In January 2021, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey knew he would be asked to testify before Congress about Twitter's role in propagating false news and misinformation. Dorsey described Twitter as a "digital public square" and was a vocal supporter of the U.S. Constitution's first amendment (which protected freedom of speech). Central to his testimony was a controversy involving Internet neutrality: Was the Twitter social media service a neutral platform? If so, each user was responsible for his or her content; Twitter could not be held accountable for slanderous, hateful, or untrue information that users propagated. Was Twitter a publisher? If so, Twitter, akin to news organizations, was responsible for content its users propagated. Section 230, an amendment to the Communications Decency Act, further complicated matters, permitting platform hosts to restrict offensive content while shielding them from user-generated content liability. Given this ambiguity, how should Dorsey prepare for the next hearing?

This case explores the nature of the relationship between Uber Technologies, Inc., and its driver-partners. Uber touted itself as a technology company that licensed an app to independent contractors acting as drivers. However, some Uber driver-partners were unhappy and their lawyers filed lawsuits seeking class action status. The driver-partners believed that Uber should have treated them as employees and should have given them benefits (e.g., workers' compensation and reimbursement for their expenses). They complained that Uber unfairly denied them gratuities. The case provides a brief history of Uber Technologies, its competitors, and the taxi and limousine industry, discusses the requirements for working as an Uber driver-partner, and delves into litigation related to Uber's labor practices. It raises substantial questions about how to classify workers (employee v. contractor) and how to develop human resource practices in the sharing economy.

On a bright July morning in 2013, the incoming President of the Stoli Group USA, John Esposito, was alarmed to learn that one of his company's most popular products was being bombarded by heavy criticism from social media. The hashtag, #DUMPSTOLI, coined by Dan Savage, a prominent gay rights blogger, had gone viral overnight. Savage claimed that Stoli Vodka, because of its Russian heritage, should be subjected to an outright boycott, along with all other Russian-made products. In Savage's view, it was important to launch a vocal protest and to show solidarity with the gay community in the aftermath of a series of discriminatory laws that were passed by the Russian government under the direction of Vladmir Putin. Esposito was well aware of Stoli's historical support of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community and more importantly, he knew that the brand had no influence on, or relationship with the Putin government. In fact, both the owner and top executives at SPI Group, the parent company of Stoli Group USA, had progressively adversarial relationships with the Putin government for over 10 years. Nonetheless, the #DUMPSTOLI hashtag had gained followers and bars across the country began to ban Stoli vodka. Esposito hurried over to the office of Lori Tieszen, Stoli's senior vice president and chief marketing officer. He put her in charge of a team effort responsible for coming up with a response and protecting their iconic brand from the boycott. What should they do?

In January 2007, Gary Wendlandt was concerned about the US economy. As Chief Investment Officer of the New York Life Insurance Company (NYLIC), he was responsible for managing a $147 billion investment portfolio. The US housing market was weakening at a time when financial institutions had significant assets tied up in mortgage-backed securities and collateralized debt obligations. Credit risk spreads were narrowing despite a general easing of underwriting standards. Wendlandt outlined his concerns in a memo to Ted Mathas, NYLIC's Chief Operating Officer. The question before Wendlandt and his investment management team was how to implement a "quality tilt" strategy. This would require placing more of NYLIC's new cash flows into safer fixed income products. NYLIC had a responsibility to its policyholders. It was management's duty to protect the longevity and financial strength of the firm, so that it could continue to pay policyholder claims, distribute payments from annuities, and issue dividends. Wendlandt faced a classic risk/return tradeoff - i.e., lower current interest income to avoid the higher potential risk of capital losses. How should he adjust NYLIC's investment portfolio?