Shop Safe Act Negative

DA_Circular Economy_NEG
1NC – Circular Economy DA
The next offcase position is the circular economy da
A. Uniqueness: Online platform innovation is driving a transition to a circular
economy through secondary markets. Circularity will double by 2030
Brian Eastwood, 2023 – freelance writer, quotes Peter Evans, PhD and chief strategy officer at
McFadyen Digital. “Platforms could power the circular economy” MIT Sloan School of
Management blog, 9/11, https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/platforms-could-
power-circular-economy //DH

If there’s one constant in the platform economy, it’s change. Platforms started out fueling the
matchmaking economy (eBay) and have evolved to further encompass the sharing economy
(Airbnb) and the gig economy (Upwork).

The next phase: platforms supporting the circular economy, which reuses raw materials and
products by connecting consumers to enterprises and to each other to reuse, repair, refine, or
recycle goods.

“When it comes to the future of platforms, one of the big forces at work is growing concern
about sustainability and climate change. The heat waves, the fires, and all sorts of other
phenomena happening in the world are increasing anxiety,” said Peter Evans, PhD ’05, the chief
strategy officer at McFadyen Digital. “There’s an opportunity for platforms to be incredible
engines for driving a circular economy, not just the linear economy.”

Speaking at the 2023 MIT Platform Strategy Summit, Evans offered a look at why platforms are a
good fit for the circular economy and the questions that remain about circular platform
adoption.

A new use for goods, thanks to a wider reach

In a linear economy, goods move in one direction, from raw material to production, use, and
then waste. Making new goods requires finding and using new and increasingly scarce
resources. Meanwhile, products that are “used” but still have value often end up in landfills,
waterways, or the atmosphere.

A circular economy, however, keeps raw materials and products “in circulation for as long as
possible,” in the words of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. It’s a matter of reusing
materials, redesigning products, and recapturing waste — scrapping a car for its parts rather
than sending it to the dump, for example.

Platforms have excelled in the linear economy, Evans said. But while they’ve disrupted
innumerable markets by reducing the friction of matching buyers and sellers, they haven’t
disrupted underlying economic models. “It’s actually making the existing system more efficient,”
he said. “It’s reinforcing the linear model and not changing it very much.”
But platforms could adapt well to the circular economy, Evans added, and provide benefits such
as lower transaction costs, more buyers and sellers, and positive network effects.

One key outcome would be expanding the reach of materials beyond the industry in which they
originated. Batteries in electric vehicles, for example, can have a second life in the energy sector
once the car itself is out of commission.

“What do consumers of vehicles know about the power sector? Not very much. The platform
could set up new matching markets,” Evans said. “If you keep in your own industry, you’re not
going to take advantage of where the highest use value is.”

Current success, future uncertainty

McFadyen Digital estimates that today’s circular economy has a global value of nearly $410
billion, with platforms accounting for roughly a quarter of that. By 2030, the circular economy
should be worth $1.5 trillion — and circular platforms will account for nearly 60% of that, or
$863 billion.

Success stories abound. ThredUp, which connects buyers and sellers of secondhand apparel,
went public in 2021 at a $1.3 billion valuation. Paris-based Back Market, an online marketplace
for refurbished electronics, reached a valuation of $5.7 billion in 2022 after raising $510 million
in a Series E funding round. Alibaba subsidiary Idle Fish has 500 million registered users in China
and hosts transactions for secondhand goods worth $70 billion annually, Evans said.

AND B. Link Increasing contributory liability causes trademark bullying – brands

will sue to shut down secondary markets and stifle platform innovation
Matt Schruers, 2023 - President Computer & Communications Industry Association. Written
Statement submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee, “Back to School with the SHOP SAFE
Act: Protecting Our Families from Unsafe Online Counterfeits” Senate Hearing, 10/3,
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2023-10-03_-_testimony_-_schruers.pdf
//DH

Existing law correctly recognizes that trademark owners are in the best position to accurately
and efficiently distinguish counterfeit products from authentic goods. Shifting legal responsibility
to e-commerce sites, online marketplaces, or other third-party intermediaries through new
liability rules would stifle innovation, reduce cooperation, and fail to prevent counterfeiting.

The current doctrine of secondary liability in trademark law achieves the proper balance,
fostering a diverse ecosystem of online marketplaces that benefits small businesses and
consumers. When intermediary services fail to act on specific knowledge of infringement (for
example, when a brand owner has notified an online service of a counterfeit product), courts
have generally held services liable. The existing regime has helped provide the legal framework
to grow a robust secondary market for safe, genuine goods at competitive prices. Consumers
derive enormous value from secondary markets, where they have the opportunity to resell
products they no longer need, or purchase genuine products at a discount.

Historically, premium brands have disliked secondary markets because they do not afford
brandowners total control over the pricing or images of their merchandise. Yet U.S. law has
never afforded that. The U.S. approach to trademark is one that acknowledges your personal
property rights in the goods you buy. Many brands would prefer consumers not resell what they
lawfully own. To respect property rights means honoring the principle that if you bought it, you
own it. If consumers buy a legitimate, lawfully manufactured luxury good, they have the right to
do whatever they want with their property, including reselling that good online. Even if some
prominent foreign brand owner would rather not compete against that resale market.

We must ensure that any new legislation does not undermine personal property rights, or harm
the valuable resale market for consumers. Changing secondary liability rules could encourage
trademark owners to engage in anticompetitive practices and pursue secondary market goods
that may not be counterfeit but may be competing with the trademark owner's products. In fact
we're already seeing evidence of this.7 Aggravating this phenomenon would result in the
diminution of the secondary market, harming consumers; to avoid increased liability, e-
commerce sites would allow only sellers authorized by the trademark owner.

Additionally, changes would not eliminate counterfeit goods. Infringement analysis is often too
fact-specific to permit wide-scale removal by services while maintaining a fair and robust
marketplace. Liability for e-commerce sites and marketplaces would instead incentivize
trademark owners to go after intermediaries instead of the actual bad actors: the
counterfeiters.

AND C. IMPACT - A transition to a circular economy prevents global

environmental collapse – it’s try or die
Miriam Eimannsberger, 2019 - Master Thesis in the Department of Forest Economics at
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. “Transition to a circular economy – the intersection
of business and user enablement”
https://stud.epsilon.slu.se/15070/1/eimannsberger_m_190923.pdf //DH

Since the industrial revolution the dominant economic model in high income countries has been
a linear economy. In a linear economy a take-make-use-dispose mentality directs societal
consumption behaviour. The almost inevitable fate of a product is its disposal at the end of its
product life. According to Lieder & Rashid (2016 p. 37) this is explained by “disposable products
with the explicit purpose of being discarded after use (planned obsolesce) heralded the era of
fashion and style hence stimulating throwaway-mindset which is today known as linear
consumption behaviour”. This system reaches the limits of its capacity. A wide range of
environmental problems, water and air pollution and resource depletion call for a radical change
and transition to a sustainable economic system. Scarce resources will be under even more
pressure as material intensity is predicted to increase with the global middle class, i.e. the
largest resource demanding consumer group, doubling in size to 5 billion by 2030 (EMF 2013b).
Human survival is at stake as the stability of economies is threatened together with the
“integrity of natural ecosystems” (Ghisellini et al. 2016 p. 11). To do justice to the demanding
consumers, the supplying producers but also the struggling environment a solution serving all
stakeholders needs to be implemented as quickly as possible. A possible and not at all new but
rather rediscovered solution can be the implementation of a circular economy (CE).

In short, CE is about creating closed loop material flows keeping “products, components and
materials at their highest utility and value” (EMF 2013a) and use them through multiple phases.
CE is also about waste prevention, resource efficiency, leakage minimisation and
dematerialisation (Geissdoerfer et al. 2017). Figure 1 depicts a principle model for a CE where
raw materials are only added for manufacturing and re-manufacturing of products or
components already in the system. These have been recycled or re-used by the consumer
maybe several times already. Waste is almost non-existent and leaves the system as residual
waste if not further used.

The shift from a predominantly linear to a circular economy needs the active involvement of
many different stakeholders at several different levels. Some major enablers and also potential
preventers that should be named are industries, companies or businesses, policy makers and
users or consumers. Ghisellini et al. (2016 p. 11) accentuate their role in CE implementation as
“cleaner production patterns at company level, an increase of producers and consumers
responsibility and awareness, the use of renewable technologies and materials [and] the
adoption of suitable, clear and stable policies and tools” are their main tasks. Companies and
consumers can exert a major influence on an economy. Figure 2 shows the rapid historical and
predicted growth of the middle-class from 1950 to 2030.

There is a rapid increase in the world middle class taking place since the early 2000’s. With this
comes an increase in purchasing power and, consequently, a shift in demand from loose,
unpacked products to manufactured, packaging goods leading to higher material and waste
impact (EMF 2013b).

In addition, Table 1 shows the immense power companies and businesses wield in the global
economy. It is shown that 50 % of the world’s 50 largest economies in revenue generation in
US$ in 2016 were corporations rather than countries (countries coloured in black, corporations
coloured in red). This does not only emphasize the immense influence the companies can
exercise but also the responsibility, difference and guidance companies can embody in a shift
towards a more environmentally friendly and sustainable economic system. Walmart Inc., for
example, had a higher yearly revenue in 2016 than countries such as Spain, Sweden or Russia.

Besides consumers and businesses, policy makers can drive change towards CE. One example for
a policy maker acting on the need for a systematic shift is the European Union. In 2015 the EU
published their “Closing the loop – an EU action plan for the circular economy”. This states that
a circular economy will “save energy and help avoid the irreversible damages caused by using up
resources at a rate that exceeds the Earth's capacity to renew them” (EC, 2019, 2, p. 2). The
action plan presents the regulatory framework for an EU-wide transition to circular economy
including guidance for circular solutions supporting production, waste management,
consumption and renewable energies.
2NC / 1NR - Blocks
 They Say: “Nonunique – Circular Economy Decreasing”

Startup platform innovation is spurring the transition to circularity

Peter Evans, 2024 – Chief Strategy Officer, McFadyen Digital and Co-Chair, MIT Platform
Strategy Summit. “'Green Unicorns': Circular Marketplaces Can Lead The Way” Forbes, 3/8,
https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesbusinesscouncil/2024/03/08/green-unicorns-circular-
marketplaces-can-lead-the-way/ //DH

Individual companies, ranging from Patagonia to Caterpillar, have been embracing circularity.
This is a positive step, but not enough. Meaningful circularity requires scale and therefore more
than what one company can typically do on its own. This is where marketplaces come in.
Circular marketplaces connect multiple buyers and sellers of used, repaired, refurbished,
remanufactured or recycled goods, components or materials. Circular marketplaces have the
potential to play a major role in transforming the way we approach material reuse, with a
market size that has real impact.

Green Unicorns

The term "unicorn" has been used to signify the rare class of startups that reach a value of $1
billion or more. Within this group, there is a small subset of startups advancing sustainability
and environmental goals. These startups, even more rare, have become known as "green
unicorns." Examples include Back Market, Carousell, Vestiaire Collective, Wallapop, Letgo,
StockX, Depop and Grover.

These companies facilitate circular business models by enabling peer-to-peer exchange, rentals,
subscriptions or redistribution of used goods across categories like electronics, fashion,
appliances and more. Their ability to achieve valuations over $1 billion demonstrates the
growing potential of circular economy platforms and marketplaces.

The Circular Marketplace Advantage

Circular marketplaces offer several key advantages that position them as powerful agents of
change in driving the growth of the circular economy. One major advantage is lower transaction
costs. By providing a centralized platform for buying and selling pre-owned goods, circular
marketplaces reduce the time, effort and expense involved in finding buyers and sellers for used
products. This increased efficiency lowers the barriers to participation in the circular economy.

Additionally, circular marketplaces benefit from positive network effects. As more buyers and
sellers participate, the selection of available products grows alongside the potential customer
base. This creates a self-reinforcing cycle where a larger network of users makes the platform
more valuable, attracting even more participants. These strong network effects can rapidly
accelerate the adoption and scale of circular business models.

Moreover, circular marketplaces are well-positioned to leverage cutting-edge technologies like

tracing, artificial intelligence and advanced analytics. Product tracing allows the authentication
and tracking of an item's history, building trust. AI can optimize pricing, inventory management
and demand forecasting. And analytics provide insights to streamline operations and create
superior user experiences. By rapidly integrating these innovations, circular marketplaces can
gain an edge over traditional linear businesses and drive transformative change toward a more
circular economy.

Launching A Circular Marketplace

Startups aiming to establish and rapidly scale a circular marketplace and potentially become a
green unicorn should consider several factors:

First, market selection is crucial. The startup should target high-volume, high-value markets like
electronics. Used smartphones, laptops, tablets and EV batteries often have predictable residual
value and high potential for reuse or refurbishment, but are not currently serviced by national
or regional wholesale circular marketplaces.

Second, the startup should invest in a scalable, modular technology stack that can handle high
traffic and adapt to changing business needs. This could involve using cloud-based solutions,
microservices architecture and platforms like Encore by SAP that are designed for circular
economy business models. The tech stack should support features like inventory management,
pricing algorithms, logistics integration and seamless user experiences.

Third, operational excellence is paramount. The startup should build efficient processes that
account for the special characteristics of circular transactions for product sourcing, inspection,
grading, refurbishment, pricing and reverse logistics. Building an ecosystem of reliable suppliers,
refurbishment centers and logistics providers is crucial. The startup must also develop robust
quality control measures, coupled with insurance and guarantees, to ensure customer
satisfaction and to maintain the platform’s reputation.

Finally, the startup should seek investment from venture capital firms or impact investors with a
proven track record in marketplaces, circular economy and sustainability. This is a small but
growing category and includes companies like FJ Labs, which can provide valuable guidance,
industry expertise and connections.

Conclusion

The world needs more circular marketplaces, especially ones that can grow to green unicorn
status. Linear marketplaces have proven their ability to efficiently scale—Amazon now
seamlessly connects more than 2 million sellers with over 310 million buyers. If we are to
transition to a more circular economy, we need business models, processes and transactions
that can scale on that level. Circular marketplaces offer this potential.

As we grapple with how to improve global circularity, circular marketplaces have a promising
role to play. Building circular ecosystems holds the key to overcoming the limitations of
individual initiatives. The combination of lower transaction costs, positive network effects and
the agility to adopt new technologies like tracing and AI uniquely empower circular
marketplaces to catalyze the transition to a more resource-efficient and sustainable economic
model.
These advantages make circular marketplaces formidable enablers of systemic change.

Circular economy is growing through the online secondhand market

Jonas Strandell, 2024 - Chief Marketing Officer for Besedo, an online platform ”The Second-
Hand Trend: The Future of Online Marketplaces” 3/13, https://besedo.com/blog/second-hand-
online-marketplace/#:~:text=The%20resale%20of%20used%20items,a%20thredUP%20and
%20GlobalData%20report. //DH

The circular economy is in full swing, and for an excellent reason. With finite natural resources
on the planet and the demand for resources exceeding what the earth can regenerate each
year, we cannot continue with our current linear production path. The second-hand trend is
here to stay.

The circular economy aims to transition into consuming less natural resources by reusing,
upgrading, and recycling products. There are many benefits to this way of thinking, including
reducing waste, extending the life of products, and saving resources. It’s also been shown to
boost the economy by creating jobs in the recycling and reuse industry.

The resale of used items – an integral part of the circular economy – is booming as people grow
more accustomed to buying second-hand. Resale has grown 21 times faster than the retail
apparel market. It will become more significant than fast fashion by 2028, according to a
thredUP and GlobalData report.

The second-hand market

Many companies are now looking to tap into the $24 billion second-hand market, and it’s easy
to see why. Second-hand goods are often cheaper than their new counterparts, and there’s a
growing consumer preference for sustainable and environmentally friendly products.

By bringing together buyers and sellers in one online space, online marketplaces help streamline
the second-hand market. Thus making it more accessible to consumers. And with the added
benefit of lower prices and greater sustainability, it’s easy to see why the second-hand trend is
worth watching.

The circular transition is building, but online platform innovation will take the
transition to scale
Peter Evans, 2023 – Chief Strategy Officer, McFadyen Digital and Co-Chair, MIT Platform
Strategy Summit.”How to scale the circular economy” Circular: For Resource and Waste
Professionals. 9/25, https://www.circularonline.co.uk/features/how-to-scale-the-circular-
economy/ //DH

Momentum is building to advance a more circular economy globally. Many major companies,
start-ups, cities, countries, and international organisations have all embraced circular economy
principles and launched supporting initiatives.
Venture capital and private equity investment into circular economy businesses has grown since
2020, indicating growing commercial interest. Multilateral organisations, such as the OECD
(Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), World Economic Forum and United
Nations (UN) all have major initiatives to accelerate the transition to a circular economy.

This momentum stems from concerns over resource scarcity and sustainability, as well as
shifting consumer demand and commercial interest in circular models that emphasise reuse,
repair, and recycling.

However, there is still much more that needs to be done. Measures are needed to scale circular
transactions, across a wide range of sectors, including apparel, electronics, plastics, machinery,
EV batteries and commercial buildings.

Circular platforms

One way to ensure circular economy initiatives scale is through circular platforms.

By connecting buyers and sellers of underutilised assets, facilitating resale marketplaces,

streamlining reverse logistics, providing data insights, and building circular economy
communities, platforms can create digital infrastructure to advance the circular principles of
reuse, repair, refurbishment, and recycling.

The connectivity, information exchange, material tracking and quality assurance enabled by
platforms allow stakeholders to participate in circular activities like resource sharing,
redistribution of used goods, and closed-loop material flows.

Platform business models have demonstrated the ability to successfully scale and achieve
widespread adoption in a variety of industries and use cases, enabling connection and exchange
among large networked user bases. Key factors like network effects, discovery engines, and
buyer and seller aggregation have facilitated growth.

Business and consumers are shifting to a circular economy now

Daniel R. Cahoy, 2023 – Robert G. and Caroline Schwartz Professor of Business Law, Research
Director for the Center for the Business of Sustainability, Smeal College of Business,
Pennsylvania State University “Trademark’s Grip Over Sustainability” Colorado Law Review, v94,
n4, 6/1, https://lawreview.colorado.edu/print/volume-94/trademarks-grip-over-
sustainability/ //DH

Moreover, there are signs that product disposal trends are slowing (or at least attitudes may be
shifting). In addition to the percentage of recycling efforts that work, consumers and firms are
also finding it easier to preserve existing goods by repairing them[45] or remaking them into
new, usable products.[46] Instead of filling landfills and junkyards, or inflicting mountains of
waste on vulnerable populations, there is a growing market in product renewal. To some
degree, the interest in such products reflects a sustainability mindset. But in some cases, it is
nothing more than a desire for less expensive versions of new products. There are even
instances in which the remade article is actually more expensive and luxurious than the original.
Increasingly, there is a real business case to be made for alternatives to disposal.

B. The Novel Outlets and Supply Chains for Existing and Remade Products

An alternative to recycling is the reuse of a product or some piece of the product. In some cases,
there is an easily understandable market. Consider vintage goods, which may be acquired for
less money and may convey a fashion or historical/collectable cachet.[47] In this context,
consumers reject the attraction of “new and improved” in favor of a connection to the past.
That connection could be sentimental or ironic, and it ensures a longer life for a good that is at
least temporarily saved from the refuse bin.

But of course, desiring old for the sake of old is a limited aspect of the overall marketplace.
More interesting and significant is the ability to restore, refurbish, and improve goods for
continued use so that no functional sacrifice is made. An increasing number of companies are
seeing the value in participating in this market. Others feel the pressure to join as a matter of
social responsibility. Regardless, we seem to be witnessing a revolution in the effort to keep
products in circulation and avoid early obsolescence.
 They Say: “No Link: Safe Harbor”
SHOP SAFE’s safe harbor is untested and technological limitations make it hard
for platforms to comply
Megan Bannigan et al, 2024 - Partner, Debevoise & Plimpton LLP “Does the US SHOP SAFE Act
go too far in shifting liability?” World Trademark Review, 4/20,
https://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/article/does-the-us-shop-safe-act-go-too-far-in-
shifting-liability //DH

Shifting the burden of detecting counterfeits

The SHOP SAFE Act’s safe harbour provisions provide some reasonable requirements of
marketplaces: for example, encouraging programmes to quickly remove suspected counterfeit
listings and terminating sellers who repeatedly list counterfeit products. But the overall scheme
creates a new and untested landscape by shifting the burden for policing for counterfeits from
brand owners onto marketplaces. There are substantial technological limitations to screening
technology, and platforms are often not well positioned to know every product a brand has
made and how to identify every counterfeit that might be out there. To combat counterfeiting,
platforms need to implement policies for screening and terminating listings, and sellers and
brand owners need to provide platforms with the information to effectively do so.

Even with perfect compliance, small platforms will be subject to greater

litigation – large platforms will use the threat of liability to shut them down
Nicholas Garcia, 2022 - Policy Counsel at Public Knowledge, focusing on emerging
technologies, intellectual property, and closing the digital divide. JD, Georgetown “SHOP SAFE
Act: The Trademark Timebomb Masquerading as Consumer Protection” 2/15,
https://publicknowledge.org/shop-safe-act-the-trademark-timebomb-masquerading-as-
consumer-protection/ //DH

The host of new regulations and increased liability created by SHOP SAFE would be catastrophic
for competition in e-commerce. This regime would devastate smaller online platforms like Etsy,
OfferUp, and other small platforms that allow third-party sellers because it applies to any
platform with just $500,000 in sales in the past year—for comparison, Amazon had $364.38
billion in sales in the U.S. last year. So, while this bill seems to target tech giants like Amazon,
their ample resources for regulatory compliance and deep pockets to fight lawsuits, really makes
SHOP SAFE an opportunity to eliminate many of their smaller competitors through legislative
games instead of offering better products or services.

Any site with “features that allow for arranging the sale or purchase of goods” qualifies as an
“electronic commerce platform” and this could include messaging apps, forums, and any small-
scale online seller. Even the $500,000 threshold is entirely undermined by a provision that
applies the requirements in the bill to platforms of any size if they are served with 10 notices of
trademark infringement—with no time frame limitation specified. Anyone familiar with the
rampant copyright takedown notice abuse enabled by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act will
recognize that aggressive rightsholders will easily be able to extend SHOP SAFE to any platform
under this law.

The law includes an onerous suite of regulations that sites must comply with, making its broad
applicability particularly concerning. Many of the requirements will be difficult and expensive to
implement for most smaller platforms, and perhaps impossible for others. For example, one
requirement is that platforms implement “reasonable proactive measures for screening goods
before displaying the goods to the public.” To operate at any scale, such measures would
require automated content filtering systems that are both expensive and difficult to design and
implement. Similarly, the bill also requires platforms to ensure that third-party sellers “use
images that accurately depict the goods sold, offered for sale, distributed, or advertised on the
platform.” Again, analysis and approval of images, and verification that said images are
accurately linked to the third-party seller’s wares, pose significant technical and content
moderation challenges for smaller platforms.

These kinds of regulations, combined with the broad definition of applicable platforms, conspire
to make many online platforms—even those not specifically designed for e-commerce—
responsible for undertaking costly and complex new systems to remain compliant with SHOP
SAFE’s requirements. And even with total compliance, platforms still remain open to litigation—
the statutory obligations, if followed, merely create an affirmative defense from the
contributory liability claims. This expensive and extensive set of requirements will functionally
doom smaller competitor platforms and further cement the dominance of large firms like
Amazon and Facebook.

Even if lawsuits are meritless, the mere threat from trademark bullies will shut
down secondary resale markets
Nicholas Garcia, 2022 - Policy Counsel at Public Knowledge, focusing on emerging
technologies, intellectual property, and closing the digital divide. JD, Georgetown “SHOP SAFE
Act: The Trademark Timebomb Masquerading as Consumer Protection” 2/15,
https://publicknowledge.org/shop-safe-act-the-trademark-timebomb-masquerading-as-
consumer-protection/ //DH

The real beneficiaries of the SHOP SAFE Act are not consumers but big brands that want to
aggressively pursue knockoffs, cheap competition products, and the secondary resale market.
Trademarks can be extraordinarily broad, encompassing certain colors or even common words
or phrases. Creating such an expansive regime of trademark liability online will inevitably lead to
brands pursuing aggressive protection of anything they deem remotely infringing with little
regard for SHOP SAFE’s intended purpose of protecting consumers. For example, the infamously
litigious Monster Cable Products, Inc. has more than 70 trademarks on the word “monster” and
has gone after auto transmissions, carpet-cleaning machines, mini-golf, people selling t-shirts,
the job-hunting site monster.com, Monster energy drink, and even Disney over “Monsters Inc.”
merchandise. It is easy to imagine how aggressive rightsholders will abuse SHOP SAFE by
bullying platforms into settlements over meritless claims of infringement.
 They Say: “No Link: Reputational Harm and Sanctions”
Empirically – brands accuse legitimate resale as being counterfeit. They’ll over-
enforce and shut down legitimate resale markets
Jonathan Berroya, 2021 - Senior Vice President and General Counsel, Internet Association.
Testimony before the Subcommittee On Courts, Intellectual Property, and The Internet Judiciary
Committee U.S. House of Representatives. The SHOP SAFE Act: Stemming the Rising Tide of
Unsafe Counterfeit Products Online. 5/27,
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU03/20210527/112713/HHRG-117-JU03-Wstate-
BerroyaJ-20210527.pdf //DH

Another key issue not addressed is that while most brand owners act in good faith, some abuse
the system. For example, brand owners have brought trademark infringement lawsuits to stop
the sale of parody products, or labeled 26 as counterfeiting the resale of their genuine branded
products to control distribution channels in contravention of perfectly legal and valid
commercial activity as to authentic goods.27

In addition, so-called “trademark bullying” is a well-recognized problem. Trademark bullies are

brand owners (often large companies) who use the threat of trademark infringement lawsuits to
pressure smaller companies or individuals to stop engaging in lawful activity that the brand
owner does not like. Trademark bullying reduces competition and 28 29 harms free speech,
imposing real costs on both companies and consumers. Because smaller companies and
individuals lack the resources to fight a large brand owner, they are often forced to comply with
the brand owner’s demands, no matter how frivolous. Changing the secondary trademark
liability standards could make bullying behaviors worse.

Combating counterfeiting is incredibly important. But so is ensuring the continued availability of

online commerce to many individuals and small businesses that depend on it as a core source of
their income. The goal of the law must be to balance those concerns.

Shaming won’t stop bullying

Leah Chan Grinvald, 2021 – * Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Professor of Law,
Suffolk University School of Law. “Trademark Enforcement and Statutory Incentives”
https://scholars.law.unlv.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2390&context=facpub //DH

One downside to over-enforcement may cause the balance of benefits to sway the other way—
the potential for shaming by the trademark owner’s consumers or the broader public.121 In
these days of over-sharing on social media, it is easy for recipients of abusive ceaseand-desist
letters to post them or share that they have received such demands.122 Unfortunately, though,
the prospect of shaming or being labeled a “#trademarkbully” does not deter all entities, and
additionally, not all shaming is successful.123 Given that there are no provisions in the Lanham
Act that penalize entities for over-enforcing their marks, some entities could see only benefits
to enforcement. Post-Romag, these benefits have potentially increased.
The incentives for trademark bullying are stronger - brands perceive they have
a duty to police or they’ll lose their trademark
Sonia K Katyal & Leah Chan Grinvald, 2018 - *Chancellor's Professor of Law; Co-Director,
Berkeley Center for Law and Technology, University of California, Berkeley AND **Associate
Dean for Academic Affairs and Professor of Law, Suffolk University Law School. “PLATFORM LAW
AND THE BRAND ENTERPRISE” BERKELEY TECHNOLOGY LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 32:1135,
https://scholars.law.unlv.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?params=/context/facpub/article/2394/
&path_info=Platform_Law_and_the_Brand_Enterprise.pdf //DH

Italics in original

Although the Lanham Act does not explicitly require trademark owners to "police" their marks,
over a half-century's worth of court cases does appear to place some type of burden on an
owner to ward against infringing uses of their trademark. 239 The specifics of this duty,
however, remain unclear.240 What is clear, though, is the perception by some trademark
owners that this "duty" requires them to pursue possible infringers aggressively or else "lose
their mark."241 This perception is fueled by judicial statements such as this one from a 2003
Federal Circuit opinion, "Trademark law requires that the trademark owner police the quality of
the goods to which the mark is applied, on pain of losing the mark entirely." 242 However, the
actual loss of one's mark is extremely rare243 and is therefore not a valid reason for over-
enforcement.

