Pentagon still stands, healed of 9-11 wounds

Leaving Reagan National Airport (DCA) yesterday, clear skies afforded a view of the Pentagon, which a comment on NPR this evening reminded me is the only building struck on September 11 and still standing. Living in Little Rock, Arkansas, in 2001, I remember many of us who had occasional business in the nation's capital thought that DCA surely would have to close. A shame, we thought, given its convenient proximity to district destinations. No doubt a result of hard work by federal officials, along with some blessings and some luck, DCA operates still. And that, business as usual, seems to me, is the best evidence of a society prevailing over terrorism. Photo by RJ Peltz-Steele CC BY-NC-SA 4.0.

To contradict consistent record of impotence, DOT opens needed inquiry into airline miles programs

Washington, D.C.—The U.S. Transportation Department (DOT) last week opened an investigation of airline frequent-flier programs, and it's about time.

The old adage about wheels of justice turning slowly usually well describes the antitrust activities of the Justice Department (DOJ) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Only in recent years has the government begun to awaken to the rampant price-fixing in our economy that consumers have been accustomed to for decades. Runaway inflation shed light on how little choice Americans have in grocery stores, probably prompting FTC qualms over the Kroger-Albertson merger. Sky-high rents and a housing shortage similarly have prompted DOJ attention to rent-fixing.

Now it seems the emphasis is on the wheels part of the old adage, as DOT takes a belated interest in the airlines. Absurdly high prices, especially in domestic travel, probably stirred the agency giant. The Biden Administration and Buttigieg DOT have largely failed to deliver on infrastructure promises. So it's pleasing to see a glimmer of concern for consumer welfare vis-à-vis ever more profitable providers.

A window view sometimes makes flying a tiny bit less miserable.
RJ Peltz-Steele CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

Misery in the Air

As to domestic air travel, I remember President Obama saying the economy's great, but workers might have to move for jobs. Meanwhile we're encouraged to have multi-generational households to care for our elderly, and the great economy compels college grads to move back in with their parents. Is the whole family supposed to move to the same place at the same time? Air travel is a necessity for families in the vast geography of our national labor market, yet we continue to allow our oversized airlines, themselves products of mergers that should not have been allowed, to operate as if they're concierges of bespoke services.

Bespoke is ever less the consumer experience, even as prices soar. Six of my last six domestic flights, all on American Airlines, were hours late. I would be due a huge compensation check were I in the EU. From American Airlines? Nothing. To the contrary, I had to foot the bill out of pocket for transfers and overnights in pricey cities such as Chicago and D.C., else sleep in the airport. The Buttigieg DOT and Congress keep making noise about passenger compensation. But noise, to appease the electorate, is all it's amounted to. Don't even get me started on sticky trays, filthy seats, and cramped spaces on packed planes.

We All Fall Down

As to infrastructure promises, if you're thinking, "well, the Republican Congress": Save it. I don't want to hear it. The whole thing about Joe was his ability to reach across the aisle. And I didn't vote for either one of them, so if ever you tire of see-sawing between obstructionist opponents as an excuse for getting nothing done, stop voting for the only thing you're offered and come talk to me about how we dismantle the two-party system. Consumer choice indeed.

Yes, there was the infrastructure bill. Biden deserves credit for that, and I appreciate it. But even the Biden Administration knew that that would not even bring us level with our maintenance needs, much less make systemic investments.

Use of the infrastructure money, such as it is, raises serious doubts about the government's fiscal responsibility. My home state of Rhode Island is using federal infrastructure money to rebuild rotted wooden bike-path bridges that I use, so I'm selfishly pleased. But it wasn't the purpose of the bill to restore recreational paths for which the states should have planned anyway. Rhode Island failed to fund replacement for the decades when the bridges' inevitable expiry was well known; consequently, the bridges have been subject to dangerous detours for years since the failure. And the bridges are hardly vital infrastructure; the few people who actually commute on them are stymied by uncleared snow in the winter and an abrupt end to dedicated lanes at the ends.

I have doubts too about even the more clearly legitimate uses of the money. DOT and Amtrak plan to build out vital northeastern rail service westward in Massachusetts, a welcome initiative. But the trains will not be any better than the embarrassingly slow service we have in our rail system now; driving will still be preferable for speed and reliability. I remember "Amtrak Joe" saying something about high-speed trains, you know, like in the developed world. The best the administration seems to have managed is to ask Japan for help with high-speed rail. I guess we don't have the technology.

Round and Round

Topping it all off, there's the corruption that the government seems unable to get a handle on. Or as we call it in America, contracting. Rhode Island got caught with its pants down last year when the key Washington Bridge alongside the I-95 corridor in Providence was found to be fatally defective and was suddenly closed. A "junior engineer" spied the rusty deficiency, media reported, or as I like to say, a "former junior engineer" who didn't get the memo. Because the odds are nil that inspection contractors, who enjoy a revolving door with state government offices, somehow failed to notice the problem for years.

The bridge has to be torn down and replaced, and costs are spiraling. When the state bid the demolition project, intense media and public scrutiny compelled a realistic cost estimate of $31 million. But contractors don't emerge from their pools of money for realistic. The state ultimately awarded the work for close to $50 million. But wait, there's more. The company that was awarded the demolition contract is also a defendant in the state lawsuit over the defective bridge. You can't make this stuff up.

The overall estimate, no doubt too low, for the Washington Bridge replacement is about a half billion dollars, and we should pause a moment on that number. It can be difficult to assess the legitimacy of these big numbers, as the average consumer has little frame of reference to differentiate a million from a billion. For some reason I play the lottery only when the jackpot hits a half billion, as if I would not be content with a tenth as much.

The Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority (MBTA) recently estimated that it would take $24 billion to make the Boston T work the way it's supposed to. That's not to improve the system; that's just to bring it up to serviceable: timely trains, functional stations. The T is infamously unreliable and plagued by maintenance issues. Yes, it is an old system, but that doesn't fully explain the problems. An extension of the green line opened in 2022, for example, and saw such problems with defective tracks that trains had to be slowed to less than walking speed.

Chair: Wait, I see a hand. Rhode Island, you have an idea?

Rhode Island: Yes, Mr. Chair. We propose that the MBTA hire the contractor that built the green-line extension also to remove and replace it.

Chair: Thank you, Rhode Island.

Rhode Island (to camera): Baltimore, 🤙 <<call me>>.

In contrast, the city of Brisbane, Australia, is rebuilding its metro system, including a new fleet of electric vehicles and excavation of a new tunnel, for a price tag of only $1.4 billion. That's Australian dollars; it's about US$930 million. Brisbane's metro is a smaller system than Boston's, yet I can't help but think that the T couldn't mop up the urine in the system for a billion dollars.

I might not know millions from billions, but I know that 1 for new is a better buy than 24 for old. It's hard not to conclude that something is amiss in accountability for infrastructure spending. If only there were, I don't know, experts, or something, who don't work for contractors. Maybe they could work in the government, for the public.

Miles To Go

Well the good thing about antitrust enforcement is that it requires lawyers, but no new construction. Maybe the Buttigieg DOT has found its knack.

The ways in which airlines have innovated consumer exploitation in frequent-flier programs are sufficiently many to constitute a course in business school. Well, bad-business school. Violations of antitrust law are so painfully obvious that it's hard to believe we have antitrust enforcement at all.

The legal status of frequent-flier miles has evolved since the programs were conceived circa 1979. They started as little different from tenth-sandwich-free punch-card programs. It was the funny kicker on the news when they were first contested as property in legal contexts such as divorce. That's not an unprecedented evolution, by the way. Divorce has a way of showing us what's valuable to people. Dogs and cats are transitioning from mere chattel to intangible value in tort law by way of divorce court.

Notwithstanding limited legal exceptions, courts tended nonetheless to regard the airline mile as a purely contractual creature. Airlines urged that construction and delighted in it. The miles are thus controlled by terms of service, to which consumers bind themselves usually with neither meaningful choice nor actual knowledge. Per the law of boilerplate in the information age, the airlines reserve the right to change the terms more or less unilaterally. That's why the airlines can and do devalue miles routinely and add new redemption restrictions, such as blackout dates and transfer limits.

Corporations' concerted efforts to construct self-serving legal doctrine has not stopped miles from becoming "a virtual currency." The government has long tolerated this dichotomy of law and reality. And things might have continued swimmingly for the airlines had they not succumbed to greed, the Achilles heel of the American corporate ethos. Once the airlines understood that miles and money were interchangeable, they started making them, literally, interchangeable. Today a consumer can earn miles per dollar on credit cards, transfer cash-back rewards to mileage programs, and simply buy miles.

Devastatingly to the airlines' antitrust position, they doubled down on co-branded credit cards. Those agreements are a specific target of the DOT investigation. I have an American Airlines card and a United card; I've had Southwest and Delta cards in the past and probably will again. My cards get me earlier boarding and other perks. Most importantly, they (thankfully excepting Southwest) "save me" baggage-check fees. The annual fee on each card is $99; it costs $80 to check a bag roundtrip.

I put "save me" in quote marks because, remember, there didn't use to be baggage fees. Co-branded credit cards date to the 1980s, but they really took off, no pun intended, in the 20-aughts. Baggage fees were introduced in 2008. Coincidence much? Consumers have been coerced into having the credit cards; it would be economically irrational not to. Of course, paying the airfare with the card earns more miles. The cycle continues.

Ganesh Sitaraman aptly reported in The Atlantic last year, as the headlines put it, "Airlines are just banks now: They make more money from mileage programs than from flying planes—and it shows." 

But airlines are not regulated as banks.

And that's why federal scrutiny is long overdue.

Scribd has the DOT Template Letter on the Airline Rewards Inquiry, issued to the four largest carriers, American, Delta, United, and Southwest. HT @ TPG.

In 'Baywatch' case, court ponders discovery rule for models' tort claims over ads posted on Facebook

Models suing an adult entertainment club occasioned the high court of Massachusetts to ponder the problem of social media and the statute of limitations on media torts in a decision Wednesday.

When I heard that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decided a case about Baywatch, I knew I would want to blog about it.

Alas, I was misled. "Bay Watch" in the instant matter has nothing to do with the The Hoff or 1990s TV.

Plaintiffs allege this ad depicts model Paola Cañas.
From Compl. ex. D.

Still, it's an interesting case. Bay Watch, Inc., is the owner of an adult entertainment club in Stoughton, Massachusetts, Club Alex's. In a lawsuit filed in federal district court in June 2021, six globally recognized models alleged that Club Alex's posted their images, some of them in scant swimwear, to Facebook to promote the club, even though none of the models had any association with the club. The models alleged trademark infringement, misappropriation ("right of publicity"), defamation, and conversion.

The issue in the trial court was the statute of limitations for the state tort claims. Sitting on the generous end of the spectrum, Massachusetts allows three years for media tort claims. But the ads the plaintiffs complained about appeared from 2013 to 2015. The district court accordingly granted summary judgment on the tort claims to the defendant in 2023. But on a plaintiff motion to reconsider at the end of the year, the court agreed to certify the limitations question to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC).

Alas, not that one (IMDb).

The plaintiffs in the trial court had tried to avail of "the discovery rule," a common law rule that tolls the statute of limitations when it would work an unfairness on a plaintiff who is reasonably not cognizant that she suffered an injury for which there might be a legally responsible actor. 

The discovery rule gets a lot of play in toxic tort cases, in which illness alleged to have resulted from exposure to toxic substances might take years to manifest, and the risk of exposure might not even have been known to the victim at the time. Buttressing his decision with gender-equity-oriented social science, the late Judge Jack Weinstein famously used the discovery rule in the 1990s to give reprieve to plaintiffs suing the makers of DES, a once widely prescribed synthetic estrogen replacement that turned out to be dangerously carcinogenic.

The discovery rule is appealing as a matter of fairness, but applying it can introduce a thorny question of fact. And there are many more thorns when the rule is invoked in a case without the clear delimiters of physical injury.

It's often said, as a default matter, that the limitations period for media torts, such as defamation, runs from the time of publication. Usually that rule works well enough. But in some cases, plaintiffs are able to invoke the discovery rule. If cases are any indication, then defamation occurs in the disruption of business relationships more often than in the pop culture paradigm of media subject versus publisher. A businessperson, for example, might think she lost a contract on the merits of a bid and only later discover that she lost the contract upon the whisper of a false and harmful rumor into the right ear.

Proliferation of media in the internet age has made courts slightly more willing to afford plaintiffs an argument for the discovery rule, because mass media publication in a sea of online content might not rise to an injured's attention as quickly as a story in the town paper in ye olden days. But courts' patience is not without limit. In the online environment, courts have adapted another rule familiar to the conventional interplay of mass media and the discovery rule. As the SJC opined, in part quoting the Massachusetts Appeals Court:

"[W]here an alleged defamatory publication is broadly circulated to the public, and did not involve concealment or confidential communications," the discovery rule will not be applied, and the cause of action will accrue upon publication, as such widespread publication should have been discovered by the plaintiff.

In other words, the limitations period runs upon publication, unless plaintiff can invoke the discovery rule because a reasonable person would not have recognized the harm and arguably causal actor, unless the thing was out there for everyone so the plaintiff should have recognized the harm and arguably causal actor—in which case we come back around to publication again.

If that sounds circular .... Right. The problem with this approach is that if a reasonable person would not have recognized harm, cause, and actor, then, by definition, the plaintiff cannot be expected to have recognized harm, cause, and actor. In tort analysis, the word "should" means "a reasonable person would."

What this approach really allows is for the court to deny the plaintiff the latitude of the discovery rule as a matter of law, and to dismiss, without having to hassle (or Hassel) with the plaintiff's reasonable cognizance as a question of fact suitable for trial. In short, what the court giveth, the court may taketh away.

And that's what happened in the instant case. The federal district court first indicated that it was inclined to dismiss because the ads appeared too long ago. When the plaintiffs tried to invoke the discovery rule, the court was skeptical. These are world famous models with agents whose job it is to scan for unlicensed uses of clients' likenesses, and with lawyers who have sued over misappropriations before. All the same, the court concluded, credibility notwithstanding, these images were out there in the world long enough that the plaintiffs should have found out about them. So no discovery rule.

What seems to have given the court pause on reconsideration is that the images here were posted on social media. A paralegal in the employ of the plaintiffs

attested that there is no software that would allow her to efficiently search for the images in question and that Internet search engines do not search social media posts. As a result, the only available method is this "particularized research of particular establishments." It is this process, presumably, that led the plaintiffs to the defendant's Facebook posts.

But that took time.

The witness had a point. Google seems slow to index social media when it does at all. Many writers have trumpeted "the death of the search engine," as users prefer to seek answers in familiar social media not as polluted as Google search results with commercialization and distortions resulting from digital marketing under the guise of "optimization."

As well, the tech giants seem to have backed off image searching. When reverse image search first came out, I had fun seeing what famous people Google thought I looked like. Now, no matter what image I start with, Google either finds me, or finds nothing, saying, "Results for people are limited. Try searching a larger [image] area." The search tools can't have gotten dumber; that must be a choice. The SJC observed in evidence in the case that Facebook terminated its image search tool in 2021.

You see it, right?

There are now reverse image search apps, by the way, especially for celebrity matches. I'm apparently a dead ringer for UK actress Natalie Dormer (image via Flickr by Gage Skidmore CC BY-SA 2.0, cropped) or the great James Earl Jones (image via Flickr by Phil Davis CC BY-NC-SA 2.0, edited). Eat your heart out, Hollywood. The Celebs app sees me.

The federal district court thus asked the SJC to clarify how the statute of limitations works in a social media world.

