1.What responsibilities did Easton and Source One Associates, Inc. have to the individuals and businesses that were the targets of these information requests?
2. What responsibilities did the clients of Easton and Source One Associates, Inc. have to (a) its clients that made the information/inquiry requests and (b) to the individuals and businesses that were the targets of these information requests?
3. Explain the remedies available to the individuals and businesses that were the targets of these inquiries.
Source One Associates, Inc., is based in Poughquag, New York. Peter Easton, Source One’s president, is responsible for its daily operations. Between 1995 and 1997, Source One received requests from persons in Massachusetts seeking financial information about individuals and businesses. To obtain this information, Easton first obtained the targeted individuals’ credit reports through Equifax Consumer Information Services by claiming that the reports would be used only in connection with credit transactions involving the consumers. From the reports, Easton identified financial institutions at which individuals held accounts and then called the institutions to learn the account balances by impersonating either officers of the institutions or the account holders. The information was then provided to Source One’s customers for a fee. Easton did not know why the customers wanted the information. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts filed a suit in a Massachusetts state court against Source One and Easton, alleging violations of the FCRA. Did the defendants violate the FCRA? Explain. Commonwealth v. Source One Associates, Inc., 436 Mass. 118, 763 N.E.2d 42 (2002).
THINKING CRITICALLY ABOUT RELEVANT LEGAL ISSUES
The FTC needs to set tighter standards with regard to advertising aimed at children. The FTCA is supposed to protect consumers from deceptive advertising, and it is about time the FTC does its job and enforces the law.
Children are less sophisticated than adults, and they’re unable to separate reality from fiction. Therefore, they are more susceptible to the cunning ploys of marketing and advertising wizards. These people show no shame, endlessly manipulating small children just to make money.
“How are our children being manipulated?” you ask. It’s obvious. Every time they turn on the TV, they’re subjected to a plethora of commercial advertisements. Many of the TV shows that kids watch are nothing more than half-hour advertisements for a particular toy. Additionally, the ads themselves mislead children. In the ads, toy companies show kids looking as happy and satisfied as possible while they play with the toys. The children who see these images are convinced that if they only had the toy, they would be just as happy. When they actually receive the toy, however, they find that it’s fun to play with for a few hours, but not much longer. They never experience the continuing climax of joy that the advertisers make them think they will. Such disappointments are likely to harm the children psychologically, making them become cynical at a young age.
For these reasons, the FTC must step in to protect our children from these money-hungry marketers. To fail to do so is to jeopardize America’s future: its children.
1. What primary ethical norm is downplayed by this argument?
2. In this argument, what is the relevant rule of law to which the author refers?
3. What reasons does the author give for tighter control of advertising aimed at children?
4. Please state opposing arguments to those set out by the author in this essay.
Visa U.S.A., Inc., MasterCard International, Inc., American Express (Amex), and Discover are the four major credit- and charge-card networks in the United States. Visa and MasterCard are joint ventures, owned by the thousands of banks that are their members. The banks issue the cards, clear transactions, and collect fees from the merchants that accept the cards. By contrast, Amex and Discover themselves issue cards to customers, process transactions, and collect fees. Since 1995, Amex has asked banks to issue its cards. No bank has been willing to do so, however, because it would have to stop issuing Visa and MasterCard cards under those networks’ rules barring member banks from issuing cards on rival networks. The U.S. Department of Justice filed a suit in a federal district court against Visa and MasterCard, alleging in part that the rules were illegal restraints of trade under the Sherman Act. Do the rules harm competition? If so, how? United States v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., 344 F.3d 229 (2d Cir. 2003).
1. Was Visa's and Mastercard's conduct illegal under the Sherman Act? Under the Clayton Act? Why or why not?
2. Are exclusive dealing agreements a "per se" violation?
|Due By (Pacific Time)
||12/01/2014 12:00 am