The real driver for aggressive enforcement is the reward, as well as a lack of consequences for
over-stepping the legal boundaries. Courts have taken as probative evidence aggressive
enforcement strategies as proxies for a "strong" mark.244 As one of us has argued in previous
works, this aggressiveness can often cross the line into abusiveness where the parties in the
dispute are imbalanced.245 It is easy for a mark owner to slide into abusiveness, as trademark
law lacks any mechanisms to hold trademark bullies accountable. There are virtually no
consequences for overenforcement.246 But the rewards are great, as a strong or famous
trademark is granted a larger scope of protection. Trademark owners whose marks are
considered strong may bring infringement actions against defendants using the same or similar
marks on unrelated products. In addition, owners of famous trademarks may bring dilution
actions where defendants are using marks that can be associated with the famous mark, but is
not even causing a likelihood of confusion. This enlarged scope of protection can provide some
trademark owners with the ability to claim almost complete exclusivity over all uses of their
marks. Given this lack of understanding of the duty to police one's trademark, the potential
rewards, and the lack of consequences for over-enforcement, it is easy to understand aggressive
(and perhaps even abusive) enforcement in the online space where uses of trademarks are
ubiquitous.247 Trademarks appear everywhere online, from blogs to reviews, to sales of used
product listings.248 An industry of "brand management" has arisen to help trademark owners
police their trademarks online, which gives owners the ability to note any use of their mark.249
Unfortunately, while not every use of a trademark is infringing, it may appear infringing to an
over-zealous policer as long as it is unauthorized.250 What this does is place trademark owners
into overdrive in sending cease-and-desist letters or including trademark claims within take-
down notices to platforms. As discussed above in Parts II and III, this places not only a serious
burden on the platform, but risks unbalancing the ecosystem of the macrobrands and
microbrands.

There are no consequences to bullying, so companies will weaponize the plan

to attack legitimate competition – that prevents a functional e-commerce
marketplace
Anthony James Dispoto, 2015 - J.D. Candidate 2015, University of San Diego School of Law.
“Protecting Small Businesses against Trademark Bullying: Creating a Federal Law to Remove the
Disparity of Leverage Trademark Holders Maintain over Small Business,” 16 SAN DIEGO INT'l L.J.
457 (2015). Hein Online, accessed via University of Michigan //DH

These threatened legal actions burden the targeted company rather than the trademark holders
that send out the cease-and-desist letters.7 6 The targeted company is in a precarious situation
in deciding which action to take.77 They can choose to wait and see if the threatening party will
take legal action against them, while continuing to potentially infringe the trademark.
Otherwise, the targeted company may seek a declaratory judgment, which could state that its
trademark does not infringe upon the other party's mark, thereby precluding further legal action
against it.78 The threatening party suffers no consequences from sending such letters. Since
they are often viewed as aggressive policing tactics, no sanctions are imposed and the
threatening party can decide whether or not to pursue legal action. 79 Small businesses are
particularly influenced by the potential threat of litigation, which in turn is externalized as a cost
to the consumer and the economy.80

By extrapolating the theory of famous economist Adam Smith, it seems that this externalized
cost in trademark bullying creates a barrier to entry, which in turn limits the choices available to
consumers. ' It does so by imposing higher costs in the market place, thereby increasing the
initial amount of capital investment needed for new market entrants and ultimately limiting the
amount of entrants who are capable of success in the market.82 Cease-and-desist letters
specifically impose high costs on businesses, not just in legal fees, but also in time diverted from
the business.83 This harms the consumer, because the fewer companies that are in the market,
the fewer products that are available to the public, and those available will tend to be of a lower
quality. 84 Competition between companies improves the quality of products and lowers prices,
because competitors produce better and cheaper goods or services in order to win
consumers.85
 They Say: “No Impact: Circular Greenwashing”
Greenwashing causes consumers to seek out more information and adopt
greater circular consumption behaviors
João M. Lopes et al, 2023 - Miguel Torga Institute of Higher Education & NECE-UBI—Research
Unit in Business Sciences, University of Beira Interior, Covilhã, Portugal “The Dark Side of Green
Marketing: How Greenwashing Affects Circular Consumption?” Sustainability 2023, 15, 11649.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su151511649 //DH

This study makes valuable contributions to the existing literature by establishing connections
among the conceptual frameworks of greenwashing, environmental concerns, sustainable
information collection, and circular consumption. The results augment our theoretical
comprehension of how consumers adjust their behaviors and information-seeking habits in
response to corporate actions such as greenwashing. These findings resonate with the norm
activation theory, suggesting that when consumers perceive a problem, such as greenwashing, it
activates personal norms (like environmental concerns), leading to a change in behaviors , such
as the collection of sustainable information.

Simultaneously, the study sheds light on the role of consumers’ reactions to greenwashing and
their implications for circular consumption intentions. This examination provides a richer
understanding of consumer behavior in the context of a circular economy. This relationship can
be interpreted through the lens of the Theory of Planned Behavior, which highlights
greenwashing as a significant external influence capable of shaping attitudes—in this case,
environmental concerns; molding subjective norms, exhibited as sustainable information
collecting; and influencing perceived behavioral control, represented as circular consumption
intentions. The study’s findings offer a deeper understanding of the paradoxical scenario where
consumers confronted with deceptive environmental claims respond by adopting more
sustainable behaviors. The findings illustrate that consumers’ exposure to greenwashing
stimulates their awareness and concern about environmental issues and that environmental
concerns mediate the effect of greenwashing on circular consumption intention.

Consumer demand is the vital internal link to a circular economy – negative

reactions to greenwashing shift consumer behavior
João M. Lopes et al, 2023 - Miguel Torga Institute of Higher Education & NECE-UBI—Research
Unit in Business Sciences, University of Beira Interior, Covilhã, Portugal “The Dark Side of Green
Marketing: How Greenwashing Affects Circular Consumption?” Sustainability 2023, 15, 11649.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su151511649 //DH

Furthermore, the study introduces sustainable information collection as an intermediary

between greenwashing and circular consumption intention. This presents a valuable addition to
the discourse on sustainable consumption, as it highlights the importance of information
accessibility in sustainable decision-making. Our results lend support to the hypothesis that
consumers who are aware of greenwashing tactics are not passively influenced by them but
instead respond by actively seeking more reliable information about the products or services.
The more they engage in sustainable information collection, the more likely they are to intend
to participate in circular consumption behaviors. This reinforces the idea that information
seeking is a powerful tool consumers can utilize to make more sustainable decisions [54,55].
Therefore, understanding the mediating role of sustainable information collection provides
valuable insights into how consumers process and respond to greenwashing. It indicates that
consumer empowerment, through the provision and active seeking of reliable sustainability
information, could be a potent mechanism to mitigate the negative effects of greenwashing and
promote circular consumption.

The circular transition is more than just recycling – production and consumption
will shift downward
Paula Tejón Carbajal, 2020 – Global Campaign Strategist for Greenpeace International.
“Slowing the circular economy” 7/17,
https://www.greenpeace.org/international/story/44079/slowing-the-circular-economy/ //DH

Let’s start by adding “slow” to the term “circular economy”, because language matters.

For our economy to be restorative and generative, not just cycling more and more resources
around faster and faster, we need to both: slow the flow and close the loop by reducing
production and consumption. This means reversing the waste hierarchy and putting “refuse” (as
in, “don’t want it”) and “reduce” at the top of the list. This allows us to tackle consumerism,
overconsumption and overproduction head-on while questioning the notion of growth
altogether.

Yes.. this means consuming less and…

… rolling-out mindful and ecological designs that enable sustainable ecosystems for all of us.

It should look like this:

SIMPLE – It should be created with tools that are easy to understand and repair

INPUT-ORIENTED – Production must understand the value of all resources and how to conserve
and use resources effectively, with a minimum of waste.

WITH PURPOSE – Products must be designed for longevity, promoting extended use to reduce
buying more of the same stuff. They must be durable as well as repairable, reusable,
refurbishable, recyclable. The end of life of the product and its disposal must be factored into
this design phase as well as the material mix.

FOR MULTI USE- Reverse-engineering and modularity are key to enable repair and different uses
of the product.

DESIGN GLOBAL, MANUFACTURE LOCAL — Combining globally shared productive knowledge,

with distributed manufacturing closer to the place of use and demand.
… emphasize genuine sustainability to prevent and reduce environmental impact across the
entire life-cycle of products to protect our planet, and:

PREVENT and minimise the impact of parts and materials.

Source your parts and materials LOCALLY.

Use efficient and RENEWABLE ENERGY.

Eliminate all TOXIC chemicals and pollution.

Avoid WASTE and make the by-products of today’s resources for tomorrow.

… open source information and standards to enable to repair and foster innovation, which is:

FREE – Information freely available for anyone to access.

EDITABLE – in formats that allow people to remix, add, build upon, learn and improve.

OPEN – share under open licenses to enable legal decentralised collaboration and enable the
right to fix and the access to repair tutorials or spare parts.

So, Is this slow circular economy already happening??

Yes! Some concrete steps that are already changing the landscape of the economy and our
cultural attitudes are tax incentives for repair, setting limits on advertising, mandatory take-back
schemes or Extended Producer Responsibility regulations. Eliminating the use of hazardous
chemicals, reducing resource use, such as energy, water and raw materials, as well as carrying
out better working practices (wages, standards, health, working hours etc.) for manufacturers
and in farming and mining. To improve production, people are slowing it down and making it
more resilient. New, alternative business models (eg. sharing, renting, cooperative, non-
hierarchical, slower fashion cycles) are also a common feature of businesses and organisations
and facilitate a slow circular economy

A truly slow circular economy will require all the above as well as strong transparency,
accountability, collaboration and localisation across value chains, industries and movements.
Eventually, all the above will lead to an economy that is built on a foundation of shared
ownership designed to generate value for those that create it while delivering fair and just
outcomes which preserves resources and ecosystems while benefiting the many rather than the
few.
 They Say: “No Impact: Environment Resilient”
There are limits to resilience – surpassing too many thresholds means complete
collapse
KATHERINE RICHARDSON et al, 2023 - Globe Institute, Faculty of Health, University of
Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. “Earth beyond six of nine planetary boundaries” Science,
9/13, https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adh2458 //DH

The planetary boundaries framework (1, 2) draws upon Earth system science (3). It identifies
nine processes that are critical for maintaining the stability and resilience of Earth system as a
whole. All are presently heavily perturbed by human activities. The framework aims to delineate
and quantify levels of anthropogenic perturbation that, if respected, would allow Earth to
remain in a “Holocene-like” interglacial state. In such a state, global environmental functions
and life-support systems remain similar to those experienced over the past ~10,000 years rather
than changing into a state without analog in human history. This Holocene period, which began
with the end of the last ice age and during which agriculture and modern civilizations evolved,
was characterized by relatively stable and warm planetary conditions. Human activities have
now brought Earth outside of the Holocene’s window of environmental variability, giving rise to
the proposed Anthropocene epoch (4, 5).

Planetary-scale environmental forcing by humans continues and individual Earth system

components are, to an increasing extent, in disequilibrium in relation to the changing
conditions. As a consequence, the post-Holocene Earth is still evolving, and ultimate global
environmental conditions remain uncertain. Paleoclimate research, however, documents that
Earth has previously experienced largely ice-free conditions during warm periods (6, 7) with
correspondingly different states of the biosphere. It is clearly in humanity’s interest to avoid
perturbing Earth system to a degree that risks changing global environmental conditions so
markedly. Ice cover is only one indicator of substantial system-wide change in numerous other
Earth system dimensions. The planetary boundaries framework delineates the biophysical and
biochemical systems and processes known to regulate the state of the planet within ranges that
are historically known and scientifically likely to maintain Earth system stability and life-support
systems conducive to the human welfare and societal development experienced during the
Holocene.

Currently, anthropogenic perturbations of the global environment are primarily addressed as if

they were separate issues, e.g., climate change, biodiversity loss, or pollution. This approach,
however, ignores these perturbations’ nonlinear interactions and resulting aggregate effects on
the overall state of Earth system. Planetary boundaries bring a scientific understanding of
anthropogenic global environmental impacts into a framework that calls for considering the
state of Earth system as a whole.
The world’s sitting on a consumption time bomb and the Earth is on the brink –
without a shift to sustainable consumption, the Earth will collapse
Miriam Eimannsberger, 2019 - Master Thesis in the Department of Forest Economics at
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. “Transition to a circular economy – the intersection
of business and user enablement”
https://stud.epsilon.slu.se/15070/1/eimannsberger_m_190923.pdf //DH

CE = Circular Economy

In order to supply a growing world population production keeps increasing simultaneously. With
the resources being limited the demand of exponential economic and population growth
becomes ever more difficult to be met (Lieder & Rashid 2016). In addition to the increasing
pressure on the last limited resources for production, the Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2013b p.
15) states that “we are sitting on a consumption time bomb”. Within the next 20 years it is
expected that three billion additional consumers will enter the market. One main reason is the
growing middle classes in emerging markets especially in the Asia-Pacific region (EMF 2013b).
With this increase comes an increase in waste generation. One explanation is the increased
material intensity as the new group of consumers entering the markets chose manufactured and
packaged goods instead of unbranded products. The impact of packaged goods is much higher
“both because of processing losses and packaging” (EMF 2013b p. 15). Another exemplary
reason for an increase in waste is the production for the mass market resulting in quantity over
quality for the product and its sourcing and consequently a relatively short product lifespan
(Cooper 2013). The throwaway mentality is closely linked to the linear

economic model (Gullstrand Edbring et al. 2016). Therefore, while pressure increases on
resource extraction, the amount of waste keeps increasing. The amount of waste already
produced is often left unused at landfill sites while it keeps growing (Lieder & Rashid 2016).

The linear model is responsible for the current wealth in many of the high income countries as
relatively low resource prices in relation to the labour costs “have been the engine of economic
growth” (EMF 2013b p. 17). However, this wealth has also created a “wasteful system of
resource use” (EMF 2013b p. 17) and brings with it several threats. The growth in production,
consumption and waste generation stresses the global environment. Providing resources, act as
a life support system and being a sink for waste and emissions are economic functions the
environment serves. Nonetheless, there is usually no price on the stress caused for the
environment by linear produced or consumed products. Prices do not reflect the negative
impact caused (Ghisellini et al. 2016).

According to Cooper (2013 p. 137) “the global predicament that this [economic growth] poses is
that people in affluent countries are unwilling to give up, while in newly industrialized and other
poorer countries people are unwilling to do without”. In other words, while several countries
want to increase their consumption to follow the goal of economic growth, the high-income
countries would need, but are unwilling, to reduce their consumption. Global resource scarcity
does not allow the current levels of consumption for everyone around the globe. Gullstrand
Edbring et al. (2016 p. 1) bring it to the point: “Western consumption patterns are
unsustainable: if the world's 7 billion inhabitants had consumed in the same way as the Swedish
population does today, we would need 3.25 Earths to support this lifestyle”. The negative
impacts caused by the make-use-dispose linear economic model, therefore, threaten “the
stability of the economies and the integrity of natural ecosystems that are essential for
humanity's survival” (Ghisellini et al. 2016 p. 11). Humanity’s survival is on threat as “measured
by the land area that can support human habitation, the earth is shrinking” (Korhonen et al.
2018 p. 38). Korhonen et al. (2018 p. 38) summarize the negative impacts by stating that
“deserts are expanding, the sea level is rising, the population is growing, per capita consumption
is increasing, the volume of livestock and cattle is growing and biodiversity is depleting at ever
faster rates”. The rapid environmental degradation caused by the wasteful make-use-dispose
system has led to a change in thinking among practitioners and academics, politicians,
businesses and civilians to implement a system of sustainable development, production,
consumption and policies (Heshmati 2017).

One logical way to change the linear system is its reverse: closing the waste loop to form a
cyclical flow of materials and energy rather than the linear chain (Korhonen et al. 2018). A
circular economy considers the value of a product to stay within the economic system even after
it presumably has become a waste product. Waste emissions and generation is minimised along
with an efficient energy, material and water consumption (Geng et al. 2013). By closing the loop
and including the concept of CE in an economic system resource use can become more efficient,
especially regarding urban and industrial waste, aiming at a better balance between the
economic system, the environment and the society (Ghisellini et al. 2016).
 CP_Information Sharing_NEG
NOTE: This must be read WITH the Circular Economy DA (if you put this in your 1NC, you also
need to include that—they work together because Circular Economy is the Net Benefit).
 1NC– Data-Sharing CP
The next offcase position is the data-sharing counterplan

Text: The United States federal government should establish a public-private

partnership between brand sellers, online marketplaces, and U.S. law
enforcement agencies to share data and coordinate anti-counterfeiting
enforcement, and increase resources for criminal enforcement of
counterfeiting.

AND, The counterplan solves the case without increasing trademark protection
Sujai Shivakumar, 2021 – former associate director of the Center for Data Innovation,
focusing on the impact of data innovation in the retail sector. “How Data-Sharing Partnerships
Can Thwart Counterfeits on Online Marketplaces” 3/3,

https://itif.org/publications/2021/03/03/how-data-sharing-partnerships-can-thwart-
counterfeits-online-marketplaces/ //DH

To better address this vulnerability, the Customs and Border Protection Agency (CBP) at the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) should help establish a public-private partnership to
share information across brand sellers, online marketplaces, and U.S. enforcement agencies —
and foster data-driven strategies to both reduce the spread of fake goods and disable
counterfeit networks.

Congress should direct CBP to use its authority in the 2015 Trade Facilitation and Trade
Enforcement Act (TFTEA) to establish such a partnership through the National Intellectual
Property Rights Coordination Center (IPR Center). A well-crafted data-sharing partnership could
staunch the harm from counterfeiting and exploit advances in data analytics and artificial
intelligence (AI) to identify and respond to the strategies and tactics of counterfeiters. Congress
should also promote the needed coordination among brand sellers, online marketplaces, and
enforcement agencies by removing legal impediments to cooperation concerning the creation of
common standards for data collection and analysis.

If these efforts could cut counterfeit goods imports by 50 percent, it would create an additional
15,000 to 20,000 manufacturing jobs in America, while at the same time reduce the trade
deficit. In this regard, expanding funding for federal agencies to fight counterfeit imports could
very well be a cost-efficient strategy while offering a World Trade Organization (WTO)-legal way
to defend against Chinese mercantilist practices.
2NC / 1NR – Blocks
 They Say: “Platforms Won’t Cooperate”

The CP changes incentives – with Customs and Border Patrol taking the lead,
they’ll coordinate to make sure there’s no free riding and they’ll develop
stronger detection technology
Sujai Shivakumar, 2021 – former associate director of the Center for Data Innovation,
focusing on the impact of data innovation in the retail sector. “How Data-Sharing Partnerships
Can Thwart Counterfeits on Online Marketplaces” 3/3,

https://itif.org/publications/2021/03/03/how-data-sharing-partnerships-can-thwart-
counterfeits-online-marketplaces/ //DH

CBP = Customs and Border Patrol

Establish a Public-Private Partnership to Share Anti-Counterfeiting Data

Congress should direct CBP to establish a public-private partnership wherein enforcement

agencies, brand sellers, and online marketplaces work together to stop counterfeiters and
disrupt their networks by creating a shared data repository, developing common industry
standards, and conducting research on proactive measures to identify and disrupt counterfeiter
networks.

First, this partnership should create a shared data repository—a cloud-based, common-pool
resource to share and manage across many stakeholders. The architecture for this repository
might include a data layer to normalize and integrate data from diverse sources; an analytics
layer in which competing software algorithms translate data into alerts that can be used by
government enforcement agencies, brand sellers, and online marketplaces; and finally an
application layer for entrepreneurial firms and research organizations to experiment with
available data to develop innovative products and services. The National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Big Data Program is one example of such a data repository.
The National Weather Service performs a comparable function wherein it aggregates data from
multiple data sources and fuses it together in order to provide weather data to its customers
and the larger community.

Second, this partnership should establish commonly accepted standards and best practices for
information sharing among enforcement agencies, brand sellers, and online marketplaces. In
this regard, there is a need to create mechanisms for a common system of digital identification
for third-party verification. Private actors could work in partnership with CBP to standardize the
process by which customs brokers verify the identity of their client importers. This partnership
organization could combine this verification scheme with enhanced information sharing
between CBP and e-commerce platforms to keep counterfeiters off of online marketplaces.61 A
system could be established that would foster information sharing while at the same time
protecting sensitive business information from disclosure to either competitors or the public.
Third, this partnership should provide a forum to conduct shared research. Normally, firms may
be reluctant to share such research for fear that other competitors might free-ride on this
activity. In this regard, a partnership with CBP and other law enforcement agencies taking the
lead, along with brand sellers and online marketplaces, could advance research in AI algorithms
that look for patterns in the movement and behavior of counterfeiting networks.

Even if not every platform participates, it’s still comparatively better than the
plan. Liability reduces platform cooperation more
Sujai Shivakumar, 2021 – former associate director of the Center for Data Innovation,
focusing on the impact of data innovation in the retail sector. “How Data-Sharing Partnerships
Can Thwart Counterfeits on Online Marketplaces” 3/3,

https://itif.org/publications/2021/03/03/how-data-sharing-partnerships-can-thwart-
counterfeits-online-marketplaces/ //DH

CBP = Customs and Border Patrol

CONCLUSION

The proliferation of counterfeits, including in online marketplaces, threatens the health and
safety of American consumers and damages U.S. workers and firms by diverting earnings from
the legitimate U.S. businesses whose IP is counterfeited.

Brand sellers, online marketplaces, and federal enforcement agencies are each increasing their
own efforts to interdict and destroy counterfeit imports. While they are employing a series of
defensive approaches to protect supply chains and stop the sale of counterfeits, these efforts
are often siloed and uncoordinated.

Congress has also sought to address this problem through proposed legislation that would place
the onus on online marketplaces to identity and remove counterfeit products. These proposals
may instead foster risk avoidance by these e-commerce firms, ultimately narrowing consumer
choice and inhibiting innovation.

A more proactive and systemic approach is needed to identify and disrupt counterfeiter
networks. In this regard, a public-private partnership could provide the coordination needed
among brand sellers, online marketplaces, and enforcement agencies to disrupt counterfeit
networks by developing common standards for data collection and building a platform for
advanced analytics and innovative solutions. Using the authority already found in the TFTEA.
Congress should urge CBP to facilitate the timely operation of such a partnership.
The infrastructure already exists for cooperative enforcement and brands
participate in Customs and Border Patrol’s IPR Center now. The CP just
strengthens existing channels for enforcement
Sujai Shivakumar, 2021 – former associate director of the Center for Data Innovation,
focusing on the impact of data innovation in the retail sector. “How Data-Sharing Partnerships
Can Thwart Counterfeits on Online Marketplaces” 3/3,

https://itif.org/publications/2021/03/03/how-data-sharing-partnerships-can-thwart-
counterfeits-online-marketplaces/ //DH

CBP is also home to the IPR Center, whose role is to coordinate diverse federal efforts related to
interdiction, investigation, and outreach to the public and law enforcement.41 As a part of this
effort, rights holders, online marketplaces, payment processers, and companies involved in all
points across the supply chain regularly meet with members of the IPR Center to share their
best practices, concerns, and suggestions. This information could enable further collaboration
on complex cross-cutting challenges, including enhanced information sharing, joint enforcement
actions, and specialized, targeted training and outreach. For example, Amazon’s new
Counterfeit Crimes Unit is already sharing and analyzing data to assist targeted inspections by
CBP aimed at preventing counterfeit products from entering the U.S. markets. Amazon is also
working with the IPR Center to develop an “information exchange that will enable industry
participants—stores, payment service providers, banks, and shipping companies—to better
identify and stop counterfeiters before they can reach consumers.”42
 They Say: “Bad Information Turn”

Their argument assumes status quo information-sharing which is constrained

by legal barriers that only allow incomplete sharing. The CP removes those
barriers and incentivizes better information
Sujai Shivakumar, 2021 – former associate director of the Center for Data Innovation,
focusing on the impact of data innovation in the retail sector. “How Data-Sharing Partnerships
Can Thwart Counterfeits on Online Marketplaces” 3/3,

https://itif.org/publications/2021/03/03/how-data-sharing-partnerships-can-thwart-
counterfeits-online-marketplaces/ //DH

CBP = Customs and Border Patrol, TFTEA = Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act

Despite dedicated efforts by brand sellers, online marketplaces, and law enforcement agencies,
counterfeiters continue to evade detection. As noted, counterfeiters use multiple merchant
accounts, withhold their business information, and provide false information to CBP (this
includes covering or obscuring infringing trademarks until the counterfeit goods clear with CBP).
Counterfeiters also avoid detection by shipping infringing marks separately from the goods,
relying on in-country assembly and distribution after the separate components have crossed the
U.S. border.44 Counterfeiters also minimize detection by CBP by intentionally mislabeling
shipping containers.

For example, CBP recently seized fake Nike shoes that were incorrectly labeled as napkins on the
shipping containers in an attempt to hide the counterfeit goods.45 And data for shipping
manifests of small packages is often incomplete or of poor quality, which makes it difficult for
CBP to use it for identifying packages at high risk of containing counterfeits.46

Today, all three stakeholders—brands, online marketplaces, and law enforcement agencies—
recognize the need to create and share up-to-date information about authorized manufacturers
and sellers, the geographic origin of products, and key identifying aspects of authentic products
and their packaging. This information could help them work together to remove fakes from the
market as well as get to the root of counterfeiting operations. At present, online marketplaces
and law enforcement agencies do not share sufficient information about counterfeits to address
the problem. There are three main reasons for this.

First, antitrust concerns regarding the sharing of corporate information have forestalled
cooperation among various brand sellers and online marketplaces.47 Antitrust law focuses on
improving consumer welfare by preventing collusion among market participants. However,
active cooperation—targeted to share and analyze data concerning suppliers and map logistics
networks to detect flows of counterfeit products—is needed among these participants in order
to improve consumer welfare. To the extent legal and academic conceptions of antitrust lag
behind advances in data innovation, the resulting ambiguity could restrain advances in
anticounterfeiting policy.48
Second, U.S. laws prohibit CBP from sharing any more information about counterfeits with e-
commerce platforms and common carriers (such as FedEx, UPS, and DHL). A 2019 report by the
Senate Finance Committee notes that TFTEA allows CBP to share information that “appears on
the merchandise and its packaging and labels” with rights holders if it believes that the good in
question may infringe upon a registered copyright or trademark, but that TFTEA does not
authorize CBP to share information with e-commerce platforms or common carriers.49 Sharing
this information more broadly would allow these actors to work together to stop the
distribution of counterfeit products. Further, TFTEA does not provide CBP sufficient authority to
disclose information to rights holders regarding the containers used to ship the goods to the
United Sates (exclusive of retail packaging).50 Sharing this information would improve tracking
of counterfeit shipments.

The Senate report also notes that the Trade Secrets Act (TSA) prevents CBP officers from sharing
information on counterfeit goods that have been seized or detained at U.S. ports with e-
commerce platforms and common carriers. While such information could be used by retailers to
curtail sales of counterfeits and warn consumers, CBP officials fear that this action might reveal
trade secrets regarding importers’ supply chains, thereby placing it at odds with the law.51

Third, while CBP is able to provide rights holders with information about seized counterfeit
goods under existing regulations, it is unable to provide them with information about
abandoned goods that are suspected of being counterfeit.52 In response, CBP has proposed
amending customs regulations to allow it to disclose to rights holders details about abandoned
infringing goods, such as the date of importation, port of entry, a description of the
merchandise, and the country of origin. Rights holders could use this information to help CBP
identify IPR violations and identify channels of counterfeit shipments.53

Disclosing information about abandoned goods is a further step in the right direction, but it only
goes so far. In comments to the proposed rule, the International Anti-Counterfeiting Coalition
(IACC) welcomed this proposal but pointed out that “the abandonment process must also
provide a lasting deterrent to those counterfeiters attempting to evade CBP’s efforts,
particularly in light of the fact that they’ve already pocketed their profits by the time the
merchandise has been detained.”54 Noting the adaptive strategies of counterfeiting
organizations, IACC has recommended that deterrence should come from “improved targeting
against future shipments, joint criminal actions, civil enforcement by rights-holders, and
voluntary collaborative efforts among industry stakeholders to identify and effectively remove
bad actors from the ecosystem.”55 Such proactive actions require enhanced cooperation
among enforcement agencies, rights holders, and e-commerce retailers, for which a shared
partnership platform is required.

Removing legal barriers to collaboration incentivizes better information sharing

and new detection technology
Sujai Shivakumar, 2021 – former associate director of the Center for Data Innovation,
focusing on the impact of data innovation in the retail sector. “How Data-Sharing Partnerships
Can Thwart Counterfeits on Online Marketplaces” 3/3,
https://itif.org/publications/2021/03/03/how-data-sharing-partnerships-can-thwart-
counterfeits-online-marketplaces/ //DH

CBP = Customs and Border Patrol

Brand sellers, online marketplaces, and law enforcement agencies need additional capabilities
to cooperatively address the scourge of counterfeiting. To this end, Congress should amend
existing laws to facilitate real-time data sharing about authorized manufacturers, distributors,
and sellers and resellers regarding the geographic origin of products and key identifying aspects
of authentic products and their packaging. Congress should also establish a public-private
partnership that can assimilate this information and foster new data-driven technologies to
proactively disrupt the flow of counterfeits and other related threats to the nation’s commerce
and public welfare.

