Law, disrupted

John is joined by Todd Anten, partner in Quinn Emanuel’s New York office and co-chair of the firm’s Trademark, Copyright, and Trade Secret practices, and Owen F. Roberts, partner in Quinn Emanuel’s 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 Act’s safe harbor provision. The plaintiffs were major music publishers and recording companies that own the copyrights to some of the world’s 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 plaintiffs’ music without permission. The core issue was whether Vimeo was protected by the DMCA’s 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 “the right or ability to control” 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 “red flag” knowledge that a video is obviously infringing. The plaintiffs argued that Vimeo did not satisfy these requirements. First, they argued that Vimeo’s voluntary internal moderation practices, such as the removal of unwanted videos, demonstrated that Vimeo controlled users’ infringing activity. Second, although the plaintiffs never sent Vimeo a DMCA takedown notice, they argued that Vimeo staff’s awareness that certain videos contained famous songs was enough to raise an inference of Vimeo’s “red flag” 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 “obviously” 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 remedy—they 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 “substantial influence” in the creation of infringing videos, and such moderation is inherent in promoting the advancement of technology.These outcomes reinforce the importance of the DMCA’s statutory notice-and-takedown regime, and underscore that a copyright holder’s desire for a new system is an issue to bring to Congress, not to the courts.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

John is joined by Robert M. (“Bobby”) Schwartz, partner in Quinn Emanuel’s Los Angeles office and co-chair of the firm’s Media & Entertainment Industry Practice, and Marie M. Hayrapetian, associate in Quinn Emanuel’s 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.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic 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 Defender’s 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 officer’s testimony. The video showed the officer moved rapidly toward the photographer, that any contact between the camera and the officer’s face was incidental, and that the photographer’s 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 defendant’s 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.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Jonathan Graham, Amgen's Executive VP and General Counsel, brings decades of in-house and litigation experience. He discusses how litigation hones strategic legal skills. He explores intellectual property as biotech’s economic lifeblood. He examines AI’s role in discovery versus wet labs, the rise of biosimilars, and the tension between pricing controls and innovation.

John is joined by Dennis H. Hranitzky, partner in Quinn Emanuel’s Salt Lake City office, and Fritz Scanlon, of counsel in Quinn Emanuel’s 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 administration’s 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 Court’s 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 companies’ 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.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic 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 lawyers’ 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 industry’s 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.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic 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 Israel–Gaza 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.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Christopher G. Michel, appellate partner at Quinn Emanuel and former Supreme Court clerk, led the successful Delaware appeal reinstating Elon Musk’s $139B Tesla pay package. He recounts the high-stakes litigation, the Chancery Court’s controlling-stockholder and entire-fairness findings, the appellate strategy and moot prep, argument day in Dover, the Supreme Court’s narrow remedy, and the case’s wider Delaware law fallout.

John is joined by Christopher D. Kercher and Peter H. Fountain, both partners in Quinn Emanuel’s New York office. They discuss their recent representation of Citadel Securities, one of the world’s largest market makers, in connection with a case concerning Mallinckrodt, a pharmaceutical company forced into bankruptcy due to opioid litigation. The central issue was whether $1.6 billion in stock share buybacks conducted between 2015 and 2018 could be recovered by the bankruptcy estate as fraudulent transfers.The legal theory advanced by a litigation trust formed during the bankruptcy was unprecedented, as it sought to void Mallinckrodt's share repurchases on the open market, which were made in the ordinary course of business. The trust contended that, under Irish law (Mallinckrodt was an Irish corporation), these repurchases were void because Mallinckrodt should have recognized that it was insolvent due to substantial opioid-related tort liabilities that were not reflected on its balance sheet.The litigation trust characterized these sales as constructive fraudulent conveyances, asserting that Mallinckrodt lacked adequate capital when executing the buybacks. The trust sought to claw back the full $1.6 billion from ordinary market participants who had sold shares years prior, basing their argument on limited precedent from Enron-related cases from the 1980s.The defense successfully challenged these claims by invoking the Section 546(e) bankruptcy safe harbor provision. This provision is intended to preserve finality in financial markets and protect legitimate securities transactions. The defense emphasized that Citadel and similar market makers qualified as financial participants and that the share repurchases constituted protected settlement payments and transfers pursuant to securities contracts under the safe harbor provision.Accepting the litigation trust’s theory would require market makers to investigate not only the published financial statements of every traded company, but also hidden tort liabilities and the corporate laws of each jurisdiction of incorporation, before facilitating any transactions. Both the bankruptcy and district courts recognized that imposing such obligations would paralyze financial markets and defeat the purpose of the safe harbor provision, and rejected the trust's novel claims.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

John is joined by one of the most famous litigators in the world, David Boies, Chairman and Founding Partner of Boies Schiller Flexner.  They discuss David’s career, unique aspects of trial work, and the challenges of transitioning leadership in law firms.  David describes his early years at Cravath, Swaine & Moore, LLP, where he became a partner in 1972, and his founding of Boies Schiller in 1997.  He candidly discusses the aging process, especially the balance that exists between somewhat diminishing memory and the ever-improving judgment that comes with experience.  Despite plans to step down as Chairman of his firm at the end of the year, David remains engaged in high-stakes litigation, particularly cases which may improve society, such as marriage equality and sex trafficking litigation.   John and David also discuss trial advocacy.  David believes that trials are both morality plays and peculiar searches for truth, shaped by a unique decision-making process that excludes jurors with specialized knowledge and forbids them from seeking knowledge in the ways they are accustomed to.  They also discuss the unique pressures on courtroom lawyers, including the need to say everything right in real time, having a professional constantly trying to make you look bad, a jury that studies everything you say or do, and clients watching whose fortune or liberty depends on your performance.  John and David also discuss the business of law, critiquing the hourly billing model and reflecting on the challenges of aligning client and firm interests in alternative fee arrangements.  They agree that legal practice, while demanding, remains intellectually and personally rewarding.  David also offers his thoughts on his late friend and sometimes adversary Ted Olson, whose integrity, warmth, and professionalism left a lasting impact.  Finally, John and David discuss the possibility of a follow-up to David’s book Courting Justice, which chronicled significant cases from his career in light of the major cases he has had in the years since the book was published.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi