Afleveringen
-
John is joined by Shawn Fagan, the Chief Legal Officer of Citadel LLC, and a key legal figure at Citadel Securities. Citadel is the most profitable hedge fund globally while Citadel Securities is a leading market maker, processing nearly one-third of U.S. equities and options trades. They discuss Shawnâs insights into the unique legal challenges of these rapidly growing organizations. Shawn has essentially four clients: Citadel, Citadel Securities, founder Ken Griffin, and Griffinâs family office. His responsibilities extend beyond legal oversight to include regulatory affairs and compliance and reflect the complexities of modern finance. Shawnâs journey to Citadel was unconventional. He started as a litigator at Bartlett Beck, a boutique trial firm, where he spent nearly half his time in trial. He participated in high-profile cases, including Bush v. Gore, but ultimately realized that trial work was not his passion. A chance meeting with Ken Griffin led to an in-house opportunity at Citadel, where he has been for 20 years. In that time, Citadel has grown from 1,000 employees with $12 billion in AUM to 4,900 employees with $65 billion in AUM. The focus of his role at Citadel is building the right teams to meet the demands of rapidly growing markets around the world, developing technology to ensure regulatory compliance across billions of transactions every day, and maintaining consistent standards in an organization that is growing as rapidly as Citadel. Citadel has engaged in several high-profile legal battles, including lawsuits against the SEC and IRS, reflecting Citadelâs willingness to challenge regulations it views as unreasonable and unduly burdensome. In retaining outside counsel, Shawn looks for lawyers with a strategic vision who can articulate a clear path to winning cases.
Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm
Host: John B. Quinn
Producer: Alexis Hyde
Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi -
John is joined by Jeffrey N. Boozell and Christopher Tayback, both partners in Quinn Emanuelâs Los Angeles office. They discuss wildfire litigation as a specialized and rapidly growing area of law, driven by increasingly destructive fires in California and other western states. What began as a relatively limited practice in the 1990s evolved into a major practice area after large California wildfires generated thousands of property loss claims and billions of dollars in damages. Jeff and Chris explain how these cases are structured, the legal theories involved, and the challenges of compensating victims.
Wildfire cases are generally mass torts rather than class actions. Because each homeowner suffers different losses and faces unique causation issues, claims are coordinated before a single judge but remain individual lawsuits.
These cases are typically brought against utilities, governments, and private entities that plaintiffs allege bear some responsibility for the disaster. One of the most important legal doctrines in California is inverse condemnation, which imposes liability on public utilities when infrastructure serving the public causes property damage. Under this doctrine, utilities may be responsible for property losses even without proof of negligence, distinguishing California wildfire litigation from cases in many other states.
Utilities are also frequently defendants because fires are often linked to power lines, equipment failures, vegetation management issues, or other infrastructure-related problems. Various ignition scenarios may occur, including power lines striking each other in high winds, trees coming into contact with power lines, and improperly maintained equipment. For example, in the Eaton Fire, evidence shows that an old, unused power line was not properly grounded, leading to sparks that ignited the fire. In the Palisades Fire, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power emptied the Santa Ynez Reservoir to carry out repairs and left it empty for an extended period. As a result, firefighting helicopters were unable to collect and drop water from the reservoir, and eventually, fire hydrants in the area ran dry. Utilities understand these risks but often fail to implement adequate preventive measures.
Despite involving enormous losses and thousands of claimants, major California wildfire cases rarely reach trial. Instead, courts establish coordinated proceedings, identify bellwether cases, and encourage settlement through mediation programs or compensation funds. Insurance payments often cover only part of a homeownerâs losses, leaving substantial uninsured damages and emotional distress claims to be pursued through litigation.
The scale of the 2025 Los Angeles-area fires is unprecedented. Estimated damages exceed $200 billion, underscoring why wildfire litigation is likely to remain a significant area of legal practice for years to come.
Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm
Host: John B. Quinn
Producer: Alexis Hyde
Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi -
Zijn er afleveringen die ontbreken?
-
John is joined by Miguel Rato and Marixenia Davilla, both partners in Quinn Emanuelâs Brussels office. They discuss a major antitrust and competition law class action brought in the United Kingdom against Qualcomm, a leading developer of mobile communications technology.
The case was filed as an opt-out class action on behalf of consumers and alleged that Qualcomm had abused a dominant market position by charging excessive patent royalties to smartphone manufacturers, particularly Apple and Samsung. The plaintiff claimed that Qualcomm used its strength as a supplier of mobile chipsets to pressure manufacturers into accepting licensing terms that allegedly resulted in inflated consumer prices. Remarkably, the plaintiff class withdrew the case at the end of the first phase of the trial.