Amend Existing Laws and Regulations that Pose Barriers to Real-Time Anti-Counterfeiting Data
Sharing

There are statutory and regulatory barriers arising from TSTEA and TSA that inhibit some types
of information sharing on counterfeit goods and distribution networks between law
enforcement agencies and retailers as well as among retailers.57 Congress should remove these
barriers. In addition, CBP should update its rules to permit disclosing to rights holders details
about abandoned infringing goods.58

Legal and regulatory changes that encourage cooperation on data sharing, including by
overcoming antitrust concerns, could go a long way to encourage standard setting, research,
and innovation. Congress should enact a selective antitrust exemption to foster collaboration
among e-commerce firms. As precedent, the Cooperative Research Act of 1984 granted a partial
antitrust exemption to certain research joint ventures by firms in the semiconductor industry.59
This could be modified to allow companies to seek DOJ exemptions to cooperate in the fight
against counterfeiting. More recently, the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2015
authorized cybersecurity information sharing among private firms and state and federal
governments, thereby exempting it from federal antitrust laws.60
 They Say: “Permutation Do Both”

The perm fails and links to the circular economy DA – adding liability to
information sharing causes risk avoidance that reduces cooperation and
innovation
Sujai Shivakumar, 2021 – former associate director of the Center for Data Innovation,
focusing on the impact of data innovation in the retail sector. “How Data-Sharing Partnerships
Can Thwart Counterfeits on Online Marketplaces” 3/3,

https://itif.org/publications/2021/03/03/how-data-sharing-partnerships-can-thwart-
counterfeits-online-marketplaces/ //DH

CBP = Customs and Border Patrol, TFTEA = Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act

The presence of added liability that would be introduced by the SHOP SAFE act would increase
the motivation for online marketplaces to deter counterfeiters but would not provide the
means to take proactive and meaningful action. Instead, it may foster risk avoidance (such as
online marketplaces imposing restrictions on third-party sellers on their platforms) that would
not only limit consumer choice, even from legitimate sellers, but also potentially inhibit further
innovations in marketplace platforms. Indeed, these legislative proposals, which emphasize
increased verification of third-party sellers and increased liability for online marketplaces, could,
in the end, be more harmful than effective.
 They Say: “Criminal Prosecution Fails”
Increasing criminal enforcement is comparatively better than changing liability,
and provides more resources to law enforcement
Jonathan Berroya, 2021 - Senior Vice President and General Counsel, Internet Association.
Testimony before the Subcommittee On Courts, Intellectual Property, and The Internet Judiciary
Committee U.S. House of Representatives. The SHOP SAFE Act: Stemming the Rising Tide of
Unsafe Counterfeit Products Online. 5/27,
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU03/20210527/112713/HHRG-117-JU03-Wstate-
BerroyaJ-20210527.pdf //DH

Changing the secondary liability standards also does not address the true cause of counterfeiting
—the actual infringer. Although several U.S. agencies have the authority to investigate criminal
counterfeiting (as noted above), only 229 counterfeiters were referred to the U.S. Sentencing
Commission in the 2019 fiscal year. Indeed, the U.S. Sentencing 24 25 Commission reported that
counterfeit offenses decreased by 37.4 percent between the Fiscal Year 2015 and Fiscal Year
2019. But law enforcement agencies—not online services—have the expertise and mandate to
investigate criminal counterfeiting. Accordingly, IA respectfully suggests that it might be more
impactful to focus legislative efforts on increasing resources allocated to agencies that are
charged with investigating and enforcing existing laws against the counterfeiters themselves (an
effort that IA’s members are already helping with) than to change the standards for secondary
liability.
DA_AI Industry_NEG
1nc
 1nc ai da vs trademark
The next offcase position is the AI industry da
A. Uniqueness - AI innovation is developing rapidly now
MaRS 24 (Staff of MaRs, North America’s largest urban innovation hub, “The rapid growth of
responsible AI” 1/29/2024. Accessed 5/30/2024. https://www.marsdd.com/research-and-
insights/the-rapid-growth-of-responsible-ai/) wtk

Artificial intelligence has become big business — and the pace of innovation is only picking up.
According to Deutsche Bank, 175,072 AI patents were filed between 2012 and 2022, with more
than half of them coming in those final three years. The bank anticipates a dramatic spike this
year and next in companies adopting AI applications, especially in such fields as product
development, sales, marketing and human resources. Legal firms now use AI to generate
contracts; travel companies rely on chatbots to provide help during the booking process.
Already, the global AI market is worth roughly U.S.$136.6 billion, and it’s on track to reach U.S.
$1.3 trillion by 2032. Patents for AI innovations, as seen in the figure below, are being filed in
many different sectors. From 2022 to 2030, AI use by organizations around the world is
expected to expand at a compound annual growth rate of more than 38 percent.
It’s clear that AI adoption is climbing at a breakneck rate. Experts predict that as computational
power grows exponentially, the capabilities of these AI applications — in reasoning, in accuracy,
in specialization and in personalization — will skyrocket. At the same time, regulations and
policy can take much longer to develop. The European Union spent three years drafting its 125-
page law to regulate artificial intelligence, introduced in April 2021. But none of those 125 pages
mentioned generative AI, the breakthrough that powers applications like ChatGPT and that
blindsided lawmakers. While regulators work to catch up, business leaders need to take their
own steps to ensure that the technology being developed and used today doesn’t have harmful
consequences. Policy-makers are having to play catch up. For instance, a bipartisan group of U.S.
House representatives proposed new legislation in January to regulate the use of AI to create
clones or likenesses of artists. As the technology develops, it’s important for business leaders
and policy-makers to ensure AI is used in the service of society.

B- Link: SHOP SAFE will be used to strengthen contributory liability in copyright

Mike Masnick, 2022 – founder and CEO of Floor64 and editor of the Techdirt blog. “How To
Destroy Innovation And Competition: Putting SHOP SAFE Act Into Innovation And Competition
Act” Techdirt, 1/10, https://www.techdirt.com/2022/01/10/how-to-destroy-innovation-
competition-putting-shop-safe-act-into-innovation-competition-act/ //DH

So that brings us back around to the problems of SHOP SAFE. It flat out overturns the
Tiffany/eBay decision, and says that unlike that precedent, online marketplaces should be
considered de facto liable. There is a long, extremely onerous, and nearly impossible list of
things that you need to do to get out of that default state of being liable for any infringing
product on your site. Basically, the default state for all online marketplaces (and this is defined
so broadly that it will sweep up tons of sites you wouldn’t think of as “marketplaces”), will be
that they are “contributory” infringers.

This will wreak all sorts of havoc. First off, it will massively limit where people can buy and sell
things online. Over the pandemic, I’ve become active in buying and selling used books via a
couple of Facebook groups and independent forums and news groups, that focus on the buying
and selling of a niche category of books. It’s been great for me, because most of the books
bought and sold through these groups are unfindable anywhere else. Under this bill, it seems
like those groups would all need to shut down — or face absolutely crippling liability and risk.

Basically, the only “marketplaces” that could possibly survive would be the very biggest — the
eBays and Amazons of the world. And, even then, in order to avoid liability, eBay and Amazon
would both significantly change how those forums operate, and they’d still face crippling liability
because of the structure of the bill. I’ll quote Eric Goldman’s summary here because it’s so
important:

First, it creates a new statutory contributory trademark infringement claim for selling
the regulated items. Second, the bill says that the new contributory claim doesn?t
preempt other plaintiff claims, so trademark owners will still bring the standard
statutory direct trademark infringement claim and common law contributory trademark
claims (and dilution, false designation of origin, etc.). Third, online marketplaces
nominally can try to ?earn? a safe harbor from the new statutory contributory liability
claim (but not from the other legal claims) by jumping through an onerous gauntlet of
responsibilities. Those requirements will impose huge compliance costs, but those
investments won?t prevent online marketplaces from being dragged into extraordinarily
expensive and high-stakes litigation over eligibility for this defense. Fourth, the law
imposes a proactive screening obligation, something that Tiffany v. eBay rejected. Fifth,
unlike Tiffany v. eBay, generalized knowledge can create liability, and takedown notices
aren?t required as a prerequisite to liability. Sixth, in litigation over direct trademark
infringement and common law contributory trademark infringement claims, trademark
owners can cite compliance/non-compliance with the defense factors against the online
marketplace, putting the online marketplace in a worse legal position than they
currently are in.

Every single one of those things is problematic — and will massively diminish the ability of
anyone to buy and sell things online, vastly cut back on the availability of online marketplaces,
and just change the very nature of what can and can’t be sold online. And that’s not even
getting into how much time, money and attention will be wasted on nonsense litigation enabled
by this law.

The wider impact this law has on the internet will be massive.

Remember Bruce Lehman who was mentioned above? After pulling his little trick to “route
around” a Congress that wouldn’t pass his law, he later became disillusioned with his own
creation. It wasn’t that he recognized the myriad problems and censorship he enabled with the
DMCA. He just felt that it didn’t go far enough. Over the last decade, Hollywood has been
pushing for a new DMCA that will put significantly more liability on websites — including pretty
much all of the stuff that we listed above about SHOP SAFE and liability around trademark:
default contributory liability, expensive litigation to see if you’re even liable, no notice
requirements, pro-active filtering requirements, etc.

So it’s no surprise at all that the whisper we’re hearing is that some in Congress see SHOP SAFE
not just as a tool for dealing with trademark and online marketplaces, but as a model for a new
DMCA. That is, once this kind of “assume liability and litigate your way out of it” setup is
“proven” under SHOP SAFE, the idea is to then rewrite the DMCA under the same basic terms.

None of this will result in any more “innovation and competition.” None of this will help the
internet, or help the US keep up with tech advances around the globe — which is supposedly
the point of this Endless Frontiers / USICA in the first place. It will do the opposite. It will be
attempting to “deal with” a problem that is barely an actual problem by effectively re-
architecting how liability works. And SHOP SAFE will be a simple kind of trial balloon for an even
bigger attack on the open internet.

C. Internal Link- Strengthening copyright contributory liability would end the

copyright safe harbor and destroy AI
Google, 2023 – Comment submitted by Google to the US Copyright Office. “Artificial
Intelligence and Copyright” 88 Fed. Reg. 59942 Docket No. COLC-2023,
https://downloads.regulations.gov/COLC-2023-0006-9003/attachment_1.pdf //DH

The possibility that a generative AI system can, through “prompt engineering,” be made to
replicate content from its training data does raise questions around the proper boundary
between direct and secondary infringement. When an AI system is prompted by a user to
produce an infringing output, any resulting liability should attach to the user as the party whose
volitional conduct proximately caused the infringement.54 The AI developer can be liable (or
not) under settled doctrines of secondary copyright liability applicable to device manufacturers
and online service providers.55 A rule that would hold AI developers directly (and strictly) liable
for any infringing outputs users create would impose crushing liability on AI developers, even if
they have undertaken reasonable measures to prevent infringing activity by users. Had that
standard applied in the past, we would not have legal access to photocopiers, personal audio
and video recording devices, or personal computers — all of which are capable of being used for
infringement as well as for substantial beneficial purposes.

Generative AI is a technology engineered to create new works, not to copy or facilitate the
copying of existing works. It is capable of substantial noninfringing uses, and the law has long
been wary of permitting rightsholders to hold up such technologies merely because they could
potentially be used for infringing purposes. In Sony Corp. of Am. v. Universal City Studios, Inc.,56
the Supreme Court held that the sale of a product that may be used to infringe “does not
constitute contributory infringement if the product is widely used for legitimate,
unobjectionable purposes. Indeed, it need merely be capable of substantial noninfringing
uses.”57 This rule exists to limit the copyright monopoly to its proper scope so that new
technologies and the markets for them are allowed to develop.58 Excluding developers of
generative AI systems from the Sony safe harbor would put all innovation in the field of
machine learning at risk.

D. Impact- AI solves extinction—it’s a better decision-maker than humans

Cerf and Waytz 23 (Moran Cerf is a professor of neuroscience and business. He holds a PhD
in neuroscience from Caltech. Adam Waytz is the Morris and Alice Kaplan Chair in Ethics and
Decision Management and professor of Management and Organizations at Northwestern
University’s Kellogg School of Management. “If you worry about humanity, you should be more
scared of humans than of AI” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 79:5, 289-292, 2023. Accessed
5/30/2024. https://doi.org/10.1080/00963402.2023.2245242 via University of Michigan online
library) wtk

A threat even more dire than misinformation is the “risk of extinction from AI” that the Center
for AI Safety highlights in its open statement. Yet, in terms of whether machines or humans are
more likely to initiate extinction-level events such as nuclear war, humans still seem to have the
upper hand. In recent empirical work that analyzes the decision processes employed by senior
leaders in war-game scenarios involving weapons of mass destruction, humans showed an
alarming tendency to err on the side of initiating catastrophic attacks.Footnote5 These
simulations, if implemented in reality, would pose much graver risks to humanity than machine-
driven ones. Our exploration of the use of AI in critical decision-making has shown AI’s
superiority to human decisions in nearly all scenarios. In most cases, the AI makes the choice
that humans do not make at first—but then, upon more careful consideration and deliberation,
change their minds and do make, realizing it was the correct decision all along.
Other, more quotidian concerns raised about AI apply far more to human beings than to
machines. Consider algorithmic bias, the phenomenon whereby algorithms involved in hiring
decisions, medical diagnoses, or image detection produce outcomes that unfairly disadvantage a
particular social group. For example, when Amazon implemented an algorithmic recruiting tool
to score new applicants’ resumes, the algorithm systematically rated female applicants worse
than men, in large part because the algorithm was trained on resumes submitted over the
previous 10 years that were disproportionately male.Footnote6 In other words, an algorithm
trained on human bias will reproduce this bias.
Unlike humans, however, algorithmic bias can be readily deprogrammed, or as economist
Sendhil Mullainathan puts it, “Biased algorithms are easier to fix than biased people.”Footnote7
Mullainathan and colleagues’ research showed that an algorithm used by UnitedHealth to score
patients’ health risks systematically underscored black patients relative to white patients
because it measured illness in terms of health-care costs (which are systematically lower for
black versus white individuals, given that society spends less on black patients) (Obermeyer et
al. Citation2019). However, once identified, the researchers could easily modify this feature of
the algorithm to produce risk scores that were relatively unbiased. Other work has shown that
algorithms can produce less racially biased outcomes (and more effective public safety
outcomes) than human judges in terms of decisions about whether or not to grant bail to
defendants awaiting trial (Kleinberg et al. Citation2018). As biased as algorithms can be, their
biases appear less ingrained and more pliable than those of humans. Compounded by recent
work showing that, in hiring and lending contexts, managers reject biased algorithms in favor of
more biased humans, the suggestion that humans should remain at the helm of those functions
is, at best, questionable (Cowgill, Dell’acqua, and Matz Citation2020).
Finally, consider the threat to cybersecurity. Although commentators have
warnedFootnote8,Footnote9,Footnote10 that large language models add tools to the arsenals
of hackers by democratizing cybercrime, most high-profile information leaks and hacks to date
are ushered in by human beings with no reliance on AI (i.e. a disgruntled employee who knows
the system's flaws and perpetrates an attack by remembering key passwords, or bad
programmers who effectively enable future attacks by making wrong assumptions on their
software use-cases—such as “no one would create a password that is 1,000,000 characters
long” leading to a classical buffer overflow hack). In fact, AI is often the last bastion of defense
against those hacks, identifying complex human coding mistakes early-on and correcting them.
Recently, national guardsman Jack Teixeira, who exposed highly classified material in an online
chat group, did not require sophisticated technology to access sensitive documents—he was
granted top secret clearance from the Pentagon. Further, a recent study conducted by IBM
indicates that 95 percent of security breaches were caused by human errors such as biting on
phishing scams or downloading malware.Footnote11 If anything, the most concerning
cybersecurity risk currently posed by AI results from its increased reliance on human trained
code, which is flawed. AI takes hackable human codes and uses them to generate new codes,
spreading these human-generated errors further. The only concerning current cybersecurity
attacks by AI involve AI that simulates human communication to dupe humans into revealing key
information. Cybersecurity may represent a case in which technology is more likely to be the
solution rather than the problem, with research indicating, for example, that humans working
with AI outperform humans alone in detecting machine-manipulated media such as deepfakes
(Groh et al. Citation2021).
Even when technology contributes to unwanted outcomes, humans are often the ones pressing
the buttons. Consider the effect of AI on unemployment. The Future of Life Institute letter raises
concerns that AI will eliminate jobs, yet whether or not to eliminate jobs is a choice that humans
ultimately make. Just because AI can perform the jobs of, say, customer service representatives
does not mean that companies should outsource these jobs to bots. In fact, research indicates
that many customers would prefer to talk to a human than to a bot, even if it means waiting in a
queue.Footnote12 Along similar lines, increasingly common statements that AI-based systems—
like “the Internet,” “social media,” or the set of interconnected online functions referred to as
“The Algorithm”—are destroying mental health,Footnote13 causing political
polarization,Footnote14 or threatening democracyFootnote15 neglect an obvious fact: These
systems are populated and run by human beings. Blaming technology lets people off the hook.
Although expressions of concern toward AI are invaluable in matching the excitement around
new technology with caution, outsized news cycles around the threats of technology can
distract from the threats of human beings. Recent research indicates that humans have a “finite
pool of attention” such that “when we pay more attention to one threat, our attention to other
threats decreases” (Sisco et al. Citation2023). So, as we contend with the rise of AI and its
concomitant harms to privacy, human survival, and our relationship with truth itself, we must
equally pay attention to the humans who are already well equipped to perpetrate these harms
without the assistance of machines. Specifically, it has not escaped our notice that when
engaging in a conversation about the risks of AI, the benchmark is often “is AI perfect in handling
this task” (making critical decisions or guiding a self-driving car), rather than “is it better than
humans.” The answer to the latter question in many cases, is that yes, AI can mitigate
the risks to humanity.
2nc/1nr
***uniqueness***
 they say: “ai collapses now”
AI development is booming now
Jones 24 (Nicola Jones, contributing editor and writer for Knowable Magazine. “AI Report
Shows ‘Startlingly Rapid’ Progress—And Ballooning Costs” 4/18/2024. Accessed 5/30/2024.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/stanford-ai-index-rapid-progress/) wtk

The current AI boom — built on neural networks and machine-learning algorithms — dates back
to the early 2010s. The field has since rapidly expanded. For example, the number of AI coding
projects on GitHub, a common platform for sharing code, increased from about 800 in 2011 to
1.8 million last year. And journal publications about AI roughly tripled over this period, the
report says.
Much of the cutting-edge work on AI is being done in industry: that sector produced 51 notable
machine-learning systems last year, whereas academic researchers contributed 15. “Academic
work is shifting to analysing the models coming out of companies — doing a deeper dive into
their weaknesses,” says Raymond Mooney, director of the AI Lab at the University of Texas at
Austin, who wasn’t involved in the report.
That includes developing tougher tests to assess the visual, mathematical and even moral-
reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs), which power chatbots. One of the latest
tests is the Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A Benchmark (GPQA), developed last year by a
team including machine-learning researcher David Rein at New York University.
The GPQA, consisting of more than 400 multiple-choice questions, is tough: PhD-level scholars
could correctly answer questions in their field 65% of the time. The same scholars, when
attempting to answer questions outside their field, scored only 34%, despite having access to
the Internet during the test (randomly selecting answers would yield a score of 25%). As of last
year, AI systems scored about 30–40%. This year, Rein says, Claude 3 — the latest chatbot
released by AI company Anthropic, based in San Francisco, California — scored about 60%. “The
rate of progress is pretty shocking to a lot of people, me included,” Rein adds. “It’s quite difficult
to make a benchmark that survives for more than a few years.”

AI innovation is expanding across every industry and region

Nikola L. Datzov, 23 – Assistant Professor of Law, University of North Dakota School of Law.
“THE ROLE OF PATENT (IN)ELIGIBILITY IN PROMOTING ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE INNOVATION”
92 UMKC L. Rev. 1 *, Nexis Uni, accessed via University of Michigan //DH

Artificial intelligence is not just impacting our world, it is forever changing it. It is revolutionizing
our way of life in a way that nobody alive has ever experienced. It not only aids humans in
making decisions and completing tasks, AI can do so on its own with a high level of
sophistication. The growth of AI [*5] development will have "pervasive, far-reaching and global
implications that are transforming societies...."14 "The broad scope of new products and
services that build on AI technologies suggests that AI has the potential to fundamentally change
how people perceive the world around them and live their daily lives."15 The USPTO expects AI
to "revolutionize the world on the scale [equal to that] of [ . . . ] electricity."16
The rise of AI has been well documented in virtually every kind of publication, and for anyone
not living under a proverbial rock, has become a wellknown even if poorly understood
phenomenon. Indeed, iterations of market analysis reports substantiate the claims regarding
the breadth and pace at which AI is infiltrating our society. The takeaway is that AI fever is
catching on across the entire business world and impacting every industry , segment, and region.
Although figures regarding the market size of AI vary wildly in different research findings, in part
because of the definitional problem outlined in Parts IV.A and IV.B, one research finding remains
consistent: AI demand and utilization is expected to undergo tremendous growth. So, the key
realization from all of it is "how big a game changer AI is likely to be...."17 But the range of
options appears to be clearly at one end of the sliding scale. It may be huge or may be
ginormous, but it will be big.
One AI market analysis report found that the market size for worldwide AI is estimated to
expand by more than 1,900% from $93.5 billion in 2021 to $1,811.8 billion by 2030 a compound
annual growth rate (CAGR) of 38.1% with the U.S. being a dominating force in revenue share.18
Another research company found the global AI market to be $328.34 billion in 2021 with
expected growth to $1,394.3 billion in 2029 (a CAGR of 20.1%), and, again, the U.S. to be a
major contributor.19 Perhaps not surprisingly, an overwhelming number of the key companies
leading AI development are based in the U.S.20 It is also worth noting that the AI tidal wave is
just in its infancy.21 Thus, as advances in AI capabilities continue, and more businesses and
people begin to understand what AI is and how powerful it can be, its adoption will only expand.

AI is not a bubble—investment patterns are totally different than previous tech

bubbles
Sloan 24 (Allan Sloan, award-winning journalist and contributor to Yahoo Finance. “I was there
for the dot-com bust. Here's why the AI boom isn't the same.” 3/24/2024. Accessed 6/15/2024.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/i-was-there-for-the-dot-com-bust-heres-why-the-ai-boom-
isnt-the-same-175944680.html) wtk

But as someone for whom the dot-com bubble was current events rather than history, I can tell
you that today’s market isn’t remotely like the dot-com bubble market was.
How can I say such a thing?
It’s because the investing world has changed fundamentally from what it was in the dot-com
bubble days.
Back then, besotted people (I wouldn’t call them investors) paid whatever the market was
asking for ridiculously priced stocks like Pets.com, Boo.com, and Webvan, which ultimately
croaked and left shareholders with nothing.
Why were people loading up with individual stocks? The fear of missing out on the internet
wave certainly kept people piling money onto the table as they looked to quintuple their money.
But the main reason was that back in 2000, people simply didn’t invest like they do now, as
broad-based index funds were pretty much nonexistent compared to today.
So people who had bought into the dot-com hype — and there were plenty of them — mostly
bought individual stocks.
These days, people talk — mistakenly, in my opinion — about the S&P 500 (^GSPC) being in a
bubble, given the concentration of a handful of stocks powering the index. Back then, the
Nasdaq market was the hot thing. And boy, did that bubble burst.
One of the most bubbly events took place on Jan. 10, 2000. That’s when Gerald Levin had Time
Warner, the media and entertainment company that he was running, do the dumbest deal in
history: selling itself to America Online in return for AOL stock, which was a dot-com
megabubble.
(You may have read about this deal lately because Levin died last week and many obituaries
mentioned his AOL debacle.)
Two months after the Time Warner-AOL deal was announced — on Mar. 10, 2000 — the
Nasdaq, which had more than doubled from a year earlier, hit its closing peak of 5,048.62.
Then the slide began. And kept on going. And going. And going.
Ultimately, the Nasdaq bottomed out at 1,114.11 on Oct. 9, 2002. That was 78% below its high.
It didn’t score another new high until April 23, 2015 — more than 15 years after the previous
peak.
Even one of the high-quality companies that survived the bubble — Cisco Systems — hasn’t
been a great investment. It was recently trading for about 30% less than it fetched on Peak
Bubble Day.
Barring a totally unforeseen catastrophe, can you see the S&P losing 78% of its value in a little
over two and a half years from now? I sure can’t see that happening. Especially given the
trillions of dollars currently sloshing around in S&P index funds, with more money flowing in on
a regular basis from employers and employees participating in benefit plans and from
institutional investors such as pension funds for whom the S&P is a benchmark.
***trademark links***
 they say: “safe harbor turn”
SHOP SAFE is a proxy war for copyright protections – that will expand liability
for copyright infringement
Eric Goldman, 2021 – professor of law at Santa Clara Law. “The SHOP SAFE Act Is a Terrible Bill
That Will Eliminate Online Marketplaces” Technology and Marketing Law Blog, 9/28,
https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2021/09/the-shop-safe-act-is-a-terrible-bill-that-will-
eliminate-online-marketplaces.htm //DH

“this bill” refers to the SHOP SAFE Act

Repudiation of the 512 Deal. The DMCA online safe harbor struck a grand bargain: online
copyright enforcement responsibility would be a shared responsibility. Copyright owners would
identify infringing items; service providers would then remove those items. There has never
been a trademark equivalent of the DMCA, but the Tiffany v. eBay case has de facto created a
similar balance. Unsurprisingly, copyright owners hate the DMCA shared responsibility, and
they have tried to undermine that deal through lawfare in courts. Trademark owners similarly
want a different deal.

This bill, as Congress’ first trademark complement to the DMCA, emphatically repudiates the
DMCA deal. It gives trademark owners everything they could possibly want: turning online
marketplaces into their trademark enforcement deputies, getting them to proactively screen for
infringing items, making them wipe out listings without having to send listing-by-listing notices,
upfront disclosure of the information needed to sue the sellers (rather than going through the
512(h) subpoena process), and permanent staydown of allegedly recidivist sellers.

Not only does this represent terrible trademark policy, but it’s a preview of how copyright
owners will force DMCA safe harbor reform. They will want all of the same things: proactive
monitoring of infringement, no need to send item-specific notices, authentication of users
before they can upload, and staydown requirements. The SHOP SAFE Act isn’t just about
counterfeits; it’s a proxy war for the next round of online copyright reform, and the open
Internet doesn’t have a chance of surviving either reform.

The Tiffany case is based upon the Sony precedent for copyright – the two
decisions are linked. Our 1nc Google evidence says weakening the Sony
precedent destroys AI
Andrew Lehrer, 2012 – J.D., Boston University School of Law “TIFFANY V. EBAY: ITS IMPACT
AND IMPLICATIONS ON THE DOCTRINES OF SECONDARY TRADEMARK AND COPYRIGHT
INFRINGEMENT” B.U. J. SCI. & TECH. L. [Vol. 18,
https://www.bu.edu/jostl/files/2015/02/Lehrer_web.pdf //DH

Tiffany, on appeal, argued that the district court misinterpreted the Inwood standard of “knows
or has reason to know.”136 Tiffany believed that under the Inwood standard, eBay was liable
for contributory trademark infringement if”all of the knowledge, when taken together, puts
[eBay] on notice that there is a substantial problem of trademark infringement.”137 Using this
standard, eBay would likely be liable, given the results of Tiffany’s “buying program” in 2004 and
2005, the hundreds of thousands of NOCIs that Tiffany filed with eBay, and the numerous
complaints from buyers to eBay about receiving counterfeit Tiffany items.138 After all, Tiffany
argued, these pieces of evidence “established eBay’s knowledge of the widespread sale of
counterfeit Tiffany products on its website” and “despite that knowledge, [eBay] continued to
make its services available to infringing sellers.”139

The Second Circuit disagreed and sided firmly with the district court, holding that “[f]or
contributory trademark infringement liability to lie, a service provider must have more than a
general knowledge or reason to know that its service is being used to sell counterfeit goods.
Some contemporary knowledge of which particular listings are infringing or will infringe in the
future is necessary.”140 In support of this conclusion, the Second Circuit looked to the Supreme
Court’s discussion of Inwood in Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. Sony a well-
known Supreme Court copyright ca se, was the only Supreme Court case to interpret the
knowledge prong of the Inwood test at issue in Tiffany.141 In Sony the Court refused to hold
Sony contributorily liable under the Inwood test when some consumers used Sony’s video tape
recorders to infringe certain copyrighted television programs, stating that “Sony certainly does
not ‘intentionally induce[e]’ its customers to make infringing uses of . . . copyrights , nor does it
supply its products to identified individuals known by it to be engaging in continuing
infringement of . . . copyrights.”142
 link extension—contributory liability hurts ai
Expanding contributory liability in copyright will end AI innovation
Jess Miers and Zoe Philadelphia-Kossak, 2023 - Jess Miers is Legal Advocacy Counsel for
Chamber of Progress and Adjunct Lecturer at Santa Clara University School of Law. Zoe
Philadelphia-Kossak is a Google Public Policy Fellow for Chamber of Progress and a second year
law student at Santa Clara University School of Law. “PROVIDER LIABILITY FOR GENERATIVE AI
COMPANIES” https://www.pymnts.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/2-PROVIDER-LIABILITY-
FOR-GENERATIVE-AI-COMPANIES-Jess-Miers-Zoe-Philadelphia-Kossak.pdf //DH

Contributory liability is another concern for providers of Generative AI. Plaintiffs must
demonstrate that the defendant company was aware of the infringing activity and played a
substantial role in the infringement. For claims against online services with substantial non-
infringing uses, courts typically require a showing of actual knowledge of specific acts of
infringement.55

Courts may also evaluate whether the service sufficiently addressed infringing content upon
receiving actual knowledge of the infringement, especially if the identified outputs can be
consistently recreated across multiple uses, sessions, and users. 56 It’s unclear though how
Generative AI companies can effectively mitigate infringement aside from expanding their
models’ training data. Rights holders might also issue numerous takedown requests for works
identified in training sets, but such mass removals would undermine the AI’s effectiveness.

Exapnding copyright contributory liability undermines startup investment in AI

Kate Tummarello, 2023 - on behalf of Engine, a non-profit technology policy, research, and
advocacy organization “Re: Comments of Engine to the U.S. Copyright Office’s Notice of Inquiry
on Artificial Intelligence and Copyright, Docket No. 2023-6” 10/30,
https://downloads.regulations.gov/COLC-2023-0006-9000/attachment_1.pdf //DH

In instances where a user is directing an AI model to generate content that infringes existing
copyrighted material and then uses that generated content in some way that’s not protected by
fair use, the developer of the AI tool should not face contributory liability. Like the copying
equipment at the heart of Sony, generative AI “is widely used for legitimate, unobjectionable
purposes,” and, under that precedent, “need merely be capable of substantial noninfringing
uses.”42 Even generative AI models that have a specific purpose—such as a customer service AI
chatbot—do not set out to generate infringing content, and the overwhelming majority of uses
will not involve generating content that infringes copyrighted material. But if a developer faced
any kind of liability and the risk of hefty legal fees and statutory damages if its AI generated
copyright infringing content even once, AI developers would face unreasonable risk and
expense, significantly chilling startup participation in the ecosystem.
***Impact***
 they say: “ai can’t solve social problems”
AI solves every existential risk—larger capacity for problem-solving
Salmon et al. 21 (Paul M. Salmon is a Professor in Human Factors and is the creator of the
Human Factors and Sociotechnical Systems at the University of the Sunshine Coast. Tony
Carden, Centre for Human Factors and Sociotechnical Systems, University of the Sunshine Coast,
Maroochydore DC, Queensland, Australia. Peter A. Hancock, Department of Psychology and
Institute for Simulation and Training, University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida, USA.
“Putting the humanity into inhuman systems: How human factors and ergonomics can be used
to manage the risks associated with artificial general intelligence” Human Factors and
Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries Volume 31, Issue 2, March 2021, pp. 223-236.
Accessed 5/30/2024 via UMich online library. https://doi.org/10.1002/hfm.20883) wtk

It is suggested that AGI systems could revolutionize humanity. Projected benefits include curing
disease, revolutionizing the nature of work, and solving complex environmental issues such as
food security, oceanic degradation, and even global warming. In prospect, the effect on
humankind promises to be even greater than both the industrial and digital revolutions
combined. However, it is widely acknowledged that failure to implement appropriate controls
and constraints could lead to catastrophic consequences (Amodei et al., 2016; Bostrom, 2014;
2017; Brundage et al., 2018; Omohundro, 2014; Steinhardt, 2015). It has been argued, for
example, that untrammeled and uncontrolled AGI could even pose an existential threat to
humanity (Bostrom, 2014; Hancock, 2017).
As the discipline that is focussed on enhancing human wellbeing, HFE clearly has an important
and even determining role in the design, implementation, and operation of AGI systems. Despite
this, there has been little discussion as to how HFE can and should contribute. This is reflected in
a disturbing lacuna of HFE work in this area. Also, given the fact that questions are being raised
regarding the suitability of HFE methods for today's complex systems (e.g., Salmon et al., 2017;
Walker et al., 2017), it is important to question whether HFE is sufficiently equipped to
contribute effectively to the design of systems that are first-of-their-kind, and necessarily
nonhuman in nature. Context specific and context relevant theoretical and methodological
development may be required for the HFE toolkit to be suitable for such applications.
In this article, we offer an agenda for HFE and its purposed-directed impacts on AGI. We discuss
the role that HFE must adopt to ensure that the far-reaching benefits of AGI are realized without
problematic threat to society. We seek to achieve this by examining current state-of-the-art HFE
methods, and distinguishing their potential in the design, implementation, and operation of a
prospective AGI system, as recently described by Tegmark (2017). This “ethnographic science
fiction” approach is required as AGI systems do not yet exist, but the potential benefits and risks
are so significant that work is required immediately. Further, such an approach is an
acknowledged avenue for discussing future global issues where uncertainty exists (e.g., Raven,
2017). This study therefore acts to set a HFE agenda framed within in an “envisioned world”
perspective. In doing so, we identify key areas where developments and extensions to HFE
methods are required. We articulate a research agenda which describes the work required to
situate HFE within wider multi-disciplinary efforts aimed at creating safe, efficient, effective, and
controllable AGI systems.
2 UNDERSTANDING AGI
The term “Artificial Intelligence” was first coined in the middle of the 1950s by John McCarthy,
an American scientist working at Dartmouth College. The formal field of AI was established soon
after. Hard upon the intervening decades of research and development, ANI systems are now
well established. Such systems possess intelligence in relation to specific tasks and remain
constrained to their particular domain of operation. Widely known examples include Facebook's
facial recognition system, Apple's personal assistant “Siri,” and Tesla's self-driving vehicles
(Kaplan & Haenlein, 2018). In contrast, AGI systems will almost certainly be more broadly
focussed and will equal or exceed human intelligence in wide swathes of cognitive capacities
(Everitt et al., 2018; Gurkaynak et al., 2016). AGIs are expected to be able to plan, reason, make
decisions and solve problems autonomously; even for tasks that they were not initially designed
to address (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2018). A summary of the key differences between ANI and AGI
systems is presented in Table 1.
[table 1 omitted]
2.1 The benefits and risks associated with AGI
AGI is a dual use technology in that it will be used both for good and bad. First and foremost, if
AGI realizes its potential and surpasses human intelligence, there is no doubt that it could bring
significant benefits to humanity (Bostrom, 2014; Yudkowsky, 2008; 2012). Postulated benefits
relate mainly to systems which exceed human intelligence and develop a capacity to respond to
the panoply of issues that threaten either human health and wellbeing, the earth, or our future
existence globally. These include climate change and environmental degradation,
overpopulation, pandemics, food and water security, misuse of the internet and social media,
terrorism, cybercrime, nuclear warfare, inequality, antimicrobial resistance, and instability in the
world's economy. In addition, it has also been suggested that AGI will help with the onslaught of
forthcoming new and emergent issues such as automation replacing human work, the genetic
modification of humans, an ageing population, and otherworld settling (FLI, 2018).

AI is key to unlock all beneficial innovation and decision-making

Andreessen 23 (Marc Andreessen is a cofounder and general partner at the venture capital
firm Andreessen Horowitz. “Why AI Will Save the World” 6/6/2023. Accessed 5/30/2024.
https://a16z.com/ai-will-save-the-world/) wtk

What AI offers us is the opportunity to profoundly augment human intelligence to make all of
these outcomes of intelligence – and many others, from the creation of new medicines to ways
to solve climate change to technologies to reach the stars – much, much better from here.
AI augmentation of human intelligence has already started – AI is already around us in the form
of computer control systems of many kinds, is now rapidly escalating with AI Large Language
Models like ChatGPT, and will accelerate very quickly from here – if we let it.
In our new era of AI:
Every child will have an AI tutor that is infinitely patient, infinitely compassionate, infinitely
knowledgeable, infinitely helpful. The AI tutor will be by each child’s side every step of their
development, helping them maximize their potential with the machine version of infinite love.
Every person will have an AI assistant/coach/mentor/trainer/advisor/therapist that is infinitely
patient, infinitely compassionate, infinitely knowledgeable, and infinitely helpful. The AI
assistant will be present through all of life’s opportunities and challenges, maximizing every
person’s outcomes.
Every scientist will have an AI assistant/collaborator/partner that will greatly expand their scope
of scientific research and achievement. Every artist, every engineer, every businessperson, every
doctor, every caregiver will have the same in their worlds.
Every leader of people – CEO, government official, nonprofit president, athletic coach, teacher –
will have the same. The magnification effects of better decisions by leaders across the people
they lead are enormous, so this intelligence augmentation may be the most important of all.
Productivity growth throughout the economy will accelerate dramatically, driving economic
growth, creation of new industries, creation of new jobs, and wage growth, and resulting in a
new era of heightened material prosperity across the planet.
Scientific breakthroughs and new technologies and medicines will dramatically expand, as AI
helps us further decode the laws of nature and harvest them for our benefit.
The creative arts will enter a golden age, as AI-augmented artists, musicians, writers, and
filmmakers gain the ability to realize their visions far faster and at greater scale than ever
before.
I even think AI is going to improve warfare, when it has to happen, by reducing wartime death
rates dramatically. Every war is characterized by terrible decisions made under intense pressure
and with sharply limited information by very limited human leaders. Now, military commanders
and political leaders will have AI advisors that will help them make much better strategic and
tactical decisions, minimizing risk, error, and unnecessary bloodshed.
In short, anything that people do with their natural intelligence today can be done much
better with AI, and we will be able to take on new challenges that have been impossible to
tackle without AI, from curing all diseases to achieving interstellar travel.
And this isn’t just about intelligence! Perhaps the most underestimated quality of AI is how
humanizing it can be. AI art gives people who otherwise lack technical skills the freedom to
create and share their artistic ideas. Talking to an empathetic AI friend really does improve their
ability to handle adversity. And AI medical chatbots are already more empathetic than their
human counterparts. Rather than making the world harsher and more mechanistic, infinitely
patient and sympathetic AI will make the world warmer and nicer.
The stakes here are high. The opportunities are profound. AI is quite possibly the most
important – and best – thing our civilization has ever created, certainly on par with electricity
and microchips, and probably beyond those.
The development and proliferation of AI – far from a risk that we should fear – is a moral
obligation that we have to ourselves, to our children, and to our future.
 they say: “model collapse makes AI ineffective”
No model collapse—the original training set will anchor new models even if
they are trained with synthetic data
Claburn 24 (Thomas Claburn is a senior reporter at The Register. “Big brains divided over
training AI with more AI: Is model collapse inevitable?” 5/9/2024. Accessed 6/10/2024.
https://www.theregister.com/2024/05/09/ai_model_collapse/?td=keepreading) wtk

AI model collapse – the degradation of quality expected from machine learning models that
recursively train on their own output – is not inevitable, at least according to 14 academics.
The risk that ongoing generative AI output, known as synthetic data, will dilute human-created
organic data and impair the performance of models trained on this increasingly fabricated
corpus was highlighted by a separate group last year, in a paper titled: "The Curse of Recursion:
Training on Generated Data Makes Models Forget."
Ilia Shumailov, lead author of that paper, spoke to The Register earlier this year about this
phenomenon, which has been documented in other studies.
Now another set of boffins – Matthias Gerstgrasser, Rylan Schaeffer, Apratim Dey, Rafael
Rafailov, Henry Sleight, John Hughes, Tomasz Korbak, Rajashree Agrawal, Dhruv Pai, Andrey
Gromov, Daniel Roberts, Diyi Yang, David Donoho, and Sanmi Koyejo – contend that the
problem of training AI on AI-made data isn't significant, given the way that model training is
actually done.
This latest baker's dozen plus one – from Stanford, AI safety group Constellation, the University
of Maryland at College Park, MIT, and Sequoia Capital – make the case for not worrying in a
paper titled: "Is Model Collapse Inevitable? Breaking the Curse of Recursion by Accumulating
Real and Synthetic Data."
It's worth noting that some of these boffins acknowledge support through grants from
commercial entities including OpenAI and Google, although the authors insist their research
results do not necessarily reflect the positions or policies of their funders.
Gerstgrasser, a postdoctoral research associate at Harvard SEAS and visiting postdoctoral
scholar at Stanford, outlined on social media the argument he and his colleagues want to make.
"As AI-generated content becomes more prevalent on the internet, there's a growing concern
that future AI models will be trained on this 'tainted' data," he asserted. "It's like a virus that
could infect the entire AI ecosystem!
"Many experts have warned that this could lead to a doomsday scenario for AI. If models keep
getting worse and worse with each generation, we could face an 'AI apocalypse'! But don't panic
just yet …"
Gerstgrasser argued that while previous studies have warned about this "doomsday scenario,"
all that research relies on the assumption that each succeeding generation of AI would train
exclusively on the synthetic data produced by the previous generation model.
He argues that legacy data won't just be discarded. Instead of being replaced every generation,
it's more likely to accumulate – the synthetic data will just get mixed with the organic data, and
the resulting model will continue to perform.
"Our findings extend these prior works to show that if data accumulates and models train on a
mixture of 'real' and synthetic data, model collapse no longer occurs," Gerstgrasser et al declare
in their "Is Model Collapse Inevitable?" paper.
"[T]hese results strongly suggest that the 'curse of recursion' may not be as dire as had been
portrayed – provided we accumulate synthetic data alongside real data, rather than replacing
real data by synthetic data only."

Reject aff studies—they assume AI generated text replaces data, not that it
supplements it
Gerstgrasser et al. 24 (Matthias Gerstgrasser, postdoc jointly at Stanford Computer Science
and at Harvard University’s School of Engineering and Applied Sciences. Co-authors: Rylan
Schaeffer, Apratim Dey, Rafael Rafailov, Henry Sleight, John Hughes, Tomasz Korbak, Rajashree
Agrawal, Dhruv Pai, Andrey Gromov, Daniel A. Roberts, Diyi Yang, David L. Donoho, Sanmi
Koyejo. “Is Model Collapse Inevitable? Breaking the Curse of Recursion by Accumulating Real
and Synthetic Data” 4/29/2024. Accessed 6/15/2024 from https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.01413)
wtk

The proliferation of generative models, combined with pretraining on webscale data, raises a
timely question: what happens when these models are trained on their own generated outputs?
Recent investigations into model data feedback loops proposed that such loops would lead to a
phenomenon termed model collapse, under which performance progressively degrades with
each model-data feedback iteration until fitted models become useless. However, those studies
largely assumed that new data replace old data over time, where an arguably more realistic
assumption is that data accumulate over time. In this paper, we ask: what effect does
accumulating data have on model collapse? We empirically study this question by pretraining
sequences of language models on text corpora. We confirm that replacing the original real data
by each generation’s synthetic data does indeed tend towards model collapse, then
demonstrate that accumulating the successive generations of synthetic data alongside the
original real data avoids model collapse; these results hold across a range of model sizes,
architectures, and hyperparameters. We obtain similar results for deep generative models on
other types of real data: diffusion models for molecule conformation generation and variational
autoencoders for image generation. To understand why accumulating data can avoid model
collapse, we use an analytically tractable framework introduced by prior work in which a
sequence of linear models are fit to the previous models’ outputs. Previous work used this
framework to show that if data are replaced, the test error increases with the number of model-
fitting iterations; we extend this argument to prove that if data instead accumulate, the test
error has a finite upper bound independent of the number of iterations, meaning model
collapse no longer occurs. Our work provides consistent empirical and theoretical evidence that
data accumulation avoids model collapse.
DA_Court Clog_NEG
1nc
1nc court clog da vs trademark
The next offcase position is the court clog da
A. Uniqueness: The courts are managing increased caseloads now—slower
filings and technology are decreasing overload
Reuters 2024 (Thomson Reuters Institute, engages professionals from the legal, corporate,
tax & accounting, and government communities to host conversation and debate, analyze
trends, and provide the insights and guidance needed to help shape the way forward in an
evolving and increasingly complex environment. “State of the Courts Report 2024” Accessed
7/11/2024. https://www.thomsonreuters.com/en-us/posts/wp-content/uploads/sites/
20/2024/02/2024-State-of-the-Courts-Report.pdf) wtk

Beyond generative AI, our survey showed that judges and court professionals at all levels said
they are still managing many of the challenges that they had cited in our previous survey,
conducted in 2022. These concerns were strongly reflective of how courts have had to navigate
through the post-pandemic environment, and included burdensome hearing delays, growing
caseloads, and the glacial pace of modernization within the courts.
Yet, while these concerns were still reflected in our latest survey, many of these challenges have
receded, making room in many respondents’ minds for a clearer path toward more positive
outcomes. For example, while increasing caseloads continue to be the biggest change that
respondents said they had experienced in the past two years, the portion of our survey saying
that has decreased. So too have the portions of our survey citing increases in case delays and
court backlogs greatly diminished as well.
And even though more than half of respondents (56%) said they expect to experience staffing
shortages in the coming 12 months, that was down from the past 12 months when almost two-
thirds (64%) reported staffing shortages.
Overall, it seems that courts and their workers are enjoying broader engagement with
technology solutions, especially around such critical areas as evidence collection and storage as
digital storage and certain case-material sharing and management tools are seeing more
acceptance across the board.

B. Link: Contributory liability subjects platforms to constant lawsuits and

witchhunts for damages
Rian C. Dawson, 2016 – JD, Indiana University Maurer School of Law. “Wiggle Room: Problems
and Virtues of the

Inwood Standard” Indiana Law Journal, Iss. 2, Article 9,

https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=11200&context=ilj //DH

But the Tiffany standard is more than just Inwood for services. In addition to what it takes from
Inwood, Tiffany creates a more defined and practical gray area within which courts can apply the
knowledge requirement.155 Importantly, the Tiffany standard demands more than general
knowledge but less than specific knowledge.156 It also leaves open alternative knowledge
theories, such as willful blindness. The Second Circuit stated: "For contributory trademark
infringement liability to lie, a service provider must have more than a general knowledge or
reason to know that its service is being used to sell counterfeit goods. Some contemporary
knowledge of which particular listings are infringing or will infringe in the future is
necessary."157 This holding keeps with Inwood's narrow standard but also aligns with the
Supreme Court's subsequent interpretations of Inwood in other cases.158 It rightly rejects
general knowledge. If general knowledge were enough, online service providers would
constantly be embroiled in contributory infringement actions merely because of their business
model. In Tiffany, eBay conceded that it knew generally that there were counterfeit Tiffany
goods on its site.159 With a case so easy to prove—all a plaintiff would need to show is that
counterfeiting occurred somewhere on the site without having to provide an example—online
service providers would be subject to witch hunts for damages simply because direct infringers
chose the provider's site as a sales platform. Moreover, "some contemporary knowledge" is not
as narrow as specific knowledge.160 This is a kinder standard to the plaintiff, as it is not as
stringent and leaves open the window of circumstantial evidence. Additionally, contemporary
knowledge ensures that the online service provider is not being sued merely for its business
model, but instead because there were genuine infringing acts occurring that the provider knew
of and should have stopped.

AND, C. Internal Link: Court clog causes hurdles to the success of litigation that
is necessary to solve climate change
Banda and Fulton 17 (Dr. Maria L. Banda is an international lawyer. She is currently the
Graham Fellow at the University of Toronto Faculty of Law, a member of the World Commission
on Environmental Law, and a Visiting Attorney at the Environmental Law Institute. Scott Fulton is
President of the Environmental Law Institute and a member of the United Nations Environment
Programme's International Advisory Council on Environmental Justice. He is a former U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency General Counsel, Environmental Appeals Judge,
environmental prosecutor, and environmental diplomat. “Litigating Climate Change in National
Courts: Recent Trends and Developments in Global Climate Law” Environmental Law Reporter
News & Analysis, Vol. 47, Issue 2 (February 2017), pp. 10121-10134. Accessed 7/15/2024 via
University of Michigan Online Library) wtk

First, national judges are by and large successfully adapting their traditional role of administration of
justice to the new challenges posed by climate change litigation. Presented with a number of novel and
urgent legal questions, they have increasingly held their own governments accountable under national
constitutional principles, implementing legislation, or common-law doctrines. Since 2013, as one court noted, courts
have increasingly "recognized the role of the third branch of government in protecting the
earth's resources that it holds in trust."' 1 6 1 Thus, though climate litigation will continue facing
different substantive and procedural hurdles in different jurisdictions-from standing to the political
question doctrinecourts have demonstrated that, generally, they are rising to the task and using the tools at
their disposal for administration of justice in this emerging area.
This trend can be greatly enabled by making the emerging cross-jurisdictional jurisprudence in this area more readily accessible to
judges around the world. Likewise, climate literacy training aimed at building judicial awareness of climate science, climate impacts,
and climate resilience imperatives can help equip judges to perform their traditional role of administering justice in the context of
this global phenomenon.
Thus far, constitutionally protected environmental rights have represented the most straightforward vehicle for climate litigants in
some jurisdictions (e.g., Norway), although litigation based on broader rights (e.g., to enforce fundamental constitutional rights to
life and property) has also provided a viable strategy in other jurisdictions (e.g., Pakistan). In still other jurisdictions, courts have
relied on the language of environmental statutes and common-law doctrines to mandate agency rulemaking or more effective
implementation of climate policies (e.g., Foster). A number of lawsuits may not even present climate change as the core issue, but
may have an indirect impact on climate mitigation or adaptation efforts by 161. Foster et al. v. Washington Dep't of Ecology, No. 14-
2-25295-1 SEA, Order Denying Motion for Order of Contempt and Granting Sua Sponte Leave to File Amended Pleading (Wash.
Super. Ct. Dec. 19, 2016) (citingJuliana and Urgenda). regulating conventional pollutants in a manner that may have climate co-
benefits (e.g., Gbemre).
The experience to date suggests that courts
are more willing to exercise an active role in guiding
regulatory development where the statutory framework has proven ineffective (e.g., Leghari), as well as where States'
actions to avert climate harm are seen as out of step with national policy or international commitments (e.g., Urgenda). Resort to
international legal principles as a means of defining the scope of the State's legal obligation appears to occur most frequently when
the content of national law is ambiguous (e.g., Urgenda; Leghari), and in legal systems that permit a direct uptake of international
law.
Second, while courts to date have been unwilling to impose civil liability on private entities, especially in the United States where the
majority of these suits has been brought, emergingscience appears likely to feed additional litigation
insofar as it helps to address some of the causation and apportionment hurdles that have made
these cases challenging. Also, additional and collateral avenues for private-sector accountability may emerge. For example,
following the announcement that several state attorneys general and the Securities and Exchange Commission in the United States
are investigating energy companies for allegedly misleading investors and the public about climate change, a securities fraud class
action was filed against an energy company relating to climate change and non-disclosure of climate-related risks. 162
Finally, while few national judges to date have been called upon to adjudicate transnational climate claims, several recent cases,
supported by emerging climate research, appear likely to lead to an increase in cases of this kind.
Overall, the
number of climate lawsuits is unquestionably on the rise, positioning the courts for an
increasingly vital role in ensuring climate-related accountability, enabling resiliency, and
contributing to a sustainable future.

D. Impact- Warming causes extinction.

Ng ’19 [Yew-Kwang; May 2019; Professor of Economics at Nanyang Technology University,
Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences in Australia and Member of the Advisory Board at the
Global Priorities Institute at Oxford University, Ph.D. in Economics from Sydney University;
Global Policy, “Keynote: Global Extinction and Animal Welfare: Two Priorities for Effective
Altruism,” vol. 10, no. 2, p. 258-266]

Catastrophic climate change

factors of non‐linearity, cascading effects, positive feedbacks, multiplicative factors, critical

Though by no means certain, CCC causing global extinction is possible due to interrelated

thresholds and tipping points (e.g. Barnosky and Hadly, 2016; Belaia et al., 2017; Buldyrev
et al., 2010; Grainger, 2017; Hansen and Sato, 2012; IPCC 2014; Kareiva and Carranza, 2018;
Osmond and Klausmeier, 2017; Rothman, 2017; Schuur et al., 2015; Sims and Finnoff, 2016; Van
Aalst, 2006).7

A possibly imminent tipping point could be in the form of ‘an abrupt ice sheet collapse [that]
could cause a rapid sea level rise’ (Baum et al., 2011, p. 399). There are many avenues for
positive feedback in global warming, including:
  the replacement of an ice sea by a liquid ocean surface from melting reduces the
reflection and increases the absorption of sunlight, leading to faster warming;
 the drying of forests from warming increases forest fires and the release of more
carbon; and
 higher ocean temperatures may lead to the release of methane trapped under the
ocean floor, producing runaway global warming.

Though there are also avenues for negative feedback, the scientific consensus is for an overall
net positive feedback (Roe and Baker, 2007). Thus, the Global Challenges Foundation (2017, p.
25) concludes, ‘The world is currently completely unprepared to envisage, and even less deal
with, the consequences of CCC’.

The threat of sea‐level rising from global warming is well known, but there are also other likely
and more imminent threats to the survivability of mankind and other living things. For
example, Sherwood and Huber (2010) emphasize the adaptability limit to climate change due to
heat stress from high environmental wet‐bulb temperature. They show that ‘even modest
global warming could … expose large fractions of the [world] population to unprecedented heat
stress’ p. 9552 and that with substantial global warming, ‘the area of land rendered
uninhabitable by heat stress would dwarf that affected by rising sea level’ p. 9555, making
extinction much more likely and the relatively moderate damages estimated by most integrated
assessment models unreliably low.
2nc/1nr
***uniqueness***
 they say: courts clogged now
Court clog is declining—modernization is preventing backlog
Judicial Shop 24 (Judicial Shop, “DISCOVER STRATEGIES TO MAKE COURT RUN MORE
EFFICIENTLY” 2/8/2024. Accessed 7/11/2024. https://judicialshop.com/blogs/news/discover-
strategies-to-make-court-run-more-efficiently) wtk

Courts nationwide are implementing modernization principles, leveraging digital technology and
data-driven strategies to improve efficiency and accessibility. With the rise of legal tech, courts
are prioritizing streamlined case processing and sentencing reforms, aiming to reduce delays
and enhance overall system effectiveness.
Additionally, global shifts towards online court proceedings during crises reveal a commitment
to embracing modernization for improved efficacy. These efforts underscore a concerted push
by court leaders to better serve litigants while addressing budget constraints, increasing
caseloads, and workforce limitations.

Court filings are down

Butler 23 (Megan Butler, Reporter at Courthouse News Service, citing the Judicial Businesses
Report from the Office of U.S. Courts. “US courts saw drop in case filings, uptick in judge
complaints in 2022” 3/14/2023. Accessed 7/15/2024. https://www.courthousenews.com/us-
courts-saw-drop-in-case-filings-uptick-in-judge-complaints-in-2022/) wtk

The latest Judicial Business report from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts provides
statistical data about federal caseloads by circuit, district and offense for the fiscal year ending
Sept. 30, 2022, compared with data for prior years.
Total case filings in U.S. district courts fell 18% last year to 343,253. Civil case filings declined
20% to 274,771, and criminal filings dropped by 8% to 68,482.

Stats prove caseloads are declining—prefer long-term trends

Cass 22 (Ronald A. Cass is an American legal scholar. He has been president of Cass &
Associates since 2004 and is dean emeritus of Boston University School of Law. “On Expanding
Federal Courts” Spring 2022. Accessed 7/11/2024.
https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/on-expanding-federal-courts) wtk

One final element to consider before adding federal judgeships involves the practical needs of
the courts themselves. Politics aside, the arguments most assiduously advanced in support of
adding seats to the bench focus on difficulties in the timely processing of cases, backed by data
indicating that the federal courts have witnessed a significant increase in caseloads. But a closer
examination of these data reveals serious reason to doubt the need to add a significant number
of judgeships to manage existing caseloads. At the very least, it supports taking a modest
approach to the issue rather than rushing to expand the judiciary.
Turning first to the appellate level, advocates of creating additional judgeships have repeatedly
asserted that the U.S. courts of appeals are facing a crisis due to the rising number of cases. Yet
while the appellate caseload did increase from the 1970s through the 1990s, it leveled off
afterward and then began to decline. The number of cases filed in the federal courts of appeals
in 2020 was almost 10% below the number filed in 2000.
Not only are case numbers falling, but the time taken to reach decisions is, too. Though
termination times rose precipitously in the 1970s, they leveled off during the following two
decades and, after an uptick in the early 2000s, have shown signs of trending downward again.
Since 2010, the median time for deciding cases in the federal courts of appeals has been lower
each year in the past decade (from 2011 to 2020) than it was in the decade's first year. The
difference is even more dramatic when compared with termination times from three decades
earlier: In 1990, the median time it took the federal courts of appeals to close a case was over
15 months — roughly 69% higher than it was in 2020 and more than double what it was in 2016.
These data should temper the view that judges have reached their breaking point in terms of
workload. As it appears, rising efficiency in the courts' handling of appellate filings has more
than compensated for increases in case numbers. Four developments in particular explain why
appellate courts have become more efficient at completing cases and, in turn, why judicial
expansions are not necessary to help judges handle their caseloads.
 they say: trademark litigation high/SAD suits
Judges and online platforms are curtailing the use of SAD cases now
Bea Swedlow and David Roulo, 2023 - Bea Swedlow is a partner and David Roulo is an
associate at Honigman LLP“Concerns Emerging On TM Cases Against Undisclosed Parties”
Law360 Expert Analysis - Corporate, 6/21, Nexis Uni, accessed via University of Michigan //DH

Third-Party Service Providers Are Objecting to the Remedies in Schedule A Cases

Courts are not alone in pushing back on these cases. As discussed above, plaintiffs generally
seek an order directed to third-party domain name providers requiring they disable defendants'
webpages and for e-commerce platforms to freeze defendants' assets. This is critical to
plaintiffs' recovery because, without appearing, plaintiffs can never discover the identity of the
defendants. Thus, plaintiffs only recovery comes from the seizure of assets frozen in connection
with the TRO/PI. Though some courts express concern with asset freezes so early in a case, they
have generally complied with plaintiffs' requests.

This outcome changes when third-party platforms object. In February, MD LLC brought another
Schedule A case, filing the standard TRO/PI motion.[30] MD argued the TRO should cover the
online marketplaces because they provide the service the defendants use to sell the counterfeit
products.[31] Three nonparties, including eBay, appeared and objected, arguing the asset freeze
was "overbroad."[32]

The objection worked - at least temporarily. On May 4, the court granted the TRO as to all non-
objecting nonparties, but denied the injunction as to the objectors, at least temporarily, and
ordered expedited discovery on the issue.[33] Discovery and briefing on the issue concluded on
June 20.[34] The outcome of eBay's motion could result in a seismic shift in the incentive for
parties and firms to file these suits.

Broad trends prove trademark cases are declining

USSC 22 (United States Sentencing Commission, “Quick Facts — Copyright and Trademark
Offenses” August 2022. Accessed 7/15/2024.
https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/quick-facts/
Copyright_FY21.pdf) wtk

IN FY 2021, 57,287 CASES WERE REPORTED TO THE U.S. SENTENCING COMMISSION.

 36 INVOLVED COPYRIGHT AND TRADEMARK OFFENSES.1

 COPYRIGHT AND TRADEMARK OFFENSES HAVE DECREASED BY 56.1% SINCE FY 2017.
***trademark links***
 they say: e-commerce plan reduces court clog
Studies prove – empirically increased protection causes a flood of litigation
Davidson Heath and Christopher Mace, 2020 – professors of business at the University of
Utah. “The Strategic Effects of Trademark Protection” The Review of Financial Studies 33 (2020)
1848–1877, Oxford University Press, accessed via University of Michigan //DH

To study the causal effects of varying trademark protection we exploit the Federal Trademark
Dilution Act (FTDA) of 1996, which granted additional legal protection to “famous" trademarks
until its key provision was nullified in 2003 by a U.S. Supreme Court decision. We find that the
FTDA raised treated firms’ operating return on assets by an average of 1.7 percentage points
(pp), equal to 12% of their average pretreatment profits. The FTDA was followed by a sharp
increase in trademark lawsuits under the new provision and by reduced entry and turnover in
affected goods and service classes, consistent with our hypothesis that the FTDA raised the
expected cost of entry into affected product markets. Treatment effects were strongest in firms
that faced moderate entry threat ex ante, consistent with strategic entry deterrence as a
mechanism.

Even if platforms comply, they still risk facing massive new litigation
Engine, 2020 - Engine is a non-profit technology policy, research, and advocacy organization
that bridges the gap between policymakers and startups. Comment submitted to US Patent and
Trademark Office, “Re: Comments of Engine Advocacy in Response to Secondary Trademark
Infringement Liability in the E-Commerce Setting, Docket No. PTO-T-2020-0035,” 12/28,

https://downloads.regulations.gov/PTO-T-2020-0035-0008/attachment_1.pdf //DH

Trademarks are pervasive across the globe. There are over 2.6 million active trademarks in the
U.S. alone.15 It would be impossible for a new e-commerce platform to learn, monitor, and
identify alleged infringement of that many marks in the millions of products that are (or could
be) posted on these sites. Volume is not the only problem—it is complex to identify specific
instances of trademark infringement. Trademark owners are much better suited to know what
might confuse their consumers and know what products they have authorized.16 Without
trademark owners identifying infringement in the first instance, platforms will both over- and
under-police, unintentionally blocking legitimate content and letting some infringement slip
through the cracks.17

Likewise, technology and filters are not a solution, as these are both very expensive and
inherently limited.18 As we have previously explained in the copyright context:

Technology and filters have many inherent limitations which make them incapable of
fully addressing online infringement. Filtering technology is imperfect, with often high
false positive rates. It is categorically incapable of answering fact-specific questions of
infringement, like fair use, licensing, and the exclusion of unprotectable ideas. But these
 filters are also out of reach for most startups. The most sophisticated tools are so
expensive that the development costs are orders of magnitude above what a startup
could afford. Off-the-shelf tools, which cannot screen much content on a multimedia
platform, are also too expensive for early-stage companies to license and maintain. All
filters are limited in the type of content they screen. And for many types of content,
there are no filters. Finally, technology is easily circumvented. Users intent on uploading
infringing content can easily modify files to avoid the filters.19

Indeed, the measures certain platforms deploy to try and prevent trademark infringement are
not perfect, and counterfeiters already find ways around these measures. Even for platforms
spending the most, and deploying the most sophisticated technology, it is impossible to keep
trademark infringers off e-commerce platforms. For example, counterfeiters can just change
their name or repost infringing items under a new name or different account.20

The limits of filters—which will fail sometimes (likely often)—and the fact that startups would be
incapable of identifying and removing all infringement on their own also brings substantial
litigation cost and risk. Expanding platform liability over users’ alleged IP infringement would
put early-stage companies at risk of being sued out of existence. It would also discourage
entrepreneurs and investors from developing new technology or pursuing new e-commerce
business models. Internet platforms, in particular, have been able to innovate and launch
because they do not have to hire teams of lawyers to brace for litigation when users are accused
of infringement. And investors would be reluctant to fund emerging e-commerce platforms if
they knew the money would go to cover liability for user infringement.21

The plan causes over-enforcement on a massive scale

Jonathan Berroya, 2021 - Senior Vice President and General Counsel, Internet Association.
Testimony before the Subcommittee On Courts, Intellectual Property, and The Internet Judiciary
Committee U.S. House of Representatives. The SHOP SAFE Act: Stemming the Rising Tide of
Unsafe Counterfeit Products Online. 5/27,
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU03/20210527/112713/HHRG-117-JU03-Wstate-
BerroyaJ-20210527.pdf //DH

The SHOP Safe Act would create significant and unreasonable impediments for small and
"micro" businesses that rely on platforms to sell and resell products to other businesses and
consumers. The bill would make it difficult for such businesses to use trademarks to describe the
products they are offering, by requiring platforms to use reasonable technological tools to scan
nearly every third-party listing or advertisement that includes a trademark, and to rely on such
automated processes to make determinations that brand-trained experts are expected to make
in every other legal context, including in alleging copyright infringement under the DMCA.
Technology is not perfect, and by threatening platforms with legal liability if they fail to take
action to remove potential "false positives," the bill would incentivize overenforcement at a
potentially massive scale. The bill would also require companies to impose punitive
consequences on sellers who have used trademarks that are presumed to be counterfeit—
including permanently banning them from the platform, but the draft language is remarkably
devoid of any semblance of due process to allow sellers to confront brand owners and assert
that their use of a trademark was valid.

Lack of a clear definition of ‘counterfeiting’ weaponizes enforcement

Eric Goldman, 2021 – professor of law at Santa Clara Law. “The SHOP SAFE Act Is a Terrible Bill
That Will Eliminate Online Marketplaces” Technology and Marketing Law Blog, 9/28,
https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2021/09/the-shop-safe-act-is-a-terrible-bill-that-will-
eliminate-online-marketplaces.htm //DH

What is “Counterfeiting”? The bill defines “counterfeit mark” as “a counterfeit of a mark” (I can’t
make this up). But there’s actually a lot of confusion about what constitutes counterfeiting. See,
e.g., my post about the trademark enforcements involving the “EMOJI” word mark, where they
take the position that a marketplace item using the term “emoji” in the product name or
description “counterfeits” their mark (seriously, look at the example from their exhibit and tell
them that’s not bogus). A similar issue arises with print-on-demand services, where trademark
owners take the position that any variation of their mark being manufactured onto a good
constitutes counterfeiting, even if it’s parodic or an obvious joke. Thus, the bill’s grammar
restricting the “use of counterfeit marks” potentially covers a much wider range of activity than
classic piratical counterfeiting. Trademark owners will weaponize that ambiguity.
 they say: safe harbor solves

The actual knowledge requirement is the only shield against litigation – but the
plan dilutes it
Patricia E. Campbell, 2023 - Law School Professor and Director of the Intellectual Property
Law Program at the University of Maryland Carey School of Law “Debugging the Trademark
Laws: The Lanham Act and Counterfeit Microelectronics,” 31 TEX. INTELL. PROP. L.J. 211 (2023).
Hein Online. Accessed via University of Michigan //DH

Moreover, if parts were purchased on e-commerce platforms, the online marketplace or service
provider is typically immune from suit under the rule created in Tiffany (NJ) Inc. v. eBay Inc.335
There, the court held that for contributory trademark infringement liability to exist, a service
provider must have more than a general knowledge or reason to know that its service is being
used to sell counterfeit goods. "Some contemporary knowledge of which particular listings are
infringing or will infringe in the future is necessary."336 The requirement of actual knowledge
has created a safe harbor for e-commerce platforms.

The safe harbor from liability is too weak and invites litigations
Andrew Ligon Fant, 2022 - J.D. Candidate, 2023, University of Georgia School of Law.
“Reconsidering the Willful Blindness Doctrine in Contributory Trademark Infringement,” 29 J.
INTELL. PROP. L. 318 (2022). Available at:
https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/jipl/vol29/iss2/3 //DH

The most problematic part of the SHOP SAFE Act is its requirement that online marketplaces
implement a program to “expeditiously” take down counterfeit listings the platform is
reasonably aware of.152 The Act adopts a very broad view—similar to the “reason to know”
standard that the Tiffany court rejected153—of when an online marketplace should be
reasonably aware of the use of a counterfeit mark.154 If an online marketplace has a program
but perhaps does not take down counterfeit listings “expeditiously,” it may be exposed to
liability despite good faith efforts. This could be a reasonable outcome if the marketplace could
otherwise avail itself of a safe haven through reasonable efforts, but the requirement for such a
program is actually an eligibility requirement for the safe haven.

The Act purports to create a safe haven, but the numerous exceptions to the rules and reliance
on reasonableness muddy the waters and invite litigation.155 One such exception is found in
the Act’s definition of “repeated use of a counterfeit mark”: “[u]se of a counterfeit mark by a
third-party seller in 3 separate listings within 1 year shall be considered repeated use, except
when reasonable mitigating circumstances exist.”156 What qualifies as a reasonable mitigating
circumstance is anyone’s guess.
***climate change***
 they say: courts don’t solve climate change
Courts solve climate change—empirics prove they are the most effective
Carlarne 21 (Cinnamon Piñon Carlarne 21, 19th President and Dean of Albany Law School, was
the Associate Dean for Faculty & Intellectual Life at The Ohio State University Moritz College of
Law, leading international expert in environmental and climate change law policy with a deep
commitment to environmental equity and social justice. “The Essential Role of Climate Litigation
and the Courts in Averting Climate Crisis” Ohio State Legal Studies Research Paper No. 592,
SSRN, 2021. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3761850) wtk
More specifically, climate litigation7 draws on a long history of environmental litigation. From the earliest days, litigants turned to
the courts to ensure the implementation, enforcement, and evolution of environmental law. Courtshave served as the
guardians and, at times, the architects of the rule of law in the environmental context in jurisdictions as
varied as the United States, South Africa, and India.8
The role that the courts have and continue to play in shaping environmental law reflects a long
history of adversarial legalism9 and an abiding faith in the ability of the courts to be unbiased arbiters of legal disputes as
well as visionaries of change.
Climate litigation is thus neither an aberration nor a new phenomenon. The expanding body of
climate litigation responds to profound state failures to protect their citizenry from the dire
threats that climate change poses. Moreover, it tracks a history of citizens turning to the courts to
identify and enforce fundamental rights when the political branches fail to do so, and reaffirms
the long-standing role and responsibility of the judiciary in maintaining the integrity of the rule
of law and ensuring the wellbeing of the nation and its people, particularly in moments when the state fails to
respond to urgent social, scientific, and political challenges.10 Building on a long history of effective
environmental litigation, climate litigation is playing and incontrovertibly important role in shaping the
rule of the law around climate change.

Litigation is the most likely avenue to create effective climate solutions

Abelkop 13 – PhD Candidate @ Indiana (Adam, “Tort Law as an Environmental Policy
Instrument,” 92 Or. L. Rev. 381)

Moreover, even if the scientific and economic foundations of statutes are sound, the regulatory
rules developed to enforce them may not necessarily be workable. In some instances, EPA staff might
"lack [the] field experience and exposure to industry" that are necessary to write high quality regulations.
343 And, even when rules are workable, environmental regulations in particular are
extraordinarily complex and technocratic: Perhaps the central defining feature of environmental law in the United
States is its mind-numbing complexity and detail… . Today there is no serious question that environmental law is the most [444]
complicated and detailed body of law the world has ever known; we have won the (dubious) distinction of representing the "state of
the art" in legal complexity and detail. 344 The bottom line is that environmental regulation - whether expressed through standards
or rules, the common law or regulation - will challenge the understanding of citizens, businesses, judges, regulators, and
representatives simply because the environment and the various pathways by which pollution may harm it and human health are
fantastically complex.
A fundamental element in the discussion of efficiency and institutions, therefore, is the capacity of those institutions to gather and
make use of information. 345 Information is the life force of environmental and public health protection.
The development of environmental statutes and regulations requires immense amounts of scientific and economic data on, for
example, the chemical and physical processes that generate the pollution externality, the chemical and biological reactions that
occur when ecosystems and humans are exposed to the pollution in varying amounts and over varying periods of time, the costs and
benefits of available pollution abatement technologies, and the costs and benefits of various policy instruments. The
cost of
gathering information, therefore, represents an acute transaction cost, making it an important
factor to consider in comparative institutional analysis. 346
Many scholars assume that the information gathering capacity of regulatory agencies far
exceeds that of the judicial system. 347 However, information asymmetries skewed toward
regulated industries greatly limit regulatory authorities' information gathering capabilities. 348
Imperfect as it is, the inclusion of judicial institutions in the regulatory process is vitally important in many
environmental [445] policy-making contexts because of the judicial system's ability to facilitate
information gathering for three primary reasons.
First, the design of many regulations requires access to information that only private citizens
have regarding the nature and extent of the harm. 349 The plaintiff knows more about the cost of her injury
than anyone else, and the defendant knows more about the cost of precaution or abatement
than anyone else. 350 From a purely theoretical economic perspective, this makes rational sense. To design an
efficient regulatory scheme - one that maximizes social welfare - regulators need to know the
slopes of both the social marginal cost curve and the social marginal benefits curve of the target
populations. Marginal costs and benefits could take the form of abatement costs and benefits (e.g., the costs of controlling
pollution and the benefit to individuals from less exposure to pollutants) or emissions costs and benefits (e.g., the cost of harm from
pollution and the benefits of production). Most of this information comes from private individuals and entities. Environmental goods
are notoriously hard to price, 351 and all parties have an economic incentive to exaggerate costs. 352
Because regulators have access to imperfect information, the regulations they design often
provide inefficient under-protection in some instances and overprotection in others 353 : "When one
combines the elusiveness of the problem with the indeterminacy of its cause and multiplies that by the number and diversity of the
people whose lives the agency is attempting to change, the probability of error is very high indeed." 354
Of course, agencies do have a range of information gathering techniques available to them. As Justice Breyer notes, regulatory
agencies collect information from regulated industries, public interest [446] groups, external experts, and government research
offices. 355 In addition, agencies attain information through public comments received during the notice and comment process and
through participants in negotiated rulemaking procedures. 356 In spite of information asymmetries and barriers to regulatory
information gathering, agencies do gather and generate an incredible amount of data that they use to promulgate some of the most
sophisticated regulatory programs ever designed. 357
Liability standards of care, on the other hand, are broad enough to apply to the gamut of harms to human health and the
environment that regulations may be too narrow to protect against. Moreover, private litigation has facilitated the generation of a
great deal of public health data on many industrial chemicals and pharmaceuticals, most prominently tobacco and asbestos. 358
Although litigants develop tort law one case at a time, the accumulation of precedent over time has incorporated private
information into robust public standards of care: A
public regulatory scheme could not hope to match the
negligence system in terms of its scope, detail, and encapsulation of private information. To do
so would require public agents to discover ex ante how much a potential victim would be hurt
by a specific injury, and how much it would cost a potential injurer to avoid the injury. Even if
the parties were able to provide this information ex ante, their incentives to do so honestly
would be weak. 359
Second, private attorneys are often more effective at uncovering misconduct than regulatory
agencies - a strength of the adversarial [447] system. 360 The tort system empowers private
litigators with the capacity to compel their opponents to disclose full and complete information
during pre-trial discovery and provides attorneys with incentives to "spend the resources
necessary to copy and organize documents, take depositions, and fight … efforts to resist
discovery." 361 Plaintiffs' attorneys are willing to spend those resources because the court can
often shift those costs to the tortfeasor as attorneys' fees when the plaintiff emerges victorious .
Third, the tort system does not rely exclusively on the deterrent effects of precedent to send
signals to the market. Indeed, companies must often purchase liability insurance to protect
themselves in the case of an accident. 362 Insurance companies gather massive amounts of
information in order to price risk into premiums, and premiums in turn send price signals to
businesses about their levels of risk. In this way, the tort system marshals insurance companies
as secondary standard-setters. One limitation to this attribute of tort law, though, is that many insurance policies often
exclude coverage for toxic torts. 363
In addition to its information-gathering function, tort
law may facilitate more effective enforcement of
public regulation and vice versa. Knowing that private litigators could uncover misconduct or
manipulation of the regulatory process, industry may be more candid when working with or
providing information to regulatory agencies. 364 Private litigation may also produce information
that may be useful in regulatory settings. For example, "an ecosystem services nuisance case is likely to generate
information about natural capital and ecosystem service values that would not normally be produced from regulatory programs, yet
which could be generalizable to many other similar settings and added to the storehouse of information." 365 [448] Moreover,
information generated through litigation could facilitate regulatory enforcement actions. 366 For example, private litigation against
DuPont for injuries from the perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) that it used in its Teflon manufacturing process revealed documents that
encouraged EPA to bring a TSCA enforcement action against the company, which settled for $ 16.5 million. 367 In more extreme
cases, a series of tort suits on a novel harm could prompt the federal and state governments to enact entirely new environmental
statutes 368 or highlight inadequacies of existing ones. 369 Operating in the opposite direction, information gathered by regulatory
agencies can be used in litigation or to enhance tort law's deterrent effect by increasing firms' awareness of their liability exposure.
370
Fourth, regulatory agencies encounter asymmetries in information that are skewed in favor of
industry. 371 For example, to determine whether a certain practice or product meets safety or performance standards or
licensing requirements, agencies often rely on information submitted by the regulated firms themselves. Regulatory agencies,
including EPA, are "heavily dependent upon regulated entities for the scientific information that they need to support effective
regulation." 372 The primary environmental statutes do not require companies to submit all relevant data on the risks associated
with their activities and products, nor do the statutes empower EPA with a great deal of authority to require companies to submit
that information. 373 Even though EPA does have some limited authority to affirmatively subpoena information or require
companies to generate new data that it believes it needs, political pressures and limited [449] resources have discouraged EPA from
liberally using this authority. 374 Even
when EPA does acquire information, it sometimes yields to
industry requests to shield that data from public disclosure by classifying it as confidential
business information. 375
Moreover, it is not uncommon for regulatees to withhold or provide misleading scientific
information to regulators. 376 For many practices and products - pharmaceuticals and industrial chemicals, for example -
regulated firms generate or receive commissioned data on safety hazards and risks confidentially. 377 Upon finding results counter
to its business interests, a company might elect to withhold the data from the regulator on the justification that the information is
unreliable or invalid. 378 Even
when the data is both reliable and valid, some companies decide to
withhold it from the government - often illegally - out of fear that the data will incite adverse
regulatory or enforcement action. 379 Examples of products for which companies have withheld
important scientific data include pharmaceuticals such as bendectin, the MER-29 anti-
cholesterol drug, and the morning sickness drug; dozens of pesticides; and tobacco . 380
Regulatees may manipulate data as well in efforts to secure favorable regulatory outcomes. 381 One strategy that
pharmaceutical manufacturers have used has been to "ghost write" seemingly impartial epidemiological studies supporting their
products. 382 More egregious examples include toxicological studies for pesticides that were outright forged. 383 A more subtle
approach has been for companies to employ consultants to publish articles discrediting studies that find their products to have
The adversarial nature of the judicial system makes
adverse effects on human health or the environment. 384
tort law less susceptible to such data manipulation.

Courts are the key actor for climate solutions

Carlarne 21 (Cinnamon Piñon Carlarne 21, 19th President and Dean of Albany Law School, was
the Associate Dean for Faculty & Intellectual Life at The Ohio State University Moritz College of
Law, leading international expert in environmental and climate change law policy with a deep
commitment to environmental equity and social justice. “The Essential Role of Climate Litigation
and the Courts in Averting Climate Crisis” Ohio State Legal Studies Research Paper No. 592,
SSRN, 2021. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3761850) wtk

Courts are bound to answer the legal claims raised by climate litigation and fulfil their obligation
to uphold the fundamental rights of the citizenry. Amidst the cavern of state failures, citizens
‘have one last opportunity to vindicate their core rights—the judiciary’.72 As we crash toward
an ‘impending point of no return’, 73 the judiciary cannot decline this responsibility. To do so
would be to hasten the demise of democracy and undermine the rule of law. If the political
branches and the judiciary continue to hold hands in the suicide pact of inaction ‘history will not
judge us kindly. When the seas envelop our coastal cities, fires and droughts haunt our interiors,
and storms ravage everything between, those remaining will ask: Why did so many do so
little?’74

The question we should be asking is not whether the courts have a role to play in resolving legal
disputes and identifying fundamental rights; they do, they have, and they will. This is the role
that courts are designed to play. The question is how brave will the judiciary be in assuming its
proper role as a co-equal branch of government and in protecting the citizenry from one of the
gravest threats to humankind.
 they say: climate change doesn’t cause extinction
Climate change outweighs all other risks
Edmond 23, BSc at University of St. Andrews, climate analyst (Charlotte, “Climate change: 5
charts from the IPCC report that show why every increment of warming matters,”
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/03/climate-change-ipcc-emissions-risks-net-zero/)//BB

Failing to act on climate change will have serious consequences in multiple ways. We will lose
large numbers of animal species because they will be unable to adapt to the new environment
they face, and ecosystems will collapse. Rising temperatures and humidity will also pose threats
to human health and well-being, and risk making some areas unliveable. And food yields and
supplies will all be hit, with crops and animals killed by temperature extremes, droughts and
floods. Climate-related risks dominate the World Economic Forum’s Global Risks Report 2023,
with failure to mitigate climate change perceived as the biggest number risk facing the world
over the next 10 years. Natural disasters, extreme weather events, biodiversity loss and
ecosystem collapse are also top concerns.

Warming causes all other impacts

Cribb ’17 [Julian; 2017; Principal of Julian Cribb & Associates, Fellow of the Australian Academy
of Technological Sciences and Engineering, former Director of National Awareness at the
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation; Surviving the 21st Century, “The
Baker,” Ch. 4, p. 91-93; DML]

This event, known as the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum or PETM, happened only about ten million years
after the dinosaurs were smashed by an asteroid impact. This ‘hyperthermal’ period took place quite suddenly (in geological terms)
—in less than 2000 years—and lasted for about 170,000 years before the planet again cooled. The heat spike was
accompanied by a major wipe-out of ocean life in particular, though most small land mammals survived. Investigating the
records of old marine sediments Zeebe was able to show there had been a sharp, 70 %, leap in atmospheric CO 2
concentrations at the time. However, he concluded there was only sufficient carbon available to force the climate to warm by
1–3 °C and that some other mechanism must have been triggered by the initial warming, which then drove the
Earth’s temperature to fever pitch, up by another 4–6 °C (Zeebe et al. 2009). This process is the ‘ runaway global
warming ‘ which now menaces us.

The significance of PETM is that it appears that about the

same volume of carbon was dumped by natural processes into
the Earth’s atmosphere and oceans as humans are currently dumping with the burning of fossil fuels and
clearing of the world’s forests—about 3 trillion tonnes in all—and it was this that triggered the hyperthermal
surge in planetary heating.

As to the mechanism that could suddenly release a huge amount of extra carbon into the
atmosphere and oceans and project global temperatures up by 6–9 °C, the most likely
explanation is the one described at the start of this chapter—the rapid melting and escape of billions of tonnes of
frozen methane, CH 4 , currently locked in tundra and seabed sediments. This phenomenon, dubbed the “clathrate gun ”
(Kennett et al. 2003), is now linked by scientists not only with the PETM event but also, according to palaeontologist Peter Ward,
with the Great Death of the Permian, the worst annihilation in the history of life on Earth (Ward 2008). The significance of the
clathrates is that they consist of methane, a gas that is 72 times more powerful than CO 2 as a climate forcing agent in the short run,
and 25 times stronger over a century or so. The clathrates could be released by a process known as ‘ ocean overturning ’, a shift in
global current patterns caused by moderate warming, which brings warmer water from the surface down into the depths, to melt
the deposits of frozen gas. Unlocking several trillion tonnes of methane would cause global temperatures to rocket upwards sharply.
Once such a process gets under way, most experts consider, warming will happen so fast it is doubtful if humans could do anything
to stop it even if they instantly ceased all burning of fossil fuels.

This ‘double whammy’ of global warming caused by humans releasing three trillion tonnes of fossil carbon which
then precipitates an uncontrollable second phase driven by the melting of all or part of the five trillion tonnes of natural methane
deposits (Buff et & Archer 2004) is
the principal threat to civilisation in the twenty-first century and, combined with nuclear
conflict (Chap. 4), to the survival of the human species.

The IPCC’s fifth report states that the melting of between 37 and 81 % of the world’s tundra permafrost is ‘virtually certain’ adding
“Thereis a high risk of substantial carbon and methane emissions as a result of permafrost
thawing ” ((IPCC 2014a), p. 74). This could involve the venting of as much as 920 billion tonnes of carbon. However, the Panel did
not venture an estimate for methane emissions from the melting of the far larger seabed clathrates and a number of scientists have
publicly criticised the world’s leading climate body for remaining so close-lipped about this mega-threat to human existence. The
IPCC’s reticence is thought to be founded on a lack of adequate scientific data to make a pronouncement with confidence—and
partly to fear of the mischief which the fossil fuels lobby would make of any premature estimates. However, it critics argue, by the
time we know for sure that the Arctic and seabed methane is escaping in large volumes, it will be too late to do anything about it.

The difficulty is that no-one knows how quickly the Earth will heat up, as this depends on something that cannot be scientifically
predicted: the behaviour of the whole human species and the timeliness with which we act. Failure to abolish carbon
emissions in time will make a 4–5 °C rise in temperature likely. As to what that may mean, here are some
eminent opinions :

• Warming of 5 °C will mean the planet can support fewer than 1 billion people—Hans-Joachim Shellnhuber, Potsdam Institute for
Climate Impact Research (Kanter 2009)

• With temperature increases of 4–7 °C billions of people will have to move and there will be very severe
conflict—Nicholas Stern, London School of Economics (Kanter 2009)
• Food shortages, refugee crises, flooding of major cities and entire island nations, mass extinction of plants and animals, and a
climate so drastically altered it may be dangerous for people to work or play outside during the hottest times of the year—IPCC Fifth
Assessment (IPCC 2014b)

• Corn and soybean yields in the US may decrease by 63–82 %—Schlenker and Roberts, Arizona State University (Schlenker &
Roberts 2009a)

• Up to 35% of the Earth’s species will be committed to extinction—Chris Thomas, University of Leeds (Thomas
et al. 2004)

• Total polar melting combined with thermal expansion could involve sea
levels eventually rising by 65 m (180 ft), i.e. to the
20th floor of tall buildings, drowning most of the world’s coastal cities and displacing a third or more of
the human population (Winkelmann et al. 2015)

• Intensifiedglobal instability, hunger, poverty and conflict. Food and water shortages,
pandemic disease, disputes over refugees and resources, and destruction by natural disasters
in regions across the globe—Chuck Hagel, US Secretary for Defence (Hagel 2014)

• “Almost inconceivable challenges as human society struggles to adapt… billions of people forced to relocate.… worsening
tensions especially over resources… armed conflict is likely and nuclear war is possible”— Kurt
Campbell, Center for Strategic and International Studies (Campell et al. 2007).