In a characteristically methodical opinion for a unanimous court, Justice Scott Kafker stepped through the analysis in 25 pages. The opinion is elaborative, but it adds nothing new. The approach remains: publication, unless discovery rule, unless broad circulation. At greater length in conclusion, here is the court's explanation of the discovery rule in the context of social media:

Claims ... that arise from material posted to social media platforms accrue when a plaintiff knows, or reasonably should know, that he or she has been harmed by the defendant's publication of that material. Given how vast the social media universe is on the Internet, and how access to, and the ability to search for, social media posts may vary from platform to platform and even from post to post, that determination requires consideration of the totality of the circumstances regarding the social media posting, including the extent of its distribution, and the accessibility and searchability of the posting. The application of the discovery rule is therefore a highly fact-specific inquiry, and the determination of whether plaintiffs knew or should have known that they were harmed by a defendant's post on social media must often be left to the finder of fact. If, however, the material posted to social media is widely distributed, and readily accessible and searchable, a judge may determine as a matter of law that the discovery rule cannot be applied.

The record was insufficient, the SJC opined, to determine how the approach should work in the instant case. The plaintiffs had equivocated, the SJC observed, when asked when they first knew about the postings. If they knew before 2018, the court reasoned, then case over. Someone should ask them that.

It is possible for the conventional "whisper" scenario to play out on social media. The SJC cited a California case, Jones v. Reekes (Cal. Ct. App. 2022), in which plaintiff had been blocked from viewing the defendant's postings. Still, the California court concluded that the postings "were otherwise available to the public[,] and the block was easily circumventable;" moreover, the plaintiff was on alert generally to the defendant's derisive commentary. So the plaintiff was precluded from availing of the discovery rule, and the date of publication controlled.

Now I can't unsee it.

Jones was thus not exceptional as a mass media case, and I don't think Bay Watch is either. I suspect the SJC was being deferential to the federal trial court, giving it a chance to make the final call. It seems to me quite clear already that the district court did what the SJC commanded when it first ruled for the defense in 2023. The SJC having confirmed the rule, there seems little more for the district court to do but reenter that judgment.

The result might seem unfair to the assiduously searching plaintiffs, or, more precisely, their agents and lawyers. But the statute of limitations furthers meritorious competing interests, including finality in freedom from legal jeopardy on the part of all publishers.

The case in the SJC is Davalos v. Bay Watch, Inc., No. SJC-13534 (Mass. Sept. 4, 2024) (Kafker, J.) (FindLaw). The case in the federal court is Davalos v. Baywatch, Inc., No. 1:21-cv-11075 (D. Mass. Dec. 15, 2023) (Gorton, Dist. J.) (Court Listener).

UPDATE, Sept. 12: I was saddened to hear of James Earl Jones's passing shortly after I published this post (N.Y. Times, Sept. 9, 2024). All joking of resemblance aside, I was a fan.

Contemporary sculpturist comments on Ukraine war

Lakenen considers the war in Ukraine in this 2022 sculpture.

A couple of weeks ago, I visited artist Tom Lakenen's Lakenenland, a sculpture park in the Marquette area of Michigan's Upper Peninsula.

I'm a sucker for an outdoor art installation, and Lakenen's work does not disappoint. I only had a couple of hours, but I could have spent the day exploring the inviting woodsy trails.

Composed of "junk," Lakenen's art in its very existence speaks to capitalist materialism and environmental sustainability. About and even besides such themes, Lakenen has a lot to say, and much of it resonates with the ordinary American, especially in terms of economic frustrations. I could not help but notice that vehicles in the parking lot boasted bumper stickers of both "red" and "blue" American political extremes. But insofar as any visitors expressed outrage, it was along with the artist, not at him.

Lakenen is always adding new pieces. I was especially moved by his 2022 work on the war in Ukraine. Above and below, I share some images of that piece. I thank Tom Lakenen for sharing his art with visitors. All photos by RJ Peltz-Steele CC BY-NC-SA 4.0, with no claim to underlying sculptural works, presumed © Tom Lakenen.