European competition law differs from U.S. antitrust law in that it permits claims based not only on the exclusion of rivals, but also on the alleged exploitation of customers through excessive pricing. In this case, the plaintiffs argued that Qualcomm leveraged its market power in chipsets to impose unfair licensing terms. Qualcomm maintained that its licensing model reflected legitimate compensation for decades of innovation and intellectual property development.
The trial focused in detail on Qualcommâs relationships with Apple and Samsung. Evidence showed that key licensing arrangements were entered into at times when the manufacturers were not dependent on Qualcomm chipsets, undermining the claim that Qualcomm used chipset supply as leverage. Additional evidence demonstrated that royalty levels did not vary according to the volume of chipset purchases and that customers could obtain licenses independently of chipset transactions. Economic analysis likewise failed to reveal any connection between alleged dependence on Qualcomm products and the royalties ultimately negotiated.
The case proceeded to a five-week trial before the Competition Appeal Tribunal in London. The first phase addressed market definition, dominance, liability, and whether the allegedly excessive royalties could nevertheless be justified as reasonable. Before the tribunal issued its ruling on the first phase, the class representative agreed to withdraw the case entirely. Qualcomm paid nothing, each side bore its own costs, and the litigation ended without a judgment.
A judge reviewing the withdrawal concluded that the claim had no realistic prospect of success, making the case a rare instance in which a plaintiff abandons a major class action after trial, but before a decision was rendered.
Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm
Host: John B. Quinn
Producer: Alexis Hyde
Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi -
John is joined by Jeffrey L. Kessler, Co-Executive Chairman of Winston & Strawn LLP. They discuss the remarkable antitrust trial Jeff won involving Live Nation and Ticketmaster.
In that case, the Department of Justice, 33 states, and the District of Columbia sued Live Nation and Ticketmaster, only for the DOJ to settle and withdraw from the case one week into the trial. The remaining states continued litigating and brought in Jeff as their new lead trial lawyer midway through the proceedings, an unprecedented action in major antitrust litigation. This required Jeffâs team to enter a complex jury trial with almost no preparation time, review a massive evidentiary record with the assistance of AI, coordinate with dozens of state attorneys general, and quickly reorganize witness presentations and trial themes.
The case centered on allegations that Live Nation and Ticketmaster unlawfully maintained monopoly power through long-term exclusive agreements, threats to withhold concert talent from venues using rival ticketing companies, and other conduct designed to block competition in ticket sales. The plaintiffs highlighted damaging internal company documents, including references to âboiling the frogs,â âdigging a moat around the castle,â and using a âvelvet hammerâ to pressure venues, all of which became powerful evidence supporting claims of anti-competitive intent. The plaintiffs also relied on economic testimony and evidence showing that the companies internally acknowledged serious service and quality problems while publicly claiming their products were superior.
Jeffâs trial strategy included simplifying complicated antitrust theories for jurors, narrowing claims, reducing witnesses, and using AI tools to rapidly analyze deposition transcripts and evidence. After a lengthy trial and four days of jury deliberations, the plaintiffs secured a major verdict against Live Nation and Ticketmaster, with further proceedings still pending regarding damages and possible structural remedies, including the separation of Ticketmaster from Live Nation.
Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm
Host: John B. Quinn
Producer: Alexis Hyde
Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi -
John is joined by renowned criminal defense attorney Ben Brafman, Founder of Brafman & Associates. They discuss Benâs 45-year career, trial strategies, and reflections on the criminal justice system. Ben, who has tried more than 75 cases, gained prominence in the 1980s and 90s defending major criminal trials, particularly organized crime and white-collar cases. He was in trial almost continuously for 11 years. He attributes his success to meticulous preparation and emphasizes that there are no shortcuts in trial practice.
Ben describes the evolution of criminal trials over the last 40 years, noting that trials are shorter and less frequent today due to the rise in plea deals. John and Ben also discuss trial strategy, particularly the importance of cross-examination. Many cases are won on cross. A successful cross requires deep knowledge of every piece of evidence in the case. Ben describes one case in which he essentially memorized months of taped conversations to dismantle a key witnessâs credibility.
Ben often uses cross-examinations of prosecution witnesses to establish elements of the defense and contradict the testimony of other witnesses. Most cases today are won or lost on emails or texts because they are so prevalent, and an incriminating email or text from a defendant cannot easily be discredited on cross-examination.
Ben also reflects on some of his most notable cases, including the acquittal of Sean âDiddyâ Combs on gun and bribery charges in 2001 and the acquittal of nightclub mogul Peter Gatien after an eight-week racketeering trial.
Criminal defense work often takes an emotional toll on defense attorneys, who witness the devastating impact criminal prosecutions can have on families and personal reputations. Finally, John and Ben discuss criminal justice reform. Ben criticizes mandatory minimum sentencing laws and advocates for greater judicial discretion to prevent unjustly harsh sentences.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm
Host: John B. Quinn
Producer: Alexis Hyde
Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi -
John is joined by Richard East, Senior Partner of Quinn Emanuelâs London office, and Nikolas Bruce-Smith, Partner in Quinn Emanuelâs London office. They discuss a major London commercial trial arising from the collapse of Greensill Capital and the resulting litigation between Credit Suisse and SoftBank. The plaintiff alleged that SoftBank sought to orchestrate, for its own ends, a complex restructuring involving the Greensill Group in late 2020, through which approximately US$440 million worth of assets were allegedly placed improperly beyond the reach of creditors while Greensill was in severe financial distress.
Following a five-week trial in 2025, and one of the first major trial conclusions arising from the widely publicised Greensill collapse, Credit Suisseâs claim failed. SoftBankâs conduct was vindicated by the English High Court, which found that SoftBank had acted âin good faithâ and âdid not know or suspectâ that Greensill intended to prejudice its creditors.
The trial was especially unique and notable, garnering extensive press attention, because Greensill founder Lex Greensill voluntarily agreed, on the eve of trial, to appear and testify despite not being called by either side and while facing separate legal and regulatory proceedings. A development like this is almost unheard of in complex, high-stakes commercial litigation and required all parties to adapt at the last minute in response to such an extraordinary turn of events as the trial commenced.
Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm
Host: John B. Quinn
Producer: Alexis Hyde
Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi -
John Quinn is joined by Jack Neumark, Managing Partner and Co-Head of Specialty Finance of Fortress Investment Group and Founder of its Legal Assets Group. They discuss the emergence of legal assets as a distinct investment class. Fortress is a leading player in litigation finance with over $6.5 billion deployed in legal assets and a current portfolio of approximately $3 billion. While most litigation funders typically invest in individual cases, Fortress invests in diversified portfolios of litigation claims and contingent fee receivables. Fortress underwrites and finances these portfolios the same way it does other specialty finance products. To underwrite a portfolio, Fortress has lawyers examine the cases in the portfolio to determine how strong and likely to settle they are. They consider factors including the defendants and how creditworthy they are, the damage theories asserted, how far the case has progressed, what motion practice has revealed, and whether related criminal charges have been filed. They also consider the law firms involved, the judge, and the venue.
Fortress also conducts quantitative analyses of the historical results of similar cases based on publicly available data and proprietary data it has accumulated in the 15 years it has invested in legal assets. Legal asset portfolios are attractive to many investors because the results of lawsuits are less subject to the performance of the economy in general than many other classes of assets. Also, because the market for legal assets is still developing, sophisticated investors can often obtain better returns than in more mature markets. Jack believes that as the industry matures, especially with potential regulatory changes around law firm ownership, litigation finance will become more mainstream and integrated into broader investment strategies.
Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm
Host: John B. Quinn
Producer: Alexis Hyde
Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi -
John is joined by John Bash, partner in Quinn Emanuelâs Austin office. They discuss a proposed California ballot initiative that would impose a one-time 5% wealth tax on individuals with net worth, including certain trusts, exceeding one billion dollars, if they are California residents as of January 1, 2026, with the tax calculated based on wealth as of December 31, 2026. The measure would amend the state constitution and apply broadly to both tangible and intangible assets. Several categories of assets would be exempt, including real estate, some out-of-state tangible property, and certain amounts held in retirement plans.
The proposal raises immediate practical concerns, particularly the difficulty of valuing illiquid assets such as privately held companies, intellectual property, or art, as well as the challenge of paying a substantial tax without readily available liquid assets. There is little to no historical precedent in the United States for a comprehensive wealth tax of this kind.
The initiative targets a very small group of taxpayers. Reports suggest that some high-net-worth individuals have already relocated in anticipation of the measure. The proposal is sponsored by a union and is framed as a response to perceived recent federal tax breaks which benefited wealthy individuals but harmed ordinary California voters because of reductions in healthcare benefits. Critics argue it may be both administratively unworkable and economically counterproductive.
Procedurally, the measure must qualify for the ballot through a signature-gathering process and, if approved by voters, would likely face immediate legal challenges. The proposal itself anticipates litigation and creates an expedited mechanism for facial challenges in Sacramento state court, direct appeals to the California Supreme Court and, ultimately, appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court for federal issues. The tax would not be enforced while these challenges are pending. It also provides that the legislature may only amend the proposal with a two-thirds vote and includes severability provisions designed to preserve portions of the law if others are struck down.
Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm
Host: John B. Quinn
Producer: Alexis Hyde
Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi -
John is joined by Shon Morgan and Jack Baumann, both partners in Quinn Emanuelâs Los Angeles office. They discuss the growing legal tension surrounding the aggregation and commercialization of publicly available information. It focuses on when compiling public data into structured, searchable databases creates a protectable property interest, and when such activity exposes companies to legal risk.
One recent series of cases involves disputes over whether entities that invest substantial resources to digitize, index, and organize public records may prevent others from accessing and reusing that enhanced data. In these cases, courts often recognize a distinction between underlying public records, which remain freely accessible, and value-added compilations created through private investment, which may be entitled to protection.
A team led by Jack recently won one of these cases on behalf of Ancestry.com, a genealogy company that invested heavily in digitizing and organizing historical public records. Ancestry partnered with state records archives to convert paper and microfiche records into digital formats, adding searchable indexes and metadata that transformed otherwise difficult to use materials into accessible databases. Although the underlying records remained public and available to anyone willing to retrieve them manually, the companyâs financial and technical investments significantly enhanced the utility of these public records.
The dispute arose when an individual sought to obtain not the original public records, but the companyâs digitized and indexed versions, through a public records request for Ancestryâs work directed at one stateâs archive. The request effectively attempted to appropriate the companyâs value-added work product without incurring the costs required to create it. An administrative body initially ruled that the materials should be disclosed, reasoning that the company had acted as an extension of the government in performing a public function. On appeal, however, a higher tribunal rejected that view, concluding that the digitized and organized database was materially different from the original records and not subject to compulsory disclosure.
A second series of cases have been brought by individuals whose personal information appears in these searchable databases such as ZoomInfo, Spokeo, or Whitepages.com. Plaintiffs in these cases often assert privacy or right of publicity claims, arguing that even if the data originated from public sources, companies should not profit from compiling and monetizing that data without their consent. Although many of these claims face challenges similar to claims in data breach cases, especially in demonstrating actual harm or the inherent value of ordinary personal information. Some courts have allowed these cases to proceed past the dismissal stage, creating significant potential exposure for companies due to the prospect of class-wide liability and statutory damages.
While raw public data remains freely accessible, significant private investment in organizing and enhancing that data may often generate a protectable interest. However, individuals may argue that while their information may be publicly available, they never agreed that third parties could profit from it. This tension remains unsettled and will likely evolve as courts confront similar disputes in other contexts involving large-scale data aggregation.
Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm
Host: John B. Quinn
Producer: Alexis Hyde
Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi -
John is joined by Mark Wu, Henry L. Stimson Professor at Harvard Law School. They discuss the rapidly evolving legal and policy landscape surrounding U.S. tariffs following the Supreme Courtâs decision invalidating the Presidentâs reliance on emergency economic powers to impose broad tariffs. That ruling removed a significant set of tariffs but did not eliminate the overall tariff regime. Instead, the administration quickly pivoted to alternative statutory authorities, particularly Section 122, which permits temporary tariffs for up to 150 days, as well as longer-term mechanisms such as Section 301 and Section 232 investigations. These alternative mechanisms allow the executive branch to impose targeted tariffs based on findings related to unfair trade practices or national security concerns, with less immediate need for congressional approval.
As a result, the tariff environment has shifted from sweeping, across-the-board measures to a more fragmented and dynamic system, requiring analysis on a country-by-country and product-by-product basis. Ongoing investigations into issues such as excess capacity and forced labor are likely to produce additional tariffs that may persist longer than the temporary measures currently in place. Meanwhile, legal challenges continue, including lawsuits by states arguing that the executive branch has exceeded delegated authority and violated statutory constraints. These challenges may be overtaken by the expiration of temporary tariffs and the emergence of new ones.
One major issue involves refunds for tariffs previously collected under the invalidated emergency economic powers authority. Courts have indicated that refunds are warranted and administratively feasible, even at large scale, although timing remains uncertain due to potential appeals and implementation delays. Importersâ entitlement to refunds from the government does not depend on whether they passed tariff costs on to customers, as the focus is on the legality of the governmentâs action rather than downstream economic effects. Downstream purchasers who claim that invalidated tariffs were passed on to them must pursue contractual remedies rather than recovery from the government.
Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm
Host: John B. Quinn
Producer: Alexis Hyde
Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi -
John is joined by Christopher D. Kercher, partner in Quinn Emanuel's New York office. They discuss a proprietary litigation intelligence system developed inside Quinn Emanuel â built from a practicing litigator's perspective and designed to give case teams a decisive advantage from day one.
The system, known internally as a "kerchbench," works by taking a case team's documents, filings, and materials and distilling them into a structured knowledge base that mirrors how experienced litigators understand and manage cases â organized around the chronology of events, key actors, claims and defenses, and critical evidence. The result is an AI that already understands the case before anyone asks it a question, so every interaction starts from genuine case knowledge rather than from scratch.
By progressively building out the system's understanding as a matter develops, the AI functions as a true thought partner rather than a passive tool. Lawyers can refine strategies, identify gaps in their knowledge, and surface non-obvious connections across the record. The system doesn't just answer questions about what is known â it serves as a thought partner, flagging what additional information the team may need and what the lawyer may be overlooking.
One key innovation is the creation of structured workflows and reusable "skills" that break complex legal tasks into component steps â issue identification, organization, drafting, and refinement. These routines accelerate the production of high-quality work while preserving lawyer oversight at every stage. The system also supports early case assessment: a fast-turnaround engagement that synthesizes initial case materials into a structured snapshot of claims and defenses, key risks, and strategic priorities â giving partners a clear picture of a case within 48 hours.
The result is a shift in legal work from labor-intensive context assembly toward higher-value analytical thinking. By providing relevant case information on demand and reducing the cognitive burden of tracking specific evidence across a large record, the system enhances both the speed and quality of legal reasoning. This is not merely an efficiency gain â it is a meaningful improvement in lawyers' ability to think, strategize, and advocate effectively in complex litigation.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm
Host: John B. Quinn
Producer: Alexis Hyde
Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi -
John is joined by Matthew Borden, partner and co-founder of BraunHagey & Borden, and Kory DeClark, partner at BraunHagey & Borden. They discuss litigation challenging federal law enforcement responses to protests, focusing on the Dickinson case in Portland, Oregon, that resulted in an injunction restricting how government agents may use force against demonstrators. The case arose from a series of protests against immigration enforcement policies. The plaintiffs alleged a pattern of excessive and indiscriminate force by federal agents at these protests that chilled lawful First Amendment activity. The legal team assembled extensive evidence, including 62 sworn declarations and video footage, documenting incidents such as using pepper spray on an 82-year-old woman and firing tear gas and projectiles at peaceful protesters.
The effort to gather evidence was intense, involving rapid coordination among attorneys, staff, and volunteers to identify witnesses, collect recordings, and conduct expedited discovery in only 28 days. The discovery included depositions of federal personnel and testimony from experts and local law enforcement officials, who contrasted federal tactics with established crowd-control practices. The evidence demonstrated a broad pattern amounting to an informal policy inconsistent with constitutional protections rather than a series of isolated incidents. One powerful piece of evidence, in addition to the limited training that is much inferior to what police receive, was that the government conducted no investigations of and imposed no disciplinary measures on the officers involved in these incidents.
At the preliminary injunction hearing, the government largely relied on general assertions that protests were dangerous and that restrictions on force would compromise officer safety, while offering no direct rebuttal to specific incidents. In contrast, the plaintiffs emphasized that targeted, proportional policing methods were available and commonly used by trained local agencies, and that indiscriminate tactics such as tear gas often escalated tensions rather than restoring order.
The resulting injunction limits the use of force to situations involving imminent threats and active resistance. It restricts the deployment of crowd-control weapons against passive or non-threatening individuals. These constraints align with existing use-of-force standards and have not been shown to endanger officers when implemented. The government has appealed the preliminary injunction to the Ninth Circuit.
Finally, they discuss BraunHagey & Bordenâs âimpactâ practice of focusing almost 20% of its work on pro bono activities on cases that could have the maximum impact for a broad group of people or change the law to benefit a large group of people.
Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm
Host: John B. Quinn
Producer: Alexis Hyde
Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi -
John is joined by Todd Anten, partner in Quinn Emanuelâs New York office and co-chair of the firmâs Trademark, Copyright, and Trade Secret practices, and Owen F. Roberts, partner in Quinn Emanuelâs New York office. They discuss a sixteen-year copyright dispute involving two appeals to the Second Circuit that centered on the scope of the Digital Millennium Copyright Actâs safe harbor provision. The plaintiffs were major music publishers and recording companies that own the copyrights to some of the worldâs most famous songs. The defendant, represented by a Quinn Emanuel team led by Todd and Owen, was Vimeo, a popular video hosting and video sharing platform. The plaintiffs alleged that Vimeo should be held liable for copyright infringement based on users who posted videos incorporating the plaintiffsâ music without permission. The core issue was whether Vimeo was protected by the DMCAâs safe harbor provisions, which shield platforms such as Vimeo from copyright liability for the acts of their users as long as they comply with certain requirements.
Among those requirements are that: (1) the platform does not have âthe right or ability to controlâ allegedly infringing activity; and (2) the platform removes user-posted videos upon receiving sufficient knowledge of infringement, for example, the receipt of a DMCA notice from the copyright holder, or âred flagâ knowledge that a video is obviously infringing. The plaintiffs argued that Vimeo did not satisfy these requirements. First, they argued that Vimeoâs voluntary internal moderation practices, such as the removal of unwanted videos, demonstrated that Vimeo controlled usersâ infringing activity. Second, although the plaintiffs never sent Vimeo a DMCA takedown notice, they argued that Vimeo staffâs awareness that certain videos contained famous songs was enough to raise an inference of Vimeoâs âred flagâ knowledge, imposing a duty on Vimeo staff to remove such videos on sight. In its defense, Vimeo argued that voluntary removal of unwanted videos (for example, bullying, sexual content, or advertising) did not disqualify it from safe harbor eligibility because it is consistent with the sort of moderation that Congress encouraged in the statute. Vimeo further argued that an ordinary Vimeo employee could not reasonably know whether a video is âobviouslyâ infringing on sight and that the plaintiffs were in fact seeking an end-run around the DMCA notice-and-takedown regime.
The Second Circuit agreed with Vimeo. It first concluded in 2016 that mere awareness that a video contains a famous song is not enough to show that it is obviously infringing; it could be authorized or a fair use, which are fact-intensive determinations. As the Court noted, even judges and copyright scholars have difficulty assessing the boundaries of fair use. The Court emphasized that copyright holders were not without remedyâthey could send DMCA takedown notices for expeditious removal, which is the deliberate bargain that Congress struck. In 2025, the Second Circuit further ruled that a platform does not forfeit safe harbor by voluntarily removing unwanted videos, as such activity does not rise to providing âsubstantial influenceâ in the creation of infringing videos, and such moderation is inherent in promoting the advancement of technology.
These outcomes reinforce the importance of the DMCAâs statutory notice-and-takedown regime, and underscore that a copyright holderâs desire for a new system is an issue to bring to Congress, not to the courts.
Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm
Host: John B. Quinn
Producer: Alexis Hyde
Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi -
John is joined by Robert M. (âBobbyâ) Schwartz, partner in Quinn Emanuelâs Los Angeles office and co-chair of the firmâs Media & Entertainment Industry Practice, and Marie M. Hayrapetian, associate in Quinn Emanuelâs Los Angeles office. They discuss recent cases testing whether large language model AI outputs may give rise to defamation claims.
In one recent Georgia case, a journalist asked ChatGPT about a lawsuit and received a response stating that a company executive was an embezzler, even though the lawsuit did not involve any such allegations and he was not an embezzler. In another case, Google was sued after its AI overview tool incorrectly stated that a business was being sued by the Minnesota state attorney general for deceptive practices, an allegation that allegedly caused up to $200 million in lost sales. Other examples involve sexualized deepfake images allegedly generated from ordinary photos, creating reputational and privacy harms.
Defamation law assumes a human speaker who publishes a false factual statement with some degree of fault. AI systems complicate that framework. In the case of LLM outputs, it is unclear who the speaker is. Is it the platform, the data scientists behind the platform, the user who created the prompt, or the model itself? It is also difficult to fit AI output into doctrines requiring intent, knowledge, or reckless disregard, especially in public figure cases that require proof of actual malice.
In the Georgia case, the defense won a motion for summary judgment. The court concluded that the output would not reasonably be understood as stating actual facts because the system provided warnings about limitations and potential errors. That reasoning may be vulnerable on appeal, but it shows one approach courts may adopt to reject these claims.
Republication may also result in liability. If someone republishes defamatory AI output as fact, ordinary defamation principles could apply. An unresolved issue is whether the Section 230 safe harbor protects platforms when AI output is generated through interactions between user prompts and the model.
Current defamation law might ultimately be a poor fit for AI-generated speech. Assessing liability for AI-generated speech may eventually require a different legal framework, such as product liability law.
Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm
Host: John B. Quinn
Producer: Alexis Hyde
Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi -
John is joined by Rebecca Abel, Supervising Deputy Federal Public Defender, and Kyra Nickell, Deputy Federal Public Defender, both with the Los Angeles Federal Public Defender's Office. They discuss the wave of criminal cases arising from protests in Los Angeles against immigration enforcement actions. Rebecca and Kyra offer their own insights and do not speak on behalf of the Los Angeles Federal Public Defender's Office.
The government has filed more than seventy criminal cases in Los Angeles against protesters, most alleging felony assault on a federal officer. The cases generally stem from confrontations during demonstrations near federal facilities, where protesters, journalists, or bystanders are accused of physical contact with officers. These cases have gone to trial or been dismissed at a much higher rate than usual for the federal criminal dockets. Remarkably, each of the first six trials handled by the Los Angeles Federal Public Defenderâs Office has ended in an acquittal.
One case involved a photographer who had been documenting a protest outside the Metropolitan Detention Center after photographing demonstrators at a nearby Home Depot. He was charged with felony assault on a federal officer based on allegations that he touched an officer with his camera and then pushed the officer with his hand. At trial, the government relied mainly on testimony from the complaining officer and a supervisor, along with limited, distant, or incomplete video footage.
The defense located additional witnesses and video, including independent journalists and protesters who had recorded the event from closer angles. The complaining officer testified that he was trying to create space between himself and the photographer when the photographer struck him. However, the defense introduced video evidence that contradicted the complaining officerâs testimony. The video showed the officer moved rapidly toward the photographer, that any contact between the camera and the officerâs face was incidental, and that the photographerâs later hand movement came only after the officer slapped the camera and advanced toward him. The defense argued that the physical contact was in self-defense rather than an assault.
The jury deliberated for about five hours and asked for a rereading of the defendantâs testimony that he had been frightened and confused, suggesting that they were focused on the self-defense claim. The acquittal underscored the weakness of the evidence in this case and the unusual pattern emerging in these protest prosecutions.
Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm
Host: John B. Quinn
Producer: Alexis Hyde
Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi -
John is joined by Jonathan Graham, Executive Vice President and General Counsel and Secretary of Amgen, one of the worldâs largest biotech companies and one of the pioneers of the industry. They discuss in-house legal leadership in major biotech companies and how science, intellectual property, and regulation shape strategy. Jonathan began his practice clerking for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, then became a litigator for a large firm. Later, his career shifted in-house. He believes that litigation training develops useful skills, including rapid issue spotting across unfamiliar domains, crisp written and oral advocacy, and an ability to understand stakeholdersâ incentives.
The biotech industry is unusually purpose-driven because the output is medicine that can extend life and restore quality of life. That mission creates urgency across functions, as delays can mean patients wait longer for needed therapies. The sector is also highly regulated and fast-moving, which elevates the importance of legal teams that operate as strategic partners rather than as a âdepartment of no.â
Intellectual property is the economic lifeblood of biological drug development. Bringing a molecule to market often costs billions of dollars and requires years of lab work, clinical trials, and manufacturing scale-up. Without enforceable patents, competitors could free ride, undermining investment incentives. This reality drives frequent, high-stakes patent disputes that can be hard to settle because exclusivity is enormously valuable.
Patent doctrines often lag behind technology, forcing courts to fit new technologies into older legal frameworks. Artificial intelligence is potentially a powerful tool for discovery and analysis of molecules, but not a substitute for wet-lab validation or human inventorship. Regulators still require clinical evidence before any medicine is approved and likely will for the foreseeable future.
Biosimilars are currently a booming market with many parallels to generic drugs. A company may participate in the market as both innovator and biosimilar supplier by leveraging its research and manufacturing capabilities. Finally, government-driven drug pricing controls may slow innovation over time, even though scientific progress and therapeutic potential remain strong.
Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm
Host: John B. Quinn
Producer: Alexis Hyde
Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi -
John is joined by Dennis H. Hranitzky, partner in Quinn Emanuelâs Salt Lake City office, and Fritz Scanlon, of counsel in Quinn Emanuelâs Washington, D.C. office. They discuss the recent Supreme Court decision invalidating all tariffs President Trump imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). IEEPA tariffs had generated an estimated $160 billion in revenue and were central to the administrationâs tariff policy.
The administration justified these tariffs based on declared national emergencies, including fentanyl trafficking and persistent trade deficits. The Court did not rule on whether those circumstances constituted true emergencies. Instead, the Court held that the tariffs were invalid because the Constitution assigns all taxing authority to Congress, and the IEEPA did not expressly grant the President the power to impose tariffs.
In response to the Supreme Courtâs ruling, the administration has now turned to other statutes, including Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows temporary tariffs of up to 15 per cent for 150 days to address balance-of-payments concerns. Other tools, such as Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, permit product-specific tariffs tied to national security findings, but require administrative investigations and procedural safeguards. These mechanisms provide less unilateral flexibility than IEEPA had afforded.
John, Dennis, and Fritz also discuss the prospects for companies obtaining refunds through litigation. Importers who directly paid the invalidated tariffs appear to have strong claims for reimbursement, primarily through the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York, which has exclusive jurisdiction over tariff disputes. A two-year statute of limitations generally applies.
While companiesâ right to obtain refunds is viewed as legally solid, delays are anticipated through procedural defenses and litigation tactics. Additional complexity arises for downstream purchasers who indirectly bore tariff costs; their recovery prospects will likely depend heavily on contractual allocation of tariff liability and other fact-specific circumstances.
Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm
Host: John B. Quinn
Producer: Alexis Hyde
Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi -
John is joined by Christopher P. Bogart, CEO and Co-Founder of Burford Capital. They discuss the evolving landscape of capital investment in law firms, focusing on the emergence of non-lawyer equity participation and managed service organization structures as potential solutions to long-standing financing constraints within the legal industry. Traditionally, U.S. law firms have been prohibited from allowing non-lawyer ownership, a rule rooted in the belief that outside investors could compromise lawyersâ undivided duty of loyalty to clients. Because of this restriction, firms have largely been limited to partner capital and debt financing, preventing them from accessing equity markets or monetizing the enterprise value they build over time. This limitation affects not only firm expansion and technology investment, but also partner retirement, succession planning, and talent retention.
Other common law jurisdictions, particularly the United Kingdom and Australia, have relaxed these restrictions, permitting outside investment and even public listings. Still, large elite firms have been slow to adopt such models, due in part to risk aversion and concerns about partner compensation. In the United States, regulatory change has been fragmented because lawyer governance operates state by state. Arizona and Utah have experimented with loosening ownership rules, but geographic limits and regulatory pushback have constrained broader adoption of looser ownership rules.
Recently, attention has shifted to alternative structures, particularly managed service organizations. These arrangements divide a law firm into two entities: one engaged in practicing law and a separate services company handling operational functions that can be outsourced such as litigation support, staffing, technology, and trial logistics. While non-lawyer investors could not own the legal practice, they could invest in the services entity, creating a vehicle for external capital, equity incentives, and infrastructure funding. However, implementing such structures within established firms would be complex from operational, management, and tax perspectives.
Despite the slow pace, external capital is widely viewed as inevitable given the legal industryâs scale, profitability, and growing technological demands. Meaningful acceleration across the market will likely require several major firms to demonstrate workable models that others can follow.
Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm
Host: John B. Quinn
Producer: Alexis Hyde
Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi -
John is joined by Christopher L. Eisgruber, President of Princeton University and author of Terms of Respect: How Colleges Get Free Speech Right. They discuss the state of free speech on university campuses. While public perception often emphasizes crisis and failure, many institutions are upholding speech rights more effectively than they are credited for. The broad constitutional principles of free expression, protecting even offensive or unsettling speech, are a good starting place for academic environments. However, these principles alone are insufficient. Universities must also foster a culture of mutual respect, encouraging civil discourse and meaningful dialogue even amid disagreement.
Some of the specific challenges universities face in the current polarized political climate include the impact of the IsraelâGaza conflict, protests, donor pressures, and calls for institutional statements. Institutions must balance their commitment to free expression with efforts to elevate discourse and promote inclusive learning environments. Chris believes that university leaders should not use censorship as a tool to enforce civility. Instead, they should model and promote norms of respectful engagement.
Online culture has intensified the scrutiny of campus speech. Events that once remained local can now gain global attention instantly, raising the stakes for how universities manage protests and controversy. Students today often self-censor due to fears of online backlash, which complicates efforts to foster open exchanges of ideas.
A tension exists between scholarly standards and political identity in faculty hiring. While Chris acknowledges there is an ideological imbalance in American universities, he believes that hiring decisions should prioritize scholarly excellence and viewpoint diversity within academic norms, rather than political quotas. John and Chris also discuss how and when university leaders should speak publicly on societal issues. While university presidents should not weigh in on every political controversy, there are moments, particularly when institutional values are at stake, when silence is not tenable. The goal is to preserve the university as a space for rigorous, inclusive, and respectful exploration of ideas.
Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm
Host: John B. Quinn
Producer: Alexis Hyde
Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi -
John is joined by Christopher G. Michel, partner in Quinn Emanuelâs Washington, D.C. office and Co-Chair of the firmâs National Appellate Practice. They discuss Michelâs teamâs recent victory before the Delaware Supreme Court, reinstating Elon Muskâs Tesla compensation package, now valued at $139 billion, the largest compensation dispute in corporate history. The 2018 pay package required Musk to meet extremely ambitious growth milestones, including doubling Teslaâs size over a ten-year period, before receiving any compensation. After that, there were a series of 12 levels of compensation corresponding to 12 further growth milestones. The Tesla Board approved the package, as did the shareholders with 70% support. He ultimately achieved all the required milestones, growing the company from $50 billion to over $1 trillion in four years.
Despite that, a Tesla shareholder owning just nine shares brought a derivative suit, alleging the board breached its fiduciary duties in approving the package. The Delaware Chancery Court found Musk to be a âcontrolling stockholderâ due to his 21% ownership, close relationships with directors, and status as a âsuperstar CEO.â As a result, the court applied the âentire fairnessâ standard, under which defendants must prove that a transaction was entirely fair to the shareholders, and found the package did not meet that standard. The court reasoned that Tesla could have obtained Muskâs services for less or even for free, citing other CEOs who had worked without compensation. It also ruled that shareholder approval was invalid due to inadequate proxy disclosures, including the omission of details about Muskâs social ties with board members. The court rescinded the entire compensation package and awarded the plaintiffâs counsel $345 million in attorneysâ fees.
On appeal, the defense team focused on three main arguments: Musk was not a controlling stockholder, the package met the entire fairness standard, and even if there was a violation, rescission was not an appropriate remedy. The Delaware Supreme Court reversed, holding that rescission was unwarranted and awarding nominal damages of $1. It reinstated the pay package, now valued at $139 billion. It also reduced the attorneysâ fee award to $54 million. The case has influenced legislative changes in Delaware corporate law regarding the definition of controlling shareholders and shareholder ratification.
Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm
Host: John B. Quinn
Producer: Alexis Hyde
Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi - Laat meer zien