• “Unless we get control of (global warming), it will mean our extinction eventually”—Helen Berry,
Canberra University (Snow & Hannam 2014).
And, warming’s a conflict multiplier that makes every other scenario worse
Scheffran 16, Professor at the Institute for Geography at the University of Hamburg and head
of the Research Group Climate Change and Security in the CliSAP Cluster of Excellence and the
Center for Earth System Research and Sustainability, et al (Jürgen, “The Climate-Nuclear Nexus:
Exploring the linkages between climate change and nuclear threats,”
http://www.worldfuturecouncil.org/file/2016/01/WFC_2015_The_Climate-Nuclear_Nexus.pdf)

Climate change and nuclear weapons represent two key threats of our time. Climate change
endangers ecosystems and social systems all over the world. The degradation of natural
resources, the decline of water and food supplies, forced migration, and more frequent and
intense disasters will greatly affect population clusters, big and small. Climate-related shocks will
add stress to the world’s existing conflicts and act as a “threat multiplier” in already fragile
regions. This could contribute to a decline of international stability and trigger hostility
between people and nations. Meanwhile, the 15,500 nuclear weapons that remain in the
arsenals of only a few states possess the destructive force to destroy life on Earth as we know
multiple times over. With nuclear deterrence strategies still in place, and hundreds of weapons
on ‘hair trigger alert’, the risks of nuclear war caused by accident, miscalculation or intent
remain plentiful and imminent. Despite growing recognition that climate change and nuclear
weapons pose critical security risks, the linkages between both threats are largely ignored.
However, nuclear and climate risks interfere with each other in a mutually enforcing way.
Conflicts induced by climate change could contribute to global insecurity, which, in turn, could
enhance the chance of a nuclear weapon being used, could create more fertile breeding
grounds for terrorism, including nuclear terrorism, and could feed the ambitions among some
states to acquire nuclear arms. Furthermore, as evidenced by a series of incidents in recent
years, extreme weather events, environmental degradation and major seismic events can
directly impact the safety and security of nuclear installations. Moreover, a nuclear war could
lead to a rapid and prolonged drop in average global temperatures and significantly disrupt the
global climate for years to come, which would have disastrous implications for agriculture,
threatening the food supply for most of the world. Finally, climate change, nuclear weapons
and nuclear energy pose threats of intergenerational harm, as evidenced by the
transgenerational effects of nuclear testing and nuclear power accidents and the lasting impacts
on the climate, environment and public health by carbon emissions.
DA_ Inflation_NEG
1nc
 1nc vs trademark
The next offcase position is the inflation da
A. Uniqueness: Inflation is cooling now
Gibson 24 (Kate Gibson is a Reporter for CBS MoneyWatch in New York. “In a boost for
consumers, U.S. inflation is cooling faster than expected” CBS News, 7/11/2024. Accessed
7/11/2024. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/inflation-cpi-consumer-price-index-june-2024/)
wtk

Consumer prices are continuing to moderate, with June data showing U.S. inflation is once again
cooling after unexpectedly high readings earlier this year. The new report could help bolster the
case for an interest rate cut from the Federal Reserve in September.
Consumer prices declined 0.1% in June from May, with inflation curtailed by lower gas prices
and a smaller increase in costs at the grocery store. On an annual basis, inflation registered at
3.0%, down from 3.3% in May, indicating that inflation is cooling faster than expected, as
economists polled by FactSet had forecasted an increase of 3.1%.
The reading is the lowest since June 2023, when prices also rose at an annual rate of 3%.

B. Link- Plan’s liability requirements cause over-enforcement – that reduces

competition and increases prices
Eric Goldman, et al, 2022 – professor of law at Santa Clara Law. Letter to Congress Opposing
SHOP SAFE Act on Behalf of 26 Trademark Academics, 3/8,
https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3634&context=historical //DH

We are U.S. academics with expertise in trademark law. We write to express our opposition to
the Stopping Harmful Offers on Platforms by Screening Against Fakes in E-commerce (SHOP
SAFE) Act. The SHOP SAFE Act represents one of the most significant proposed reforms of
trademark law that Congress has contemplated in years, and it will likely reshape e-commerce in
unwanted ways. Due to these implications, the SHOP SAFE Act should not be included in the
final version of any omnibus act, like the United States Innovation and Competition Act (USICA)
or the America Creating Opportunities for Manufacturing, Pre-Eminence in Technology, and
Economic Strength (America COMPETES) Act.*

Rather than protecting consumers, the SHOP SAFE Act would curtail many existing online
marketplace offerings that currently give consumers greater choices and spur price competition
that reduces consumer costs. In a pandemic era with rising inflation, taking away options for
consumers to shop at home and increasing consumer prices is the opposite of what
constituents want Congress to do. The bill also puts many small online entrepreneurs, and the
jobs they provide for Americans, at risk.

The SHOP SAFE Act would do this by fundamentally changing trademark law. For over a decade,
trademark law has been clear that online marketplaces must honor takedown notices that
trademark owners submit about specific listings. This well-settled rule balances the interests of
trademark owners, online marketplace operators, online marketplace vendors, and consumers.
The SHOP SAFE Act would overturn the existing rule in two critical ways. First, it would empower
trademark owners to send broad takedown notices that aren’t listing-specific, putting online
marketplaces in an untenable position of trying to determine the legitimacy of individual listings
without the benefit of the trademark owner’s unique expertise. Second, it would create a brand-
new statutory cause of action against online marketplaces that would hold them liable even in
circumstances where trademark owners didn’t send any takedown notices at all.

As we have seen repeatedly over the past two decades, in both the trademark and copyright
contexts, rightsowners routinely send illegitimate takedown notices and overclaim their rights.
But current law allows services and other recipients of such demands to push back. SHOP SAFE
removes the balancing approach of existing law. The SHOP SAFE Act will accelerate misbehavior
—with the help of the act’s imprecise definitions for key terms such as “counterfeit,” “electronic
commerce platform,” and “goods that implicate health and safety.” Trademark owners will
misuse their new and extraordinary powers to broadly restrict legitimate competitive offerings
on online marketplaces, such as non-infringing imitators and resellers of used goods.
Furthermore, in the face of essentially unmanageable legal liability, online marketplaces would
proactively restrict many legitimate marketplace activities. This will especially impact online
merchants and the jobs they create. Ironically, the changes by online marketplaces in response
to the SHOP SAFE Act are likely to hurt trademark owners. First, the compliance and risk
management costs imposed by the act will eliminate existing online marketplaces from the
industry, consolidating e-commerce into a smaller number of marketplaces/retailers and
enhancing their ability to dictate price and other terms to trademark owners. Second, the
reduced activity in online marketplaces will eliminate distribution opportunities for trademark
owners, decreasing their sales volume. The SHOP SAFE Act represents a negative-sum policy,
where it likely hurts every stakeholder and benefits none of them. Given that risk, this is not
the kind of bill that should bypass Congress’ normal review procedures. The SHOP SAFE Act
deserves thorough vetting by Congress so that the pitfalls can be fully understood and perhaps
policy solutions that better balance the needs of all constituencies can emerge. Bundling the
SHOP SAFE Act into an omnibus bill like USICA or America COMPETES prevents those dialogues
from taking place, to the detriment of all of us.

C. Inflation kills the economy

Woods and Wong 22 (Darian Woods is a host of The Indicator from Planet Money. He has an
honors degree in economics from the University of Canterbury and a Master of Public Policy
from UC Berkeley. Wailin Wong is a long-time business and economics journalist, host of The
Indicator from Planet Money. “Economists consider the tradeoffs of fighting inflation and killing
economic growth” interview with Alex Brazier, deputy head of the BlackRock Investment
Institute, 9/30/2022. Accessed 6/18/2024.
https://www.npr.org/2022/09/30/1126083834/economists-consider-the-tradeoffs-of-fighting-
inflation-and-killing-economic-gro) wtk

WONG: First, the argument in favor of killing the bear - inflation is terrible for an economy. It
makes people on fixed incomes poorer, and it makes it really hard for businesses and people to
know how to invest because everything's so uncertain. Also, when inflation is high, it gets into
people's psyches. And central bankers worry a lot about this.
WOODS: But Alex says central bankers, like Jerome Powell, are underplaying just how much pain
there will be, like polar bear life-threatening levels of pain. And that's because there is another
cause of the inflation today, the pandemic.
BRAZIER: We shifted the composition of our spending away from services and towards goods,
reversing 18 years of change in the opposite direction.
WONG: Another reason - employers can't hire as easily as they used to. For one thing, there is a
mismatch between what employers want and the skills that out-of-work people have .
BRAZIER: Effectively, people lost their jobs in the pandemic shutdown and didn't come back.
And for all those reasons, the economy's less able to produce the things that it demanded than
it was.

D. Impact- Economic collapse causes war because of economic fragmentation

and populism
Sundaram and Popov 19 (Jomo Kwame Sundaram, a former economics professor, was
United Nations Assistant Secretary-General for Economic Development, and received the
Wassily Leontief Prize for Advancing the Frontiers of Economic Thought. Vladimir Popov is a
Research Director at the Dialogue of Civilizations Research Institute in Berlin. “Economic Crisis
Can Trigger World War” 2/12/2019. Accessed 6/18/2024.
https://www.ipsnews.net/2019/02/economic-crisis-can-trigger-world-war/) wtk

Economic recovery efforts since the 2008-2009 global financial crisis have mainly depended on
unconventional monetary policies. As fears rise of yet another international financial crisis, there
are growing concerns about the increased possibility of large-scale military conflict.
More worryingly, in the current political landscape, prolonged economic crisis, combined with
rising economic inequality, chauvinistic ethno-populism as well as aggressive jingoist rhetoric,
including threats, could easily spin out of control and ‘morph’ into military conflict, and worse,
world war.
Crisis responses limited
The 2008-2009 global financial crisis almost ‘bankrupted’ governments and caused systemic
collapse. Policymakers managed to pull the world economy from the brink, but soon switched
from counter-cyclical fiscal efforts to unconventional monetary measures, primarily ‘quantitative
easing’ and very low, if not negative real interest rates.
But while these monetary interventions averted realization of the worst fears at the time by
turning the US economy around, they did little to address underlying economic weaknesses,
largely due to the ascendance of finance in recent decades at the expense of the real economy.
Since then, despite promising to do so, policymakers have not seriously pursued, let alone
achieved, such needed reforms.
Instead, ostensible structural reformers have taken advantage of the crisis to pursue largely
irrelevant efforts to further ‘casualize’ labour markets. This lack of structural reform has meant
that the unprecedented liquidity central banks injected into economies has not been well
allocated to stimulate resurgence of the real economy.
From bust to bubble
Instead, easy credit raised asset prices to levels even higher than those prevailing before 2008.
US house prices are now 8% more than at the peak of the property bubble in 2006, while its
price-to-earnings ratio in late 2018 was even higher than in 2008 and in 1929, when the Wall
Street Crash precipitated the Great Depression.
As monetary tightening checks asset price bubbles, another economic crisis — possibly more
severe than the last, as the economy has become less responsive to such blunt monetary
interventions — is considered likely. A decade of such unconventional monetary policies, with
very low interest rates, has greatly depleted their ability to revive the economy.
The implications beyond the economy of such developments and policy responses are already
being seen. Prolonged economic distress has worsened public antipathy towards the culturally
alien — not only abroad, but also within. Thus, another round of economic stress is deemed
likely to foment unrest, conflict, even war as it is blamed on the foreign.
International trade shrank by two-thirds within half a decade after the US passed the Smoot-
Hawley Tariff Act in 1930, at the start of the Great Depression, ostensibly to protect American
workers and farmers from foreign competition!
Liberalization’s discontents
Rising economic insecurity, inequalities and deprivation are expected to strengthen ethno-
populist and jingoistic nationalist sentiments, and increase social tensions and turmoil,
especially among the growing precariat and others who feel vulnerable or threatened.
Thus, ethno-populist inspired chauvinistic nationalism may exacerbate tensions, leading to
conflicts and tensions among countries, as in the 1930s. Opportunistic leaders have been
blaming such misfortunes on outsiders and may seek to reverse policies associated with the
perceived causes, such as ‘globalist’ economic liberalization.
Policies which successfully check such problems may reduce social tensions, as well as the
likelihood of social turmoil and conflict, including among countries. However, these may also
inadvertently exacerbate problems. The recent spread of anti-globalization sentiment appears
correlated to slow, if not negative per capita income growth and increased economic inequality.
To be sure, globalization and liberalization are statistically associated with growing economic
inequality and rising ethno-populism. Declining real incomes and growing economic insecurity
have apparently strengthened ethno-populism and nationalistic chauvinism, threatening
economic liberalization itself, both within and among countries.
Insecurity, populism, conflict
Thomas Piketty has argued that a sudden increase in income inequality is often followed by a
great crisis. Although causality is difficult to prove, with wealth and income inequality now at
historical highs, this should give cause for concern.
Of course, other factors also contribute to or exacerbate civil and international tensions, with
some due to policies intended for other purposes. Nevertheless, even if unintended, such
developments could inadvertently catalyse future crises and conflicts.
Publics often have good reason to be restless, if not angry, but the emotional appeals of ethno-
populism and jingoistic nationalism are leading to chauvinistic policy measures which only make
things worse.
At the international level, despite the world’s unprecedented and still growing
interconnectedness, multilateralism is increasingly being eschewed as the US increasingly
resorts to unilateral, sovereigntist policies without bothering to even build coalitions with its
usual allies.
Avoiding Thucydides’ iceberg
Thus, protracted economic distress, economic conflicts or another financial crisis could lead to
military confrontation by the protagonists, even if unintended. Less than a decade after the
Great Depression started, the Second World War had begun as the Axis powers challenged the
earlier entrenched colonial powers.
2nc/1nr
***uniqueness***
 2nc/1nr they say: “inflation high”
Inflation is cooling better than expected—the economy is heading toward its
2% inflation target
Rugaber 24 (Chris Rugaber covers the economy and the Federal Reserve for the Associated
Press. “US inflation cools again, potentially paving way for Fed to cut interest rates soon”
Associated Press 7/11/2024. Accessed 7/11/2024. https://apnews.com/article/inflation-prices-
rates-economy-federal-reserve-biden-8d15ca77433a1ae072a1e63dfc089f24) wtk

Inflation in the United States cooled in June for a third straight month, a sign that the worst
price spike in four decades is steadily fading and may soon usher in interest rate cuts by the
Federal Reserve.
In a better-than-expected report, consumer prices declined 0.1% from May to June after having
remained flat the previous month, the Labor Department said Thursday. It was the first monthly
decline in overall inflation since May 2020, when the economy was paralyzed by the pandemic.
And measured from one year earlier, prices were up 3% in June, cooler than the 3.3% annual
rate in May.
[graph omitted]
The latest inflation readings will likely help convince the Fed’s policymakers that inflation is
returning to their 2% target. A brief pickup in inflation early this year had caused the officials to
scale back their expectations for interest rate cuts. The policymakers said they would need to
see several months of mild price increases to feel confident enough enough to cut their key rate
from its 23-year high.
The June figures will qualify as another installment of the more good inflation data the central
bank has been seeking. Should inflation remain low through the summer, most economists
expect the Fed to begin cutting its benchmark rate in September.

Measurements like the Consumer Price Index (CPI) prove inflation is declining
Schonberger 24 (Jennifer Schonberger has been a financial journalist for over 14 years
covering markets, the economy and investing. At Yahoo Finance she covers the Federal Reserve,
cryptocurrencies, and the intersection of business and politics. “Cooler inflation reading helps
the case for a Fed rate cut in September” 7/11/2024. Accessed 7/11/2024.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/cooler-inflation-reading-helps-the-case-for-a-fed-rate-cut-in-
september-140149495.html) wtk

The latest sign that inflation is cooling makes it more likely the Federal Reserve will be able to
gain enough confidence to cut interest rates this fall.
The odds of a cut in September jumped Thursday after the release of favorable new numbers
from the Consumer Price Index (CPI), with traders now pricing in an 83% probability of an easing
at the Fed's meeting on Sept. 17-18.
"I think it puts September firmly on pace for a cut," Peter Tchir, Academy Securities macro
strategy head, told Yahoo Finance.
Some Fed watchers even think that a cut at the Fed's July 30-31 meeting is now a possibility if
some other pieces fall into place.
"The Fed could very well lower rates sooner than September if the labor market softens at a
faster clip," said Quincy Krosby, chief global strategist for LPL Financial.
The Consumer Price Index on a "core" basis — which excludes volatile food and energy prices
the Fed can’t control — rose 3.3% year over year in the month of June. That was a tenth of a
percent below expectations and below the level seen in May.
[graph omitted]
Month-over-month core CPI was also encouraging, rising 0.1% after increasing 0.2% in May.
The "muted" month-over-month increase “strengthens the case for a September rate cut," said
Paul Ashworth, chief economist for Capital Economics.

We’re on track for a soft landing now—that means inflation is cooling without a
recession
Brown and Irwin 24 (Courtenay Brown is an economics reporter at Axios. She covers the
global economy, central banks, financial markets and macroeconomic trends. Neil Irwin is chief
economic correspondent of Axios. He reports on and analyzes the U.S. and global economies,
the Federal Reserve, economic policy, financial markets, and how they all intersect. “Cooling
inflation ignites hope of rate cuts” 6/12/2024. Accessed 6/18/2024.
https://www.axios.com/2024/06/12/cpi-report-inflation-cooling) wtk

It's starting to feel a little bit like late 2023: For the second straight month, the Consumer Price
Index was cooler than expected — a sign that inflation might be back on a downward path.
Why it matters: The first few months of the year stoked fears that price pressures were
reaccelerating. So far, the second quarter appears much different — with a soft landing path for
the economy looking like a reality.
That could shift the tenor of Wednesday's Federal Open Market Committee meeting and make
officials more comfortable penciling in two rate cuts this year in their projections. The first rate
cut could be in September, if that scenario comes true.
Stocks and bonds were both rallying Wednesday morning upon the news.
What they're saying: "Inflation's return to the Fed's target took two steps forward in May after
one step back in the opening months of 2024," Comerica's Bill Adams wrote in a report.
By the numbers: The CPI was unchanged for the month of May after rising 0.3% in April. The
core measure, which excludes food and energy prices, rose 0.2% — the slowest monthly pace
since August 2021.
Year-over-year inflation edged down as well, to 3.4% from 3.5%.
Core CPI is up an annualized 3.3% over the past three months, the lowest since October.
The intrigue: Some categories where price increases were feared to be sticky showed the
opposite in May.
 2nc/1nr they say: “recession now”
No recession coming—all of the data is pointing to a soft landing
Hoff 24 (Madison Hoff, reporter on the economy team at Business Insider. “It finally looks like
the US economy is sticking its soft landing” 6/5/2024. Accessed 6/19/2024.
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-economy-soft-landing-outlook-recession-inflation-
unemployment-jobs-2024-6) wtk

US economic data points to a soft landing as the labor market and inflation gradually cool.
Until recently those two forces were holding back a soft-landing narrative.
The US seems on track for lower price growth without a recession.
You might have heard the US is not in a recession, but the good news about the economy
doesn't stop there. A soft landing is on the horizon — or already here, depending on who you
ask — and recent data reinforces that.
Two of the most glaring signals of an economy still running hot — inflation and a strong labor
market — have in the past week showed signs of cooling. That's fueled hopes of interest-rate
cuts and a subsequent soft landing, generally defined as when interest rates reduce inflation
without causing runaway unemployment or hurting economic growth.
The data marks the firmest sign to date that the US economy — shepherded by the Federal
Reserve's interest-rate decisions — has threaded the needle and avoided a sharp downturn.
"The economic rebalancing that we thought was necessary a couple years ago largely looks like
it's been achieved," Joseph Briggs, an economist at Goldman Sachs, told Business Insider.
"Provided that we stay on this current course, I expect that we will be increasingly transitioning
to a more normal economic environment."
Briggs also said that achieving a soft landing would help avoid "some of the economic hardships
that often come if you were to see the economy enter a more significant slowdown."
A slowly cooling economy heading back to normal
The economy has been confusing because the labor market has stayed pretty hot and inflation
has been stubborn despite the Fed's trying to slow down borrowing and spending.
The Fed reacted to sky-high inflation a few years ago by hiking interest rates and holding them
at that elevated level. The next Federal Open Market Committee meeting is next week, and the
CME FedWatch Tool showed that as of Wednesday morning traders overwhelmingly thought
rates were likely to stay at their target.
Data indicates the US labor market isn't too hot, meaning the Fed is unlikely to go back to raising
rates and keeping the door open for cuts later this year. There were 175,000 jobs added in April.
March's job growth was almost twice as large, with a gain of 315,000. Those figures could be
revised in the report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics on Friday.
Job-openings data out on Tuesday from the Bureau of Labor Statistics showed that they
continued their downward trend in April, suggesting businesses are slowing their hiring plans.
Plus, the number of job openings per unemployed person has been moving downward in 2024.
"The substantial decline in job openings in April, to the lowest level since February 2021, paints
a clear picture of a job market that has essentially returned to its pre-pandemic balance and is
on the cusp of a soft landing," Nick Bunker, the economic research director for North America at
the Indeed Hiring Lab, said recently in written commentary.
"Over the past two years, the US labor market has cooled off in a relatively painless way: Fewer
people are switching jobs while layoffs remain low," Bunker told Business Insider. "The result is
that unemployment has been below 4% for over two years. But if the reduction in inflation
stalls, then any further cooling off would mean higher unemployment."

Strong market fundamentals disprove recession

Timiraos 24 (Nick Timiraos is chief economics correspondent for The Wall Street Journal.
“Why the Recession Still Isn’t Here” 6/7/2024. Accessed 6/19/2024.
https://www.wsj.com/economy/recession-inflation-fed-jobs-report-b9d1fb28) wtk

The recession, predicted by business executives, economists, and investors, refuses to show up.
Steady hiring continues to fuel consumer spending and, in turn, an economic expansion unlike
any the U.S. has seen. Employers added 2.75 million jobs over the last 12 months, including
272,000 in May, the Labor Department said Friday.
The unemployment rate has been at or below 4% for 30 months, something that last occurred
during the Vietnam War in the late 1960s and the Korean War in the early 1950s.
Of course, just because everyone who predicted a recession has been wrong doesn’t mean they
won’t eventually be right. Though the unemployment rate remains low, it’s risen from its
postpandemic extremes: The unemployment rate ticked up to 4.0% last month from 3.9% in
April. It was as low as 3.4% in April 2023.
Already, the rate at which companies hire workers has fallen to levels last seen seven years ago.
Job vacancies, which soared during the pandemic, have returned to prepandemic levels; if they
fall much lower, a higher unemployment rate beckons.
So far, labor market imbalances have resolved themselves without a recession.

The risk of recession is low because inflation is cooling

Peterson 24 (Dana M. Peterson, Chief Economist and Leader of the Economy, Strategy &
Finance Center at The Conference Board. “Retail Sales Confirm Continued Consumer Spending
Pullback” 6/18/2024. Accessed 6/19/2024. https://www.conference-board.org/brief/global-
economy/retail-sales-analysis-may-2024) wtk

Weaker consumer spending is all according to the Fed’s plan: cool economic activity and thereby
inflation, hopefully without inducing a recession. We believe Q2 and Q3 real GDP growth will be
anemic (between 0% and 1% q/q annualized). Still a recession is unlikely because businesses are
still generally willing to hold on to their best talent.
Against this backdrop, we anticipate that slower real GDP growth and inflation, plus a relatively
healthy labor market will enable the Fed to cut interest rates twice this year – potentially at the
November and December meetings. Indeed, only a slight majority of FOMC participants desired
one cut at the June meeting, with others mostly anticipating two cuts.
***trademark links***
2nc/1nr they say: “secondary liability lowers costs” —trademark
Only large companies can bear the cost of enforcement – the plan causes
market consolidation of e-commerce
Engine, 2020 - Engine is a non-profit technology policy, research, and advocacy organization
that bridges the gap between policymakers and startups. Comment submitted to US Patent and
Trademark Office, “Re: Comments of Engine Advocacy in Response to Secondary Trademark
Infringement Liability in the E-Commerce Setting, Docket No. PTO-T-2020-0035,” 12/28,
https://downloads.regulations.gov/PTO-T-2020-0035-0008/attachment_1.pdf //DH

Indeed, even under the current, relatively balanced approach to contributory liability, the high
costs of monitoring and covering legal risk for potentially infringing user-generated posts are
already seen as a competitive advantage. Changing the law to increase those costs and risk, by
imposing more liability on platforms, would entrench incumbents and defeat the ability of
nascent companies to compete.22 As scholars have noted:

[W]hile the eBays of the world can afford to spend millions of dollars combatting
counterfeiting, this may not be the case for smaller-scale market participants. Requiring
“mom and pop” online brokers to wage a million-dollar war against counterfeiting
would likely drive these retailers out of business, undesirably narrowing consumer
choice.23

Finally, most platforms experience little, if any, alleged trademark infringement.24 Changing the
law to increase the costs and risks platforms face would therefore catch little, if any, additional
infringement.25 But the costs and risks of a shift in liability would be substantial, which would
make it harder for startups and emerging e-commerce platforms to launch and compete, and
restrict economic growth in multiple sectors.26

Market consolidation kills hundreds of thousands of small businesses and

consolidates the industry – that causes all products to become more expensive
Eric Goldman, 2021 – professor of law at Santa Clara Law. “The SHOP SAFE Act Is a Terrible Bill
That Will Eliminate Online Marketplaces” Technology and Marketing Law Blog, 9/28,
https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2021/09/the-shop-safe-act-is-a-terrible-bill-that-will-
eliminate-online-marketplaces.htm //DH

“This bill” refers to the SHOP SAFE Act, which would provide contributory trademark liability
for online marketplaces

Why Would Anyone Support This Bill? This bill will kill online marketplaces and make markets
less efficient. Where the online marketplace owner has a retailing function, like Amazon and
Walmart, they can shut down the marketplace and subsume some items into their standard
retailing function. That transition cuts off the long tail of items consumers expect to find online,
and it burns hundreds of thousands of independent businesses that currently thrive in the
marketplace system but become irrelevant in a retailing model. Meanwhile, standalone online
marketplaces, like eBay and Etsy, have to revamp their entire business or exit the industry
entirely, which further reduces competition for online retailing. The net competitive effects,
then, are that consumers will pay higher prices, consumers will lose their ability to find long-tail
items and incur higher search costs to do so, existing market leaders will consolidate their
dominant positions, and hundreds of thousands of people will lose their jobs.

In contrast, who wins in this situation? The only winners are trademark owners, some of whom
hate online marketplaces because they are tired of seeing their goods leak out of official
distribution channels into more price-discounted online marketplaces, because they hate
competing against used items of the goods they sell, and because some counterfeiting does take
place there (as it does in the offline world too). To address those concerns, they are willing to
burn down the entire online marketplace industry. What I can’t understand is why any
members of Congress would be so willing to give trademark owners their wishlist when the
results would be so disadvantageous for their constituents. The trademark owner lobby is
strong, but our governance systems should be strong enough to resist terrible and selfish
legislation like this.

Brand owners are better cost distributors – increasing liability on platforms

increases the price of all goods sold
Andrew Ligon Fant, 2022 - J.D. Candidate, 2023, University of Georgia School of Law.
“Reconsidering the Willful Blindness Doctrine in Contributory Trademark Infringement,” 29 J.
INTELL. PROP. L. 318 (2022). Available at:
https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/jipl/vol29/iss2/3 //DH

Indeed, brand owners, not online marketplace owners, are in the best position to identify
infringement in ecommerce because of their expertise in their products and registered
marks.174 Also, as Professors Schechter and Thomas argue, brand owners are the better cost
distributors.175 If marketplaces must absorb the cost of policing and paying compensation for
infringement, the cost would likely be borne by every user since such cost would likely be
distributed across all goods sold in the marketplace.176 Whereas, if brands—like Tiffany—
absorb the cost, only consumers of that brand would bear the cost since the cost would be
distributed across all of that brand’s genuine goods.177
 2nc/1nr they say: “status quo enforcement is more costly” —
trademark
The plan induces over enforcement – trademark owners will submit bad-faith
claims to drive competitors out of the market
Engine, 2020 - Engine is a non-profit technology policy, research, and advocacy organization
that bridges the gap between policymakers and startups. Comment submitted to US Patent and
Trademark Office, “Re: Comments of Engine Advocacy in Response to Secondary Trademark
Infringement Liability in the E-Commerce Setting, Docket No. PTO-T-2020-0035,” 12/28,
https://downloads.regulations.gov/PTO-T-2020-0035-0008/attachment_1.pdf //DH

III. There are improper takedowns and abuse of the current system, and policymakers should
avoid shifting liability to e-commerce platforms which would exacerbate problems and lead to a
sizeable removal of legitimate content

While the current doctrine of contributory liability is largely working well, there is still abuse of
the system and few opportunities for startup e-commerce platforms and users wrongfully
accused of infringement to fight back. Abusive trademark assertion or enforcement has an
especially “deleterious effect on startups and smaller platforms that may lack the resources to
respond properly to a dispute” between a purported mark owner and the user accused of
infringement.27 This puts a fine point on the value of balanced frameworks, and strongly
cautions against adopting any new legal doctrines which would make these forms of abuse
easier or more profitable. And shifting more liability onto e-commerce platforms would end up
escalating the removal of more legitimate posts and goods, which would hurt small businesses
and creators who have posts improperly removed.

It is unfortunately common for purported trademark owners to overreach or send bad faith
notices, for example, seeking to have non-infringing posts removed. As a number of smaller
platforms have reported, spurious takedown notices can “be sent with the deliberate intent to
exert unwarranted control over the free flow of information online. The rightsholder may intend
to undermine a competitor or to censor critical speech, for example.”28 Examples of such
improper or abusive takedown requests include:

● A restaurant obtained a trademark for the name of a popular southern dessert, and then
asked a platform to remove websites that posted recipes to that dessert on the ground of
alleged trademark infringement.29

● A small business owner that repurposes items—for example, making purses from food
packaging or jewelry from building blocks—was subject to trademark infringement allegations
for trying to sell those repurposed products on an e-commerce platform for homemade
goods.30

● An author obtained a trademark on the word “cocky,” and sent takedown notices to an e-
book platform seeking removal of other books with “cocky” in the title. Some of the accused
authors went so far as changing the name of their book or abandoning merchandise associated
with their works. A trade association for authors hired a lawyer to stop improper takedowns and
have books restored to the platform.31

● Volkswagen filed multiple takedown requests to remove art of beetles from a digital art
platform. In an apparent sweep to remove all images that were tagged with the word “beetle,”
Volkswagen effectively asserted ownership over bug species and asked the platform to remove
images a scientist had drawn of different species of beetles. The artist had to retain a lawyer to
have her art restored, and lost revenue in the time her work was removed from the platform.32

● In the political context, a political action committee supporting Hillary Clinton issued a
takedown notice against parodies of a campaign logo. And Ben Carson sent takedown requests
against the use of his name on merchandise referring to his presidential campaign.33

● Fox sent takedown notices to Google seeking to have a science fiction book titled “Homeland”
removed from the platform, suggesting this unrelated book (a sequel in a young adult series)
somehow infringed trademark in the television program Homeland based solely on a common
title (and no other relation or similarity).34

Moreover, in the trademark context there is no formal mechanism for e-commerce platforms to
restore content,35 like the DMCA’s counter-notice procedure for restoring wrongfully removed
content.36 A number of e-commerce platforms have reported seeing a conflation of copyright-
and trademark-related takedown requests, as the notice-sender knows “the use of [trademark-
related] requests significantly reduces the ability of users targeted by an accusation of
infringement to challenge that accusation.”37

If platforms faced heightened liability for contributory trademark infringement, it would create
an incentive for them to remove more legitimate, non-infringing content. Indeed, because
platforms know even less about other entities’ trademarks, those platforms would have even
less information than the mark owners to decide what to take down. The risk of liability when
getting those questions wrong, though, would pressure platforms to increase takedowns of non-
infringing posts.

Only Amazon will survive plan’s liability requirement, giving it the ability to jack
up prices
Robby Soave, 2022 – senior editor at Reason “The SHOP SAFE Act Would Entrench Amazon's
Dominance: An ill-conceived proposal to increase liability for online marketplaces could
effectively outlaw all but the biggest players.”reason.com [BLOG] Reason Foundation. Jan 19,
2022. Proquest. Accessed via University of Michigan //DH

The SHOP SAFE Act is a typical piece of safety-themed legislation, in that it would accomplish
something much more sinister than what its name promises. Far from protecting online
shoppers from harmful products, this legislation—sponsored by Rep. Jerry Nadler (D–N.Y.) in the
House and by Sen. Chris Coons (D–Del.) in the Senate—threatens to obliterate online
marketplaces by subjecting them to increased liability.
Democrats are currently plotting to add the SHOP SAFE Act to the bipartisan Endless Frontier
Act, a technology infrastructure bill that already passed in the Senate and could certainly
become law sometime in the future. This would be a disaster; the SHOP SAFE Act has massive
problems that would make it very difficult for smaller online marketplaces to survive. While the
bill is undoubtedly intended to seize on Congress's anti–Big Tech fervor, the likely outcome of its
passage would be the solidification of Amazon's dominance.

That's because the bill would raise the liability threshold for online marketplaces: not just
Amazon and eBay, but also Etsy, Facebook, and virtually any internet platform where goods can
be sold—even Gmail.

"The current bill language could be interpreted to cover anything from Craigslist to Gmail—
basically any online service that can play a role in advertising, selling, or delivering goods,"
argues the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). "This isn't just some reach reading that we
came up with; at least two anti-counterfeiting organizations supporting SHOP SAFE have urged
Congress to make sure it applies even to Facebook Messenger and WhatsApp."

Any online platform where goods can theoretically be exchanged could be liable if those goods
were counterfeit and "implicate health and safety," per the bill's wording. Needless to say, this is
extremely broad language that could scare the big platforms' would-be competitors out of the
market entirely. One of the easiest ways to entrench Amazon as the default online marketplace
would be for regulators to add a crippling liability burden that only Amazon is wealthy enough
to survive.

If that weren't bad enough, the SHOP SAFE Act also raises serious digital privacy concerns, by
requiring platforms to collect information from their vendors. Given how vast the coverage is
here, EFF worries about a world in which users have to "provide a copy of your driver's license
to Craigslist just to advertise your garage sale or sell a used bike."

Eric Goldman, a professor of law at Santa Clara University, describes the bill as a massive
invasion of privacy that could inadvertently help hackers obtain damaging information on buyers
and sellers.

"This bill will kill online marketplaces and make markets less efficient," he writes. "The net
competitive effects, then, are that consumers will pay higher prices, consumers will lose their
ability to find long-tail items and incur higher search costs to do so, existing market leaders will
consolidate their dominant positions, and hundreds of thousands of people will lose their jobs."
***internal link***
 2nc/1nr they say: “economy resilient to inflation”
The economy isn’t resilient—inflation could tip the scales
Green 24 (Jon Green is President, Founder, and Financial Advisor at Encompass Advisors.
“What Could Happen If the US Economy Collapsed?” 1/24/2024. Accessed 6/18/2024.
https://www.encompassadvisors.com/post/a-us-economic-collapse-what-could-happen) wtk

The US economy appears to be doing well, according to an IPC economic outlook report. In fact,
by the end of 2023, unemployment dropped to 3.8%, and inflation continued to decrease. The
markets appear to have stabilized.
But that’s not the whole story.
The financial markets have long been removed from the realities of the American economy.
Stock prices rise and fall based on investor emotion, not asset quality. Checkr, a background
check and verification company, surveyed 3,000 workers and managers to discover that
employees are overworked and underpaid. More and more Americans are taking a second job
to pay the bills.
Housing continues to be cost-prohibitive for millions of Americans, many struggling with
inflation and price gouging. Private equity has bought a sustainable amount of resources, such
as hospitals, clinics, housing, and advisory firms.
In other words, the economy hasn’t necessarily healed just because the numbers look a little
higher than a few months ago. One catastrophic event might be enough to drive the economy
into a downturn.

Inflation disrupts the economy through multiple mechanisms

L’Huillier and DeLuca 23 (Jean-Paul L’Huillier, Associate Professor of Economics at Brandeis
University, former Senior Research Economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland. Martin
DeLuca is a research analyst in the Research Department at the Federal Reserve Bank of
Cleveland. “The Long-Run Costs of Higher Inflation” 10/17/2023. Accessed 6/18/2024.
https://www.clevelandfed.org/publications/economic-commentary/2023/ec-202317-the-long-
run-costs-of-higher-inflation) wtk

Under elevated trend inflation, the frictions discussed previously pose potential consequences
through multiple mechanisms. In this section, we discuss three of them: loss of purchasing
power, capital misallocation and investment distortions, and the slope of the Phillips curve.
Loss of purchasing power. In the above discussion of wage stickiness, the purchasing power of
wages erodes when frictions prevent them from adjusting at the same rate as rising prices.5
Individuals with sticky wages consume fewer goods and services as the general level of prices
rises, a situation which reflects a direct loss to financial well-being. This loss is amplified when
considering a subsequent drop in aggregate demand. As some individuals lower their spending,
the would-be recipients of the forgone spending have a lower income, and they, in turn, reduce
their spending. This pattern of reduced consumption ripples through the economy, producing
an aggregate decline in welfare.
Capital misallocation and investment distortions. Under elevated trend inflation, financial
frictions generate distortions in investment returns and in transfers between individuals. In
sophisticated financial markets, these frictions make some asset classes better hedges against
trend inflation than others. Real estate and stocks are prime examples. The price of real estate,
especially residential housing, generally increases at the rate of inflation. This is true for several
reasons. Because real estate requires numerous types of materials and services to maintain and
construct, increases in other prices increase the price of real estate, both for new construction
and existent structures. For stocks, however, the relationship is more complicated. Because
stock prices reflect the present value of a company’s expected returns, lower profits reduce
stock returns.6 Under elevated trend inflation, sticky prices reduce firm profitability because
firms face costs for raising prices alongside inflation.7 Firms may also spend more time
optimizing purchase decisions amid distorted prices, a task which also increases costs and
lowers profits.
Overall, elevated trend inflation tends to favor increased returns in real estate and lower
common stock returns, a situation which aligns with evidence in Fama and Schwert (1977).8 This
distorted pattern of returns incentivizes the transfer of investment from stocks to real estate,
with implications for macroeconomic efficiency. As investment shifts away from firms, the cost
of raising capital for firms will increase, potentially generating further price increases and
reducing wages. This also may reduce productivity if firms lack the funds to invest in research
and development. Reduced productivity may lower economic growth over longer periods of
time, and lower real wages may reduce output in the immediate term. Together, these two
effects may generate losses throughout the economy that outweigh gains in real estate prices.
Slope of the Phillips curve. The Phillips curve, named after the economist A.W. Phillips, is a
hypothesized inverse relationship between the inflation and unemployment rate. The theory
holds that higher levels of inflation are associated with lower levels of unemployment in the
short run (between one and five years). A low unemployment rate is typically evidence of a tight
labor market in which employees have greater leverage in wage negotiations. Greater employee
leverage leads to higher wages, a circumstance that often increases consumption and therefore
prices. The slope of the Phillips curve refers to the change in the rate of inflation corresponding
to a change in the unemployment rate. It depends on the flexibility of prices and wages in the
economy: If prices and wages adjust quickly and frequently, small changes in the unemployment
rate are associated with large changes in the rate of inflation if all else remains the same.
Because elevated trend inflation requires that prices update more frequently and because
individuals and firms would adapt to expect this, the slope of the Phillips curve increases with
the rate of trend inflation.9
The Phillips curve can affect aggregate welfare in several ways. If the Phillips curve becomes
steeper, short-term inflation, or nontrend inflation, becomes more volatile and requires more
intervention by the central bank to stabilize, and this can amplify existing price distortions and
distortions in asset class returns as the central bank changes interest rates to maintain the
inflation rate. Increased short-term inflation volatility also increases the likelihood that the
central bank will need to drop rates near zero. Encountering the zero lower bound is a binding
constraint that leaves the bank unable to stimulate the economy by lowering interest rates
further, and this bind can hinder economic recovery after a recession.
Even if inflation doesn’t directly cause collapse, it causes other economic
tipping points
Green 24 (Jon Green is President, Founder, and Financial Advisor at Encompass Advisors.
“What Could Happen If the US Economy Collapsed?” 1/24/2024. Accessed 6/18/2024.
https://www.encompassadvisors.com/post/a-us-economic-collapse-what-could-happen) wtk

Fluctuating inflation—or price gouging, which is just as relevant—reduces purchasing power for
the everyday American. It devalues portfolio value and reduces overall spending. Less spending
results in a stagnant economy, leading to fewer jobs and more economic unrest.

While this may not cause collapse, it may lead to other tipping points.
***impact***
 2nc/1nr they say: “economic decline doesn’t cause war”
Decline causes increased revisionism and diversionary pressures
Jung 22 (Sung Chul Jung, Assistant Professor of Political Science and Diplomacy at Myongji
University, “Economic slowdowns and international conflict” Journal of Peace Research 2022,
Accessed 6/18/2022 via UMich online library. https://doi.org/10.1177/00223433221116656)
wtk *edited for ableist language

Since the 2000s, many pundits and scholars have attributed two rising powers’ instances of
aggression to their domestic problems. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and annexation of Crimea
and its deployment of troops to Syria, along with China’s assertive actions in the South China
Sea, have been seen as aggressions arising out of domestic weakness (Kaplan, 2016). Some have
attributed China’s recent provocative actions against India, Japan, and Taiwan to its struggling
economy in the wake of the pandemic (Myers, 2020). In the post-Cold War period, these two
great powers, often regarded as revisionist powers, have regained their national capabilities to
some extent and have sought higher status in international politics (Larson & Shevchenko,
2010). What made them more aggressive in the 2010s? One promising explanation is their
decreasing economic growth rates. Due to their abundance of natural and human resources,
the two former communist countries had maintained their increased status relative to their
neighboring states since the 2000s or even earlier. However, falling energy prices and the
reform-incapable structures of their economies retarded[slowed] their further growth and
increased the burden on their authoritarian leaders, who also had to manage domestic calls for
political freedom and maintain the legitimacy of their rule. According to this article’s causal
explanation, Russia and China became more revisionist actors in the 2010s at least partly
because their economies went downhill, and their aggressions were directed at smaller and
more vulnerable economies.
A slowing economy and economic dependence have both individual and interactive effects on
military conflict in international politics. Slow growth rates contribute positively to conflict
initiation, especially when an autocracy suffering from a slowing economy targets a democracy
whose economy is dependent on the autocracy. Whereas economic interdependence has been
regarded by many liberal scholars as a reason for international cooperation, this study shows
why and how asymmetric interdependence contributes to interstate conflict by articulating its
interaction with an economic slowdown in a dyadic relationship. Both political unrest and
economic problems have destabilizing effects on international politics, but their effects differ
when economically dependent democracies are the target. Future research should compare
different types of domestic unrest and their effects on international relations with sophisticated
logic and strong evidence.
This analysis shows that economic growth has two distinct effects. Slower growth makes one
state weaker than others and its leaders more vulnerable to domestic challenges. A state’s
economic slowdown not only causes a change in the balance of economic power so as to favor
its competitor but also increases the troubled state’s foreign aggression, which can harm its
adversary. Therefore, it is uncertain whether one state’s economic slowdown benefits its rival’s
security. An autocracy’s slowing economy can be a warning, rather than good news, to its
democratic opponents if the latter maintain economic relationships with the former. In this
regard, economic sanctions may provoke the target leader’s diversionary tactic of blaming its
poor economy on the sanctioner. We can see this pattern in Tokyo’s surprise attack on Pearl
Harbor at a time of US sanctions against Japan, which had continued since the late 1930s.
The current global economic outlook is uncertain in the wake of COVID-19. Although we do not
yet know the pandemic’s long-term economic consequences, all states will likely struggle with
slower growth and the erosion of democracy and will engage in more protectionist policies to
reboot their economies and save major industries. In this context, we should be especially
concerned about the risk that troubled economies pose to international security. As this study’s
findings suggest, slower growth causes domestic problems, which often lead to the diversionary
use of force against foreign states. If we cannot prevent struggling leaders from using
diversionary tactics, worsening economies in authoritarian states will likely drive such states into
a more confrontational or aggressive stance toward their economic partners, if not toward
political and ideological partners. We can all hope world leaders will realize that this is a time to
beat a global pandemic and an economic recession, not to beat up on a foreign state.

Stats prove war is more likely when the economy declines

Leepipatpiboon et al 23 (Patcharaporn Leepipatpiboon, PhD Candidate in Economics at
UCLA; Chiara Castrovillari and Tomohide Mineyama are both IMF staff members,
“Macroeconomic Shocks and Conflict” 3/17/2023. Accessed 6/18/2024 from
https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2023/03/18/Macroeconomic-Shocks-and-
Conflict-531101) wtk

This paper contributes to the research on the macroeconomic origins of conflict. Based on a
sample of 133 lowand middle-income countries over a 30-year period, it analyses to what extent
changes in a country’s commodity terms-of-trade (ToT) can explain an increase in the incidence
and intensity of conflicts through their effect on aggregate income. While the evidence from
previous studies on the link between macroeconomic conditions and conflict is rather
inconclusive, we find a significant relationship. Our baseline model finds that a negative
commodity ToT shock leads to an increase in the number of conflict events and fatalities in our
sample. Moreover, the effect plays out over several years albeit with decreasing strength after
the second year; and its magnitude is twice as large for Low-Income Countries and Fragile and
Conflict-affected States when compared with the sample average. In addition, our results show
that macroeconomic shocks are creating more violence in countries with higher inequality and
in cases where fiscal policy faces relatively stronger constraints on financing a response to the
initial shock to incomes. Our results are robust to a number of plausible variations in model
specification. The paper’s results, in conjunction with previous studies that emphasize the
economic cost of conflicts, suggest the presence of a fragility trap—a vicious cycle of worsening
economic conditions and deteriorating conflicts. Effective policies and well-tailored external
financial support could be expected to help countries address the challenge.
K_CAPITALISM_ NEG
1NC
 First Negative Constructive – Capitalism Kritik
The next off-case is the capitalism kritik.
A. The affirmative’s expansion of IP cements neoliberal exploitation
Dottridge 12, MA in Communication and Culture (Yacine, “Creative Exploitation: Intellectual
Property as a Form of Neoliberal Cultural Policy,” Thesis written under the advisement of
Rosemary Coombe, https://tinyurl.com/bdh48u6f)//BB

I argue that IP has become a form of neoliberal cultural policy According to David Harvey
(2007a: 21), "[N]eoliberalism is a theory of political economic practices proposing that human
well-being can best be advanced by the maximization of entrepreneurial freedoms within an
institutional framework characterized by private property rights, individual liberty,
unencumbered markets, and free trade," and that "The role of the state is to create and
preserve an institutional framework appropriate to such practices." Despite the centrality of
commercial interests in the creation of IP from its earliest historical beginnings, IP rights have
traditionally been the result of a negotiation between private and public interests oriented
towards the social good. With the rise of IP to the centre of industrialized economies, this social
orientation seems to have been replaced by an exclusive focus on private rights, particularly the
right to profit. I will argue that IP's original character as a cultural and social policy to promote
learning and creativity with the aim of producing tangible benefits for society by empowering
creators has been replaced with the tendency to view IP as economic and trade policy centred
on increasing private wealth, where the primary stakeholders in issues surrounding IP are
private parties committed primarily if not exclusively to the accumulation of capital. This shift in
focus has stripped IP of its social dimensions, drawing attention away from its cultural and social
consequences. Just as neoliberalism adopts classical liberal theories while ignoring their
fundamental moral characteristics (W. Brown 2003), IP has been adopted as a tool while being
voided of its substantive social and cultural objectives. It is these goals — creativity, education,
cultural diversity, social vibrancy — that suffer as a consequence of IP's reorientation as policy
directed towards economic objectives rather than social or cultural ones. The current practice of
IP results in: undue restrictions on free speech and creativity (Amani forthcoming 2013; Gordon
3 1993; Netanel 2008; Vaver 1990); the expansion of markets into all spheres of cultural life
(Coombe 1998; Jameson 1998); the reorganization and fragmentation of global labour (Gill &
Pratt 2008; McGuigan 2004, 2009; Miller 1996, 2010; Ross 2008, 2009; Rossiter 2003); the
destruction of biodiversity (Prudham 2007), unequal access to technology, knowledge, and
medicine (Drahos 2003; Halbert 2005); the concentration of economic and cultural resources
(Harvey 2002; May 2002) leading to a widening gap in social power between corporations and
citizens (Bettig 1996; Halbert 2006); and the increased marginalization of already marginalized
groups (Coombe 2003; Amani & Coombe 2005). To many, these developments present
significant cause for alarm.
B. IP’s unequal and non-distributed gains are intrinsically unethical and
unsustainable. Abolition frees up space for local alternatives.
Andrews 19, Associate Professor of Cultural Studies at Columbia College Chicago, PhD in
Cultural Studies (Sean, “The Cultural Production of Intellectual Property Rights,” p. 38-40)//BB

If the previous chapter looks at the political/legal defense of a certain economic model, Chapter
4 continues by exploring the obverse: the economic arguments in defense of a certain
political/legal model. It highlights a disconnect between neoclassical indexes of value (e.g.,
price) and the social process of valorization from which they are abstracted. Although critics of
IPR are able to see the latter with regard to “creative” work, their observations would apply to
the products of most other kinds of labor. The chapter outlines the ways in which some
concepts from Marx—commodification, primitive accumulation, and the division of labor—help
describe, on the one hand, the inadequacy of this index and, on the other hand, the historical,
social, and material process whereby it came to appear descriptive in the U.S. context. It
develops more fully the concept of “cultural efficacy” to denote the process whereby top-down
programs and products gain bottom-up legitimacy. It argues that the implementation of IPR in
its current form is indeed a form of unjust appropriation, but this injustice is not limited to
intangible property— it is intrinsic to the system that critics of this program otherwise defend.

On this ground, we can turn to the global, digital spaces of the limited reification of the culture
of property in general and the culture of IP in particular—and the attempts by policy makers to
impose both through trade agreements and other forms of international law. In the end, this is
what Herbert Schiller and others meant by cultural imperialism: the attempt to completely
transfer the cultural framework of capitalism throughout the developing world, resulting in the
global rule of capitalist social relations and the international protection of private property
rights, capital investment, and “shareholder value.” But only by recognizing this cultural
formation, only by working from a coherent, complete conceptualization of culture, with the
animating and attenuating dialectics outlined above, can this complete system, idealized in
theory and coercive in practice, be critically engaged—nor can the resistance to its imposition be
fully comprehended.

The paradox between liberalism and democracy remains salient at this level, and, in part, the
uneven development of these processes creates the conflicts that continue to stall the smooth
imposition of a global legal environment that would serve capital and property alone. Locally
conceived alternatives, emerging in indigenous communities and what Ankie Hoogvelt terms
the “post-development” countries of Latin America, are able to witness the limits of the liberal
culture of property and rethink the contours of this model in their own context. This resistance,
termed “irrational” or “autocratic,” also opens a contradictory space of counterhegemonic
struggle. The lesson for scholars of cultural studies is not that these areas will produce an
alternative model to be applied from the top down elsewhere but that the more deliberative,
collaborative understanding of culture—and value and, therefore, property—that emerges from
these struggles can inform our criticism of the dominant culture of the hegemonic core. In other
words, the lessons to draw from the space where this culture of property is yet to become
reified can clarify the limits that current critics of IP set on the prospects for social change. On
the other hand, the fact of uneven development should alert us to the continued expropriation
of the periphery for the benefit of the core— and show that the simple suturing of the IP
regime at the global scale for the benefit of core, postindustrial
economies is unethical and unsustainable.
C. Every ‘advantage’ under neoliberalism is built on imperialism, violent
austerity and white supremacy.
Hickel 21, Economic anthropologist, Professor at the Institute for Environmental Science and
Technology at the Autonomous University of Barcelona and Visiting Senior Fellow at the
International Inequalities Institute at the London School of Economics, Editor of the journal
World Development, and serves on the Statistical Advisory Panel for the UN Human
Development Report, the advisory board of the Green New Deal for Europe, and the Harvard-
Lancet Commission on Reparations and Redistributive Justice (Jason, December 5 th, “The Age of
Imperialism is Not Over—But We Can End It,” Current Affairs,
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2021/12/the-age-of-imperialism-is-not-over-but-we-can-end-it)

To answer these questions, we must come to grips with a key feature of the world economy—
one that pundits in the global North tend either to ignore or wish away—namely, the fact that
capitalist growth is fundamentally dependent on imperialism. This arrangement, which has
persisted now for 500 years in various forms, is beginning to come under significant strain, and
climate breakdown is likely to widen the cracks. This opens up opportunities for change, but also
poses significant dangers. Everything depends on how governments and social movements
choose to respond.

The key thing to grasp is that, under capitalism, “growth” is not about increasing production in
order to meet human needs. It is about increasing production in order to extract and
accumulate profit. That is the overriding objective. To keep such a system going requires several
interventions. First, you have to cheapen the prices of inputs (labor, land, materials, energy,
suppliers, etc.) as much as possible, and maintain those prices at a low level. Second, you have
to ensure a constantly increasing supply of those cheap inputs. And third, you need to establish
control over captive markets that will absorb your output.

Growth along these lines cannot occur within an isolated system. If you place too much
pressure on your domestic resource base or your domestic working class, sooner or later you
are likely to face a revolution. To avoid such an outcome, capitalism always requires an
“outside,” external to itself, where it can cheapen labor and nature with impunity and
appropriate them on a vast scale; an outside where it can “externalize” social and ecological
damages, where rebellions can be contained, and where it does not have to negotiate with local
grievances or demands.

This is where the colonies come in. From the origins of capitalism in the late 15th century,
growth in the “core” of the world economy (Western Europe, the United States, Canada,
Australia, New Zealand and Japan) has always depended on the sabotage of labor and
resources in the “periphery”. Consider the silver plundered from the Andes, the sugar and
cotton extracted from land appropriated from Indigenous Americans, the grain, rubber, gold and
countless other resources appropriated from Asia and Africa, and the mass enslavement and
indenture of African and Indigenous people—all of which exacted a staggering human and
ecological toll. On top of this, colonizers destroyed local industries and self-sufficient economies
wherever they went, in order to establish captive markets. There was no lag between the rise of
capitalism and the imperial project. Imperialism was the mechanism of capitalist expansion.

As the Indian economists Utsa Patnaik and Prabhat Patnaik put it, capitalist growth requires an
imperial arrangement—not as a side gig but as a structurally necessary feature. Imperialism
ensures that inputs remain cheap, and thus maintains the conditions for capital accumulation.
But it also underpins the fragile inter-class truce that prevails in the core states. If you’re going
to raise the real wages of the working classes in the core, or take steps to protect the local
ecology, then in order to maintain capital accumulation you have to compensate for this by
depressing the costs of labor and nature elsewhere, namely, among workers and producers in
the global South. Ever since the rise of the labor movement in the late 19th century, capital’s
concessions to the working classes in Europe and the United States have been possible in large
part because of imperialism.

This arrangement came under strain in the middle of the 20th century, however, as radical anti-
imperialist movements gained traction across the global South. After winning political
independence, many Southern governments set about dismantling colonial systems of
extraction. They protected their economies and supported their domestic producers using
tariffs, subsidies and capital controls; they instituted land reforms; they nationalized key
resources and industries; they rolled out public services and improved workers’ wages. This
movement was successful in advancing economic sovereignty and improving human
development across much of the South. But it also constrained the core’s access to cheap labor
and nature, and reduced their control over Southern markets.

The collapse of the imperial arrangement posed a significant threat to Northern capital
accumulation. This problem was mitigated for a time by Keynesian policy: massive government
expenditure boosted aggregate demand in the global North and generated an extraordinary
economic expansion, providing a temporary “fix” for capital. Further concessions to the working
classes of the core were sustained under these conditions, permitting the rise of social
democracy in some states. But this fix could only hold for so long. As wages rose in the core and
the supply price rose in the periphery, growth ground to a halt, capital accumulation became
increasingly untenable, and by the mid-1970s the economies of the global North were overcome
by a full-blown crisis of stagflation. As it turns out, capitalism cannot function for long under
conditions of global justice. Fair wages and decolonization are compatible with a functioning
economy, but they are not compatible with a functioning capitalist economy, because they limit
the possibility of capital accumulation.

To deal with the crisis of the 1970s, capital needed a way to restore the imperial arrangement,
to once again depress Southern prices and regain access to Southern markets. To achieve this,
the core states intervened to depose progressive leaders in the global South—including, most
prominently, Mossadegh in Iran, Arbenz in Guatemala, Sukarno in Indonesia, Nkrumah in Ghana,
and Allende in Chile—replacing them with regimes more amenable to Northern economic
interests. But the final blow was delivered by the World Bank and the IMF, which during the
1980s and 1990s imposed neoliberal structural adjustment programs (SAPs) across the region.
This move shifted control over economic policy from the national parliaments of the South to
technocrats in Washington and bankers in New York and London, ending the brief era of
economic sovereignty. SAPs dismantled protections on labor and the environment, privatized
public goods and cut public spending, reversing the reforms of the anti-colonial movement in
one fell swoop.

It worked: wages and prices in the South collapsed under structural adjustment, and the new
“free trade” regime allowed Northern capital to shift production abroad in order to take direct
advantage of cheap labor and inputs. This enabled a massive increase in the scale and intensity
of appropriation from the global South during the 1980s and 1990s, restoring the imperial
arrangement and resolving the crisis of capitalism. Those who see neoliberalism as the main
problem, and who fantasize about reverting to a less destructive version of capitalist growth, fail
to grasp this point. The neoliberal turn was not some kind of mistake; it was necessary to
restore the conditions for growth in the core. It was the obligatory next step in capitalist
development.

But now, as the 21st century wears on, the engines of imperial appropriation are slowing down
again. This reality is evident in the declining rate of economic growth in the core states, which
economists have come to refer to as “secular stagnation.” This is happening for several reasons.

First, in the wake of structural adjustment, the collapse of the USSR, and the semi-integration of
China, there are few nation-states and territories left that have not been brought into the remit
of the capitalist world system. Imperialist expansion has effectively reached the limits of the
planet. Now, instead of shifting production to new pools of cheap labor, capital has to deal with
the existing workforce and their demands for higher wages. Second, certain regions of the South
—specifically China and the leftist states of South America—are managing to push back against
imperialism and improve their terms of trade, even while operating within the basic structure of
the capitalist economy. All of this is leading to a rising supply price, which spells trouble for
capital accumulation — and growth — in the core.

But perhaps most importantly — and this is the clincher — climate change and ecological
breakdown are beginning to undermine the conditions of production on the tropical landmass.
This is beginning to manifest already, with climate chaos ravaging parts of Central America, the
Middle East and North Africa, driving social dislocation and human displacement. Without some
kind of dramatic change in direction it will get much worse. With existing policies, we are
headed for 2.7 degrees of heating this century, which is likely to trigger multi-breadbasket
failure and sustained food supply disruptions across large parts of the global South, displace
more than 1.5 billion people, wipe out 30–50% of species, and render much of the tropics
uninhabitable for humans.

This is a problem for capital, because growth in the global North depends utterly on production
in the global South and depends utterly on Southern land and resources—today just as much as
during the colonial period. Recent research finds that rich countries rely on a net appropriation
of land equal to twice the size of India, a net appropriation of 10 billion tons of material
resources per year, and a net appropriation of embodied labor equivalent to a standing army of
180 million workers. This means that as labor is displaced and disrupted, and as the productive
capacity of land is constrained by heatwaves, wildfires, storms and desertification, this will lead
to a rising supply price in the core that will trigger a severe crisis for capital—more serious than
anything it has yet encountered.

The question is, how will the core states respond? To maintain the rate of growth and capital
accumulation in the face of this crisis, they will have to find a way to cut the supply price once
again.

There are two obvious possibilities. One option is to cut wages in the core states, shred the
welfare system and privatize public services, all of which would help cheapen inputs and open
up new frontiers for accumulation, giving some reprieve to capital. This option — domestic
neoliberal austerity — was deployed in the US and Britain during the 1980s as part of the
response to the initial collapse of the imperial arrangement. Now it is being increasingly taken
up by the European social democracies themselves, including the Nordics.

Of course, the risk of this approach is that it could trigger a backlash from the domestic working
class, which could coalesce into a socialist revolution. Aware of this danger, politicians will seek
to promote anti-immigrant and white nationalist narratives. By directing working-class
grievance toward an “other,” this approach gets people to accept their own immiseration, so
long as they can feel an affinity with the ruling class on the basis of race, and feel superior to
people of colour who are kept in conditions more miserable than their own. This strategy has
long been used to support the neoliberal project in the United States, and the ruling classes of
the UK and Europe are now also turning to this playbook. Boris Johnson is a master of this in
British politics.

The second option is that the core states could double down on imperialism. It is not difficult to
imagine new rounds of invasion and occupation intended to force Southern prices back down.
The recent coup in Bolivia, backed by the U.S. with its rising appetite for cheap lithium, offers
hints of what might come. And it is clear that the Biden administration, just as under Trump
before him , is already preparing the grounds for aggression against China, among other things
to constrain China’s domestic demand for resources. Imperialist interventions that cheapen the
supply price would allow capitalists in the global North to maintain accumulation and sustain
their truce with the working classes of the core for a little while longer, even as the world
crumbles around them.

If left to itself, this

is how the capitalist story will play out in the 21st
century: neoliberal austerity, white supremacist ideology, and
violent imperialist interventions—all for the sake of maintaining
growth and capital accumulation in the core. Indeed, this barbarism is
already well underway. Liberal politicians denounce the barbarism at every opportunity, and yet
they cannot bring themselves to address its underlying causes because they remain
fundamentally committed to capitalist growth. The solution that the liberals offer—capital
accumulation without barbarism— is a chimera.
There is an alternative ending to this story, however. If the core states shift to a post-growth,
post-capitalist economic model—in other words, if they abandon the growth imperative and
curtail capital accumulation—this would obviate the need for austerity and imperialist
interventions. This is the power of post-growth transition: it would liberate all of us, in North
and South alike, from the predatory interventions that are required to sustain capital
accumulation.

D> Reject the ideology of property. That facilitates movements against

neoliberalism broadly, tears down white supremacy, inequality and carcerality.
Andrews 19, Associate Professor of Cultural Studies at Columbia College Chicago, PhD in
Cultural Studies (Sean, “The Cultural Production of Intellectual Property Rights,” p. 22-23)//BB

Fraser argues that these recent articulations of the counter movement should alert us to the
need for a movement that will combine the impulses behind the social protection from
neoliberalism and the emancipation from resurgent misogyny, racism, and xenophobia. I agree
that the current conjunction—and especially the U.S. context—demands just this approach.
However, given the recent emphases of cultural studies on issues of emancipation and liberation
in terms of these diverse categories of subjectivity, I contend that it is most important to
consider the ways in which neoliberalism and the culture of property have influenced the
category that most of us have in common: that of laborers. As Christopher May says in his
critique of the idea of “the information society”: Most of us still need to go to work, where there
remains an important division between those who run the company and those who work for it,
not least in terms of rewards. When we look at what allows some of us to become rich and the
rest of us to get by on our pay and pensions, this still has something to do with who owns what.
(2002, p. 2) My critique of IPR (and of the so-called Free Culture movement of Lessig and others)
understands these rights’ expansion in scope and scale as part of a larger neoliberal
assault on the rights of citizens and workers and of the reactionary reorientation of the U.S.
state (and, through the WTO, the International Monetary Fund [IMF], and the World Bank, the
direction of many other states) toward the protection of capitalist profits over the needs of the
larger society. Insofar as we now live in a society that claims culture as part of the economy, and
insofar as our legal system is increasingly structured to prioritize the needs of capitalist property
owners, there is nothing unique about the value produced around IP or the protection of that
value by the neoliberal state. The Free Culture movement has identified the renewed visibility of
the social production of value, which should inspire a deeper reflection on property rights and
neoliberalism more generally. The only way to truly challenge the increased rule and role of
IPR, therefore, is to challenge the “propertarian ideology” (Travis 2000) of the
neoliberal state. This challenge, in turn, will provide the grounding for precisely the kind of
multipronged movement to combat not only the resurgent white-male supremacy but also the
crippling [devastating] economic policies that have created the inequality, carceral discipline,
and diseases of despair that are likely to be the scourge of all in the coming years.
E. Epistemology first. Every affirmative advantage is a fabrication grounded in
the culture of property. Reject the affirmative to shatter the terms of IP debate.
Andrews 19, Associate Professor of Cultural Studies at Columbia College Chicago, PhD in
Cultural Studies (Sean, “The Cultural Production of Intellectual Property Rights,” p. 3-6)//BB

Limiting the range of political economic options is fundamental to the modern, capitalist
conception of the state, dating back to John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government but
rearticulated in the present era in what Chantal Mouffe (2000) calls “the democratic paradox,”
which is a hegemonic stabilization of the inherent tension between liberty and equality. Mouffe
asserts that “the unchallenged hegemony of neo-liberalism represents a threat for democratic
institutions”: Neo-liberal dogmas about the unviolable [sic] rights of property, the all-
encompassing virtues of the market and the dangers of interfering with its logics constitute
nowadays the “common sense” in liberaldemocratic societies and they are having a profound
impact on the left, as many left parties are moving to the right and euphemistically redefining
themselves as “centre-left.” In a very similar way, Blair’s “third way” and Schroder’s “neue
Mitte,” both inspired by Clinton’s strategy of “triangulation,” accept the terrain established by
their neoliberal predecessors. (Ibid., p. 6) This study focuses especially on the dogma of “the
unviolable rights of property” and the ways in which the leaders of the balanced copyright
movement— including Lessig and other neoliberal stalwarts—have gone out of their way to
affirm what I call the reified culture of property, even as they present evidence of the social
production of value that should challenge the moral and philosophical foundations of this
dogma. Following Georg Lukács’s (1971) elaboration of the concept, by reification I mean the
epistemological fallacy whereby processes and relations between people are perceived as
natural, ahistorical, thingly obstacles to be navigated rather than social constructs to be
negotiated or altered. And, as I show herein, since the early days of English capitalism, its
advocates have argued that its preferred social property relations are rooted in “natural law,”
unchangeable by people, politics, and, especially, the law or the state.

From one perspective then, this book is not about IPR. Instead, it concerns the mainstream
debate over IPR and what that debate reveals about what I call the reified culture of property
that pervades Western capitalist societies. The debate about IPR is usually centered on the way
digitization and globalization have changed how the properties in question are produced and
distributed and their owners remunerated, but the rupture created by these global, digital
processes should inspire broader questions regarding the social production of value and the
liberal (or neoliberal, as it is often discussed) defense of law and the state. I argue that the
opening created by globalization and digitization and evidenced by the debate over IPR allows
us to reevaluate this broader culture surrounding property, its social valorization, and the role of
the state in its protection. The early rhetoric of globalization and digitization promised amazing,
liberatory possibilities: Technological progress! The spread of democratic freedoms! A more
humane, environmentally friendly labor and production process! As usual, the myths of the
global village and the “end of work” have yet to be realized: this book argues that tugging at the
political, economic, cultural, and technological threads woven through the concept, laws, and
practices surrounding IPR is an important start toward the creation of a more democratic,
humane society, to paraphrase Stuart Hall.
LINKS
 Link: Generic IP
Strengthening IP rights cements neoliberal biopower
Hull 19, PhD, Professor of Philosophy @ UNC-Charlotte (Gordon, “The Biopolitics of Intellectual
Property,” p. 9)//BB

In the years since Foucault’s death in 1984, it has become clear that biopower has at least two
forms. One is concerned with the productivity of populations in a general sense, and can be
seen in large-scale, publicly funded infrastructure programs. The second, a neoliberal variant,
attempts to achieve many of the same results by directly incentivizing individual behaviors. The
strategies and techniques of neoliberal biopolitics derive from an extension of economic
reasoning to all factors of life. If classical liberalism attempted to allow markets to function,
neoliberalism not only tries to create markets where previously there had been none, it also
understands problems and regulations only insofar as they are presented in market-oriented
terms. Individuals are no longer rights-bearing subjects or equivalent members of a population;
instead, they are understood to be economically rational agents, seeking to maximize their own
outcomes. Good policies are those which are efficient in facilitating this process. For example, if
developing human capital is a goal of government, then citizens need to understand themselves
as involved in developing their human capital; a decision to pursue education or good health
practices should be something that people make on the basis of expected returns on that
investment. Similarly, people should avoid behaviors that are likely to damage their future
earning capacity. This process of subject formation, accomplished through a complex web of
nudges, pushes, legal strictures, environmental and architectural restraints, works to create the
sorts of individuals who most easily work toward neoliberal biopolitical aims.

A quick look at the US Constitutional text suggests that IP exists at the nexus of juridical and
public biopower.10 The goal – progress in the arts and sciences – is clearly biopolitical, but the
mechanism – property rights – is juridical. It is my central contention that IP has shifted
markedly (if unevenly) in the last twenty years or so in the direction of neoliberal biopolitics.
Even when they were economically justified, earlier iterations of IP functioned much more along
the public biopower model, attempting to improve the welfare of the public as a whole, with
provisions such as limits on term length designed to ensure that the public benefited as much
and as quickly as possible. Neoliberal IP maintains the idea of welfare enhancement, but it
grants many more rights to producers, and instead of benefiting the public at
large, it increasingly targets individuals in the public directly, reconceptualizing them as
consumers and their welfare in strictly economic terms.

“IP rights” are a colonial lie designed to siphon resources away from the Global
South---COVID proves any US tech advances will be hoarded.
Shirazi & Johnson 21, Nima Shirazi: Editor at Muftah, a digital foreign affairs magazine, and co-
host of the media criticism podcast, Citations Needed. Adam Johnson: Host, The Appeal podcast.
Media analyst at FAIR.org and host of the Citations Needed podcast (January 27 th, “Episode 129:
Vaccine Apartheid and US Media’s Uncritical Adoption of Racist “Intellectual Property” Dogma,”
Citations Needed Podcast, https://citationsneeded.medium.com/episode-129-vaccine-
apartheid-us-medias-uncritical-adoption-of-racist-intellectual-property-b7fed9e288e6)//BB

Nima: “The COVID-19 vaccine is ripe for the blackmarket,” warns an NBC News opinion piece.
“Iran-linked hackers recently targeted coronavirus drugmaker Gilead,” reports Reuters. “Hackers
‘try to steal COVID vaccine secrets in intellectual property war,’” blares a Guardian headline. As
the COVID-19 pandemic raged and pharmaceutical companies raced to develop a vaccine,
Western media routinely asserted without question or criticism the premise that vaccine
“intellectual property” is a zero-sum possession that’s been “stolen” by malicious foreign
actors, blackmarket criminals, and of course, dreaded “pirates.”

Adam: With rare exception, the conceit that intellectual property for the COVID-19 vaccine is a
finite thing that can be leaked, spied on or stolen — presumably to the detriment of the average
American, somehow — is simply taken for granted. Similarly, assumed across corporate media
reports is the notion that it is the US government’s job — no, their duty — is to protect sacred
American intellectual property. National security experts, weapons contractor-funded think
tanks, and national security reporters uniformly decry the sinister and shadowy agents and
adversaries out to snatch America’s hard-earned vaccine dominance.

Nima: Nowhere in all this fear mongering and hand-wringing is there any sense of the much
greater injustice at work: that the vaccine is in fact hoarded by the security states of wealthy
nations, secured for power and securitized for profit. It is virtually unquestioned that only some
countries or companies should be allowed access to the knowledge of finding and developing a
vaccine, and no consideration that, maybe, there’s no such thing as too many countries working
toward the management and eradication of a deadly virus.

Adam: From this default capitalist — and as we will show, racist — mindset has emerged what
activists have long argued would be inevitable: a global apartheid regime of vaccine access that
tracks almost one-to-one with historical currents of colonialism. An extension of an IP regime
that has cut off the Global South from other life-saving medicines for decades, exacerbating
the devastating effects of epidemics such as malaria and AIDS.

Nima: In the wake of the George Floyd protests in the summer of 2020, much of American
corporate media decided to audit their own internally racist practices, but for reasons of
partisan expediency and capitalist ideology, this sudden concern for historical racism seems to
have stopped at the water’s edge, and U.S. media has largely covered the emerging Vaccine
Apartheid regime as an inevitable act of god, rather than springing from explicit white
supremacist IP fetishization, codified and defended by leaders of both American political
parties. Indeed, if one were to place a map of when a country can expect to be fully vaccinated
over the next few years on top of a map of economic exploitation, colonial extraction and
capitalism-imposed poverty in the Global South, it would be an almost exact match. This
emerging Vaccine Apartheid — while potentially complicated by Chinese soft power efforts to
vaccinate the Global South — is not only inevitable, but the deliberate result of our 1990s-era,
post-Cold War economic order created by the World Trade Organization.
Adam: On this week’s episode, we will trace the colonial origins of American media’s uncritical
adoption of “intellectual property above all else,” why the WTO is functioning exactly how it was
designed to, and how US corporate anti-racism discourse goes out its way to make sure
discussions of white supremacy never examine the manifestly racist effects of the American
and European-led capitalist order.
 Link: Trademark
Strengthening trademark rights corporatizes identity by equating consumption
and subjecthood. That greases the wheels for corporate accumulation.
Hull 19, PhD, Professor of Philosophy @ UNC-Charlotte (Gordon, “The Biopolitics of Intellectual
Property,” p. 110-111)//BB

A second way that dilution evidences a neoliberal turn in trademark is that it reflects the shifting
weight of market and monopolies in economic theory, a shift that has significant implications for
subjectification. Traditional trademark doctrine was explicitly designed to promote markets and
fairness in markets. Dilution subordinates markets to the ability of brands to generate consumer
welfare. After all, disallowing noncompetitive uses of a trademark could easily be seen as
antimarket. It instead treats the consumer welfare model as detachable from markets. On this
logic, monopoly providers of certain signifiers are better for consumer welfare than markets.
Indeed, even competition is in this instance subordinated to the logic of consumer welfare. A
clear moment of transition occurs in Bork. After defending an informational view of advertising
(in which he concedes that advertising does not in fact provide much information), as one might
associate with a search-costs rationale for trademark, Bork notes that “advertising has other
functions,” that “advertisers often attempt to wrap their product in an aura, a daydream” and
that “only a modern Puritan can object to these evanescent satisfactions which advertisers
provide us” (1993, p. 318).

Advertising has not been primarily informational since the nineteenth century. As Bone notes,
psychological advertising, which relies on manipulating basic needs and emotions, was
celebrated in the early twentieth century for “its ability to align consumer preferences with the
needs of a vigorously expanding economy” (2008, p. 479). Part of this effort was involved in
constructing markets and types of consumers. Early magazine advertising, for example,
segmented readers into largely imaginary types of households; this later gave way to empirical
analysis through mechanisms such as focus groups (Arvidsson, 2004). Brands can also serve to
create market segmentation. For example, Barton Beebe suggests that intellectual property (IP)
law can increasingly be seen to function as a reinforcement of a sumptuary code, i.e., a “system
of consumption practices ... by which individuals in the society signal through their consumption
their differences from and similarities to others” (2010, p. 812). By offering legal protection to
luxury goods in particular, trademark allows for consumers to sort (or be sorted) into different
social groups based on their available human capital; signaling group affiliation can in turn be a
mechanism for attaining further human capital. Examples such as these underscore that the
value assigned to such immaterial markers is an effect of an IP regime, not its cause. If there
were no trademark, there would be no scarcity in logos, they would lose economic value, and
the creation and sorting of consumers would have to be enacted differently. My desires as an
agent, in other words, cannot be separated from the social environment in which I find myself;
this environment quite literally structures my sense of who I am and what my possibilities are.

This commodification of affect then becomes an important aspect of subjectification, as

individuals are encouraged to become entrepreneurs of themselves by consuming a portfolio of
such affects, “seeking to maximize their ‘quality of life’ through the artful assembly of a ‘life
style’ put together through the world of goods” (Miller and Rose, 1990, p. 25). In this sense,
trademark becomes a technology of subjectification, in the sense of a
“matrix of practical reason” that: Permit[s] individuals to effect by their own means or with the
help of others a certain number of operations on their own bodies and souls, thoughts, conduct,
and way of being, so as to transform themselves in order to attain a certain state of happiness,
purity, wisdom, perfection, or immortality. (Foucault, 1988b, p. 18) Specifically, as with the
Greek technologies of the self studied by Foucault, encouraging individuals to develop affective
attachments to brands serves to prepare them as citizens of the polis, with the caveat that the
neoliberal blurring of the economic and the political means that social welfare is measured as
consumer welfare. Sonia Katyal underscores the confluence of individual subjectivity and
corporate interest: “brands permeate the fabric of our lives – they help construct our identities,
our expressions, our desires, and our language. Yet inasmuch as they serve as powerful
expressions of consumer identity and desire, they are also an important vessel of corporate
identity and property” (2010a, pp. 796–797)

Trademark enhancement facilitates neoliberal biopower by assuming people

are exclusively assemblages of their branded property.
Hull 19, PhD, Professor of Philosophy @ UNC-Charlotte (Gordon, “The Biopolitics of Intellectual
Property,” p. 111-112)//BB

If copyright law constructs authors and audiences, trademark constructs consumers. The
stylization demanded by capital and abetted by neoliberal trademark is in terms of
proprietization. We are to produce ourselves as an assemblage of various brand identities. This
particular assemblage identifies us; that the components of the assemblage are not owned by us
serves to govern in advance the various processes through which individuation could take place.
The tensions in these subjectification strategies are evident precisely in the difficulty of
explaining dilution doctrine on economic grounds noted earlier. Desai points to the incoherence
of trademark’s construction of consumers. On the one hand, the efficient-search version of the
law presupposes that individuals are deliberative, calculating rational choice actors. On the
other hand, “when it comes to issues of infringement and protecting the consumer, this highly
rational consumer morphs into a dullard who must not be asked to use any extra thought to
discern what a mark may signify” (2012, p. 1029). Desai continues: When the law abandons the
rational consumer model, it inserts a view that is not only suspect, but rejects what brand
literature acknowledges: consumers are rather savvy about brands, to the point where they take
brands and imbue them with personal meanings. Insofar as the law adheres to a behavioral
model, in which the company pushes the psychological buttons of the consumer who is shaped
by the message and helpless to resist that message, the law adheres to a view that business
practice has questioned and in some cases rejected ... as the full ownership of the consumer is
discredited in consumer brand theory ... Ironically, trademark law’s role has been to use
consumers as a lever in prying trademark law away from consumer protection towards brand
protection. (2012, pp. 1029–1030)
It is in this precise sense that trademark is engaged in a process of subjectification, one that
renders consumers as the passive recipients of corporate meanings. As Desai puts it in a slightly
different context, “insofar as companies use brands to build relationships with customers and
offer them ways to embrace the brand as a way of life in many if not all parts of their lives,
merchandising rights protect a company’s interest in generating and controlling consumer
identity” (2012, p. 1018). In this regard, it does not seem accidental that trademark law’s move
to neoliberal biopower favors corporate over noncorporate uses of a mark. For the neoliberal,
all usage is market based, just as in neoliberal patent law, where even university research is
commercial, or in copyright where all legitimate use is passive consumption.
 Answer to Link Turn --- “Plan Makes IP Ethical”
There is no counterhegemonic IP---“rights” of IP actively preclude enforcement
of all other human rights. AND, working within IP, through public-domain
doctrines, facilitates neoliberal enclosures.
Borghi 23, PhD, Full Professor of Commercial Law at the Department of Law, University of
Turin (Maurizio, “Commodification of intangibles in post-IP capitalism: rethinking the counter-
hegemonic discourse,” European Law Open, 2.2)//BB

The crux of much intellectual property (IP) scholarship in the last two decades has been how to
define a progressive, counter-hegemonic research agenda vis-à-vis the seemingly irresistible
expansion of property rights and the consequent contraction of the public domain in every
corner of the intellectual public sphere. Footnote1 To be sure, the very notion of a ‘progressive’
agenda is highly subjective. For lawyers working for – or on behalf of – private corporations or
institutions that defend corporate interests, the research agenda will consist essentially in
(re)searching the best solutions to maximise extraction of value and capital accumulation by
taking advantage of IP rights. In this context, a progressive agenda is simply the one that
‘progresses’ the capital’s interests and increases market power. By contrast, academic
researchers have the right to set their own agenda and they may choose to use this
constitutionally protected freedom to question, interrogate, and criticise dominant power
structures – and specifically the way in which those structures influence, shape and make use of
IP rights.

The problem is that power structures change over time and so does the interpretation of what
should be defined a truly counter-hegemonic approach to IP.Footnote2 Therefore, it may be the
case that a research agenda loses its progressive feature, or even becomes regressive, if it does
not take into due account the changes in the dominant power structures. I argue that this is
precisely the risk of IP scholarship today.

I will develop my argument focusing on two related aspects, namely the role of IP law in the
commodification of intangibles and the boundaries imposed on commodification by the claims
of the public domain. Since the latter is the single most defining element of ‘progressivism’ in IP
research, I will address in particular the changing role of traditional public-domain-enhancing IP
doctrines, such as fair use and exceptions, in today’s phase of capitalism. I will make my point
with the aid of three ‘case studies’, covering three distinct areas of IP law.Footnote3 But before
that, I will delve a bit into social and economic history in an attempt to extract the key dynamics
that led to the current global system of IP law.

2. The ‘great transformation’ and the making of IP law

The IP regime as we know it today took much of its shape, in so-called industrialised countries,
in the second half of 19th Century. It is the result of a law-governed process of enabling market
forces to extract value from instances that are not even ‘things’, let alone commodities: actions
like writing a book, composing a melody, inventing a new device, designing the shape of an
object, indicating the source of origin of goods – all these actions and more, abstracted from the
respective intellectual commons to which they belong, could be transformed into tradeable
commodities by operation of law.Footnote4

Such commodification is the result of a process that coincides, historically, with the rise of
industrial capitalism and the market economy. To be sure, patents, copyright, and trademarks
have been around at least since the 16th Century, when the market economy did not yet exist,
let alone a capitalist market economy. In fact, not only can the actions mentioned above be
protected by law while remaining an integral part of their respective intellectual commons and
without being abstracted from those commons and commodified,Footnote5 but also even
markets in products resulting from those actions can subsist and thrive in the absence of
capitalist forms of production.Footnote6 So capitalism did not ‘invent’ patents, copyright and
trademarks: rather, it took them from the existing arsenal of legal tools and transformed them
gradually into forms of property over tradeable commodities – and into commodities
themselves to be exchanged in the marketplace. These commodities are not less ‘fictitious’ than
the three factors of production – land, labour, and capital – described as such by Karl Polanyi in
his seminal work on the ‘great transformation’.Footnote7

Historically, the symbolic landmark of this first transformation is represented by the

international treaties signed at the height of the age of classic liberalism and free trade, namely
the Paris Convention on industrial property of 1883 and the Berne Convention on literary and
artistic property of 1886.Footnote8 The success of the resulting IP regime – which was destined
to remain in force, essentially unaltered in its structural elements, for a good century –
depended on the tacit assumption that legitimate competing interests over intangible
commodities created by law – works, inventions, badges of origin etc – can be defined and
balanced ex ante by the law itself. Such ex ante determination operated in various ways, for
example by establishing that exclusive rights over certain protected subject matter have limited
duration, limited scope (eg expressions and not ideas) and are subject to exceptions (eg fair use
in copyright, government’s use in patent law, etc) or to other provisions that temper the
exclusionary nature of property rights (eg compulsory licensing). By defining de jure the dividing
line between what can be claimed as private property and what should remain in the commons,
the law enacted a commodification of intangibles that was strictly functional to the correct
operation of the market. From a Polanyian perspective, the limits embedded in IP law can be
interpreted as part of the ‘protective counter-movement’ that arises in response to unrestrained
marketisation and the degradation resulting from treating human life and nature activities as
mere commodities. Such counter-movement does not just protect society and nature from the
destructive forces of the market, but is also required for the continued existence of the market
structures themselves vis-à-vis the threat of self-destruction. In Polanyi’s words:

For a century the dynamics of modern society were governed by a double movement: the
market expanded continuously but this movement was met by a countermovement checking
the expansion in definite directions. [This countermovement] was more than the usual
defensive behaviour of a society faced with change; it was a reaction against a dislocation which
would have destroyed the very organization of production that the market had called into
being.Footnote9
The double movement results from the action of two opposing organising principles, namely
economic liberalism and laissez-faire on the one side, pushing towards the establishment of a
self-regulating market for the factors of production (land, labour and capital), and the ‘principle
of social protection’ on the other side, aiming at the ‘conservation of man and nature as well as
productive organization’ by means of protective legislation and other regulatory
techniques.Footnote10

Commodification of intangibles followed a similar pattern, with market forces on the one side
pressing for the complete alienation of creative actions from their original collective meaning
and their fixation into mere exchange values, and societal forces on the other side seeking to
protect universal freedom to access intellectual commons through regulation, legislation and
resistance.Footnote11 The IP regime that took shape in the second half of 19th Century can be
seen as the outcome of the double movement consisting of capitalism’s seizure of economy and
society’s regulative reaction. In this way, the resulting IP system operated a commodification of
certain intangibles while at the same time defining the boundaries of such commodification –
and all this by keeping a neutral stance and leaving entirely to the market the task of
determining the exchange value of the thus created commodities. Otherwise put, IP law
established itself as an integral component of the rule-set of the capitalism game – a component
whose relevance grew exponentially, without changing qualitatively its nature, in the course of
the 20th Century.

3. The second transformation and the age of IP expansionism

The institutional structures that, within the IP regime, made possible a defence of the freedom
to access intellectual commons against unlimited propertisation remained relatively
unchallenged for a good part of the 20th Century up to post-World War II ‘regulated
capitalism’.Footnote12 These structures started shaking at the end of the 1970s with the
transition to a new phase of capitalism dominated by a medley of political, economic and
intellectual approaches which is now commonly referred to as ‘neoliberalism’.Footnote13 At the
heart of neoliberalism is the basic idea that human well-being can be best advanced by
liberating individual, instead of collective, entrepreneurial forces, and that the precondition to
achieve this is an institutional framework characterised by strong private property rights and
weak regulatory barriers. Neoliberalism does not necessarily imply a weakened role of the state
vis-à-vis the ‘market forces’ – as per the hegemonic narrative that began to take shape in those
years – but rather a new and different role of the state in the capitalist system. As far as IP law is
concerned, the most visible consequence of the transition from regulated to neoliberal
capitalism was that the interests of the owners of the means of production – which in the classic
IP regime represented only one of the competing interests in intangible commodities – were
now taken directly onboard by the state. In other words, the neoliberal state diverted the IP
regime from its neutral, rule-setting role and converted it to a pure instrument of capital
accumulation. Indeed, according to the new hegemonic ideology of IP law-making, inspired by
neoliberal economic theories, strong property rights over intangible commodities are the
necessary incentives to release individual entrepreneurial forces which in turn ensure
expansion, growth and market competitiveness. The ideology triggered a legislative process
starting in the 1980s and 1990s in USA and in EuropeFootnote14 as an erosion of the limits to
commodification imposed under the classic IP regime, which paved the way to the expansion of
exclusive rights into every corner of the society and of the globe – a process whose symbolic
landmark is represented by the TRIPs Agreement 1994.Footnote15 Legislations of states