Google loses ground in fight against Europe’s ‘right to be forgotten’

Once every 90 seconds, Google Inc. receives an appeal from someone seeking to keep part of their personal history from showing up on an Internet search. In the so-called “right to be forgotten” decision earlier this year, the European Court of Justice ruled that search engines with European domains – such as Google, Bing, and Yahoo – must allow EU and European Economic Area citizens the ability to remove links to personal information that is “inadequate, irrelevant, or no longer relevant.”…This all points to a new normal for the way global Internet companies operate in Europe. Indeed, says Adam Holland, project coordinator at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School, the right to be forgotten reflects starkly different notions of privacy in Europe and the US. “In the US, we value freedom of speech and freedom of info more highly than necessarily moral rights to that information,” says Mr. Holland. “It is a moral issue, not necessarily a legislative issue. The EU places a higher precedent on the rights of the person.”

Legal Scholars: Obama’s Immigration Actions Lawful

President Barack Obama’s announced immigration executive actions are lawful, a group of ten prominent legal scholars wrote in a joint letter shared by the White House with TIME. Pushing back on Republicans who have blasted Obama’s action as unconstitutional and unlawful, the signatories include Columbia University President Lee Bollinger, Harvard Law School Professor Laurence Tribe, conservative legal scholar Eric Posner, and former Yale Law School Dean and former State Department Legal Advisor Harold Hongju Koh. “While we differ among ourselves on many issues relating to Presidential power and immigration policy, we are all of the view that these actions are lawful,” the professors wrote. “They are exercises of prosecutorial discretion that are consistent with governing law and with the policies that Congress has expressed in the statutes that it has enacted.”

To Harvard and Other Universities: In Protecting Students From Sexual Assault, Don’t Disregard Due Process

An op-ed by Michael Shammas ’16. In 1603, Sir Walter Raleigh was convicted of treason in a sham of a trial. Raleigh had no knowledge of the charges’ substance until the morning of the tribunal, when he learned he was accused, on hearsay alone, of plotting to enthrone Lady Arabella Stuart. Years later, as a partial result of his conviction, resigned to the great injustice done to both his body and his name by the tribunal of 1603, Raleigh placed his head on the block, refused a blindfold and — after the reluctant headsman delayed — implored, “Strike man, strike!” How did this murder disguised as justice occur? The answer is simple: an inexcusable absence of due process. I include this (admittedly drastic) example because outrage at the great injustice done to Raleigh in this witch hunt called a “trial,” in this persecution disguised as prosecution, contributed to the development of numerous facets of what we today call due process. A recognition of the protracted period it took for such crucial and hard-won protections to develop is, partly, what led 28 Harvard Law professors to criticize Harvard’s new sexual assault policy for lacking “the most basic elements of fairness and due process.”

For-Profit Colleges Face Big Questions, Regulations, Lawsuits In Mass. (audio)

Right now in Massachusetts, for-profit colleges are facing big questions, new regulations and lawsuits. The state attorney general is investigating about 12 of them — amid charges of low graduation rates and deceptive sales tactics that leave too many students mired in debt…But Mike DiGiacomo’s story is just one of many that raises a lot of questions about the for-profit college industry, at a time when it’s facing a lot scrutiny over high rates of debt and low rates of graduation and employment. Guests…Toby Merrill, attorney and senior clinical fellow at the predatory lending practice at the legal services center of Harvard Law School.

Can David Still Sue Goliath?

An article by Michael Zuckerman `17. Katlyn Beggs, a 2009 alum of the California School of Culinary Arts, calls herself one of the lucky ones: After graduating, she got a job. How did she get so lucky? Partly by having worked in the food industry—but also by not telling her future boss that she’d gone to CSCA…Starting in 2008, CSCA graduates began filing lawsuits against their former culinary school, alleging fraudulent and unfair business practices. By 2012, five of their complaints had been combined into one consolidated and amended complaint, filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court…The class action addresses this problem by letting one voice speak for all. And, as Harvard law professor William B. Rubenstein has pointed out, the benefits don’t just accrue to the plaintiffs: Just by looming as a means of enforcement, the class action produces a positive externality for society by keeping companies honest. “The mechanism,” Rubenstein writes, “makes possible the production of a good that would not otherwise be produced. That good is a lawsuit.”

It’s moot, but it matters

Third-year Harvard Law School students clashed in the high drama of the venerable Ames Moot Court Competition on Tuesday under the jurisdiction of visiting federal judges, including one of the nation’s foremost legal authorities, U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia. “It was fully as good as one would expect at Harvard Law School,” a pleased Scalia said during his final comments…The judges didn’t render a decision, but named Kevin Neylan the best oralist, awarded the petitioning team the best-brief award, and named the respondents the best overall team. The petitioner’s team was made up of Jennifer Garnett, Jordan Moran, Ivan Panchenko, and Tom Ryan, along with oralists Ezra Marcus and Katie McCarthy. The respondent’s team was made up of Jay Cohen, Cody Gray, Spencer Haught, and Christina Martinez, along with oralists Sean Mirski and Neylan.

Law Professor Discusses Medical Tourism

When most people hear the word “tourism,” they immediately think of flocking to the sandy beaches of the Caribbean or exploring museums in a European city. For Harvard Law School graduate I. Glenn Cohen, the word has a different implication: travelling to another country for medical treatment. The now-Law School professor discussed this phenomenon, called medical tourism, and his new book, “Patients with Passports: Medical Tourism, Law, and Ethics,” on Wednesday afternoon. Cohen was joined by three other panelists—Kennedy School of Government professor Amitabh Chandra, School of Public Health professor Alicia Ely Yamin, and Medical School professor Nir Eyal—for a discussion of medical tourism and its implications.

The Fed’s Culture War

An op-ed by Mark Roe. At a closed-door conference attended by senior bankers, regulators, and some academics, Federal Reserve Governor Daniel Tarullo and Federal Reserve Bank of New York President William Dudley used their bully pulpit to do something unexpected. Instead of focusing on how to bolster bank stability – channeling more capital toward the largest institutions, curbing their riskiest activities, and determining how to manage a failing bank without bailing it out – the officials discussed the bankers themselves.

Harvard’s Elizabeth Bartholet Takes on Differential Response

In her latest paper, Harvard Law School professor Elizabeth Bartholet does her best to dismember the widely popular child welfare strategy known as Differential Response, or simply DR…But as controversial as her ideas may be, Bartholet’s “Differential Response: A Dangerous Experiment in Child Welfare” is a notable contribution to the growing debate around DR, and the chronic battle fought in a resource-starved child welfare field over family preservation and child safety.