’s strategic interests in the Caribbean, and how the invasion shaped subsequent American foreign policy decisions. Debates on Sovereignty and International Law: Investigating the legal and ethical implications of the invasion, including debates about military intervention, national sovereignty, and international diplomacy. Impact on Grenada’s Political and Social Landscape: Examining the long-term effects of the invasion on Grenada’s political stability, economy, and society, and how the event is remembered locally. Media Coverage and Public Opinion: Analyzing how the invasion was covered by the media at the time, the public’s reaction in the U.S. and globally, and how it shaped perceptions of U.S. military power. The Role of Regional Powers and Alliances: Looking at the involvement of regional organizations like the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS), and how the invasion impacted relationships between the U.S., Latin America, and the Caribbean. Lessons for Modern U.S. Military Interventions: Reflecting on the invasion’s legacy and what it teaches about the risks, justifications, and consequences of U.S. military interventions in other nations. As the anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Grenada approaches, this event offers an opportunity to revisit critical discussions on international intervention, geopolitical strategy, and the balance between national interests and global governance. Connect with an expert about the 1983  U.S. invasion of Grenada : To search our full list of experts visit www.expertfile.com Photo credit: Encyclopedia Britannica

PACs ... What Are They and How Do They Work?

Political Action Committees (PACs) are organizations that collect and donate money to political candidates, parties, or causes. They are formed to pool contributions from individuals, corporations, unions, or other groups to support candidates who align with their goals or to oppose those who do not. PACs play a significant role in U.S. politics, allowing interest groups to influence elections and public policy through financial contributions. There are two main types of PACs: Traditional PACs: These are established by businesses, unions, trade associations, or issue groups. They can donate directly to candidates, but their contributions are limited by federal law. Traditional PACs can give up to $5,000 per candidate per election and up to $15,000 to a political party. Super PACs: Also known as "independent-expenditure-only committees," Super PACs can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money to support or oppose political candidates. However, they are not allowed to coordinate directly with candidates or their campaigns. Super PACs often focus on media ads and public messaging to influence elections. The significance of PACs lies in their ability to amplify the voices of certain interest groups, industries, and ideologies within the political system. However, they are also a source of controversy, with critics arguing that they can lead to undue influence from wealthy donors and special interest groups over elected officials. This has fueled debates about campaign finance reform and the transparency of political donations. In the complex world of campaign finance, Political Action Committees (PACs) play a crucial role in shaping the political landscape, serving as a vital link between private citizens, special interest groups, and elected officials. Understanding PACs is essential to grasp the broader implications of how money influences political decisions, election outcomes, and policy-making. This topic is newsworthy as debates around the transparency, ethics, and impact of PAC contributions continue to shape public discourse, particularly in light of recent elections and campaign finance reform efforts. Key story angles that may interest a broad audience include: The role of PACs in modern elections: Exploring how PAC contributions influence candidates, elections, and policy decisions. Super PACs vs. traditional PACs: Analyzing the differences, including spending limits, transparency requirements, and their respective influence on campaigns. Campaign finance reform: Discussing current efforts to regulate PAC contributions, address dark money, and improve transparency in political donations. Ethical concerns surrounding PACs: Investigating the influence of special interest groups and corporations on political decision-making and their alignment with public interest. The rise of grassroots PACs: Highlighting citizen-driven PACs and their role in amplifying smaller donors and diverse voices in the political process. The future of PACs in digital campaigning: Examining the evolving tactics PACs use in social media and digital advertising to sway voters and influence public opinion. Connect with an expert about PACs and campaign financing: To search our full list of experts visit www.expertfile.com

Villanova Professor Releases Study on Gender Dynamics in the Beer-Drinking Community

Earlier this month, thousands of revelers donned dirndls and lederhosen to mark Oktoberfest, the annual celebration of Bavarian fare, oompah music and, above all else, beer. The fall festival is just one of many occasions, including happy hours, brewery tours and sporting events, where Americans enjoy the beverage. In fact, based on a recent report by the Pew Research Center, the U.S. population consumes approximately 6.6 billion gallons of beer each year, which averages out to about 26.5 gallons per adult of legal drinking age. However, while ales, lagers and stouts remain popular choices that bring people together, not everyone feels equally included. A new study by Shelly Rathee, PhD, the Diana and James Yacobucci '73 Assistant Professor of Marketing and Business Law, highlights a gender-based divide within the beer-drinking community, with female consumers often feeling overlooked and left out. "Due to the structure of the beer industry and marketplace, there is reason to believe that firms overproduce products that appeal to male audiences and overly communicate masculine aspects of beer consumption," says Dr. Rathee. "As a result, female consumers are made to feel (and may continue to feel) excluded by beer culture, on average. From a business standpoint, the beer industry may be limiting its total market potential in the process." As Dr. Rathee explains, the beer industry and marketplace are predominately populated by men, and academic literature has long indicated that male dominance in a social or business setting can alter the behaviors of women in myriad ways. In her project, "The Female Consumer Response Implications of Male Dominance in a Product’s Online Community," the professor sought to understand how this trend might manifest itself in an internet forum for beer aficionados, hobbyists and critics. By examining customer review data from the online community BeerAdvocate and conducting tests aimed at assessing gender-based differences in contributions, Dr. Rathee found that female consumers are inclined to defer to the male majority in such settings. In general, women either refrain from sharing their perspectives on products or adopt language characterized by what are commonly referred to as "masculinity themes." "Masculinity and femininity themes were drawn from the text of the online reviews and were identified using dictionaries derived from previous research on these topics," shares Dr. Rathee. "For example, if the consumer liked the taste of the beer, a more feminine way of describing this might be 'pleasant,' while a more masculine way might be 'strong.'" In these terms, the difference in expression might seem subtle. However, as Dr. Rathee contends, the prevalence of tens of thousands of reviews that lean toward a more masculine tone, with few offering a counterbalance, can have noticeable effects. A quick look at the beer aisle in your local supermarket reveals its impact, with bottles and cans featuring images of axe-wielding warriors, dinosaurs and gargoyles. "We found in our research that male dominance in a marketplace leads to lower trial intentions [plans to try or buy something] and brand attitudes among women," elaborates Dr. Rathee. "Therefore, we can argue that companies are likely to produce products, and marketing appeals, that are more targeted at male audiences." Although men are currently more than twice as likely as women to name beer as their preferred alcoholic beverage, Dr. Rathee suggests that there is potential to create opportunities that encourage more female drinkers to engage with beer culture. By fostering environments where women can express their preferences and perspectives, she believes the beer industry can become more inclusive and representative, ultimately enriching the community as a whole. "When featuring reviews on websites, an effort to balance out the presentation of ideas from male and female voices could be helpful," Dr. Rathee says. "Special categories could also be created to drive interest based on demographic characteristics that may include gender, among other factors. A more extreme measure would be to simply avoid including gender as a reviewer characteristic that is publicly viewable." Much like opening tents beside a beer hall, these steps could provide the necessary space and conditions for a more open and robust discussion of products to take place—to the benefit of both consumers and the industry. In the event they're increasingly pursued, that's something to which we can all raise a toast.

Democrats Sue Georgia Election Board

James Sample, professor of Constitutional Law, appeared on Scripps News to discuss the lawsuit filed by the Democratic National Committee and Democratic Party of Georgia to block that state’s controversial ballot hand-count rule from going into effect in the upcoming presidential election. James is available to speak with media - simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview today.

NYC Mayor Indicted

Constitutional Law Professor James Sample was interviewed by WCBS-TV about the indictment of NYC Mayor Eric Adams indicted following a federal investigation. James is available to speak with media - simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview today.

Media Covers Hofstra Debate Watch Party

Media covered a student watch party for the first debate between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump on September 10. There were additionally interviews pre- and post-debate with Meena Bose, executive director of the Kalikow Center for the Study of the American Presidency; Larry Levy, associate vice president and executive dean of the National Center for Suburban Studies; Mark Lukasiewicz, dean of the Herbert School of Communication; Rosanna Perotti, political science professor; and James Sample, constitutional law professor.

Calls for Trump Documents Case to be Reassigned to a New Judge

Professor of Constitutional Law James Sample is part of a group seeking to file an amicus brief with the 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals, criticizing the Judge Aileen Cannon’s handling of the classified documents case against former President Donald Trump. CNN.com reported that Professor Sample is one of two judicial ethics experts to join a retired federal judge and the government watchdog group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, in this effort to reassign the case to a new judge. According to the article, an amicus brief, or “friend of the court” brief, is from someone who is not a party to the case and is merely meant to provide information to the court. It is up to the court how much legal weight — if any at all – is given to an amicus brief. James is available to speak with media - simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview today.

Covering Tuesday's Debate? Our Experts are Here to Help

The rules are set, the date is locked in and the political world will be watching as Donald Trump and Kamala Harris face off for the first time at the presidential debate taking place in Philadelphia on Tuesday. It's expected millions will tune in, but if you're a reporter covering the lead up to this much hyped event - then let our experts help with your coverage. Tony Smith’s knowledge of politics covers a large spectrum that includes Constitutional Law, the intricate workings and rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court, election law, and the contest over rights in both a domestic and global context. Louis DeSipio examines how democratic nations incorporate new members, including policymaking in the areas of immigration and voting rights. He also studies Latino political behavior. Louis DeSipio and Tony Smith can help with various angles of any political story you're assigned. Both experts are available to speak with media - simply click on either expert's icon now to arrange an interview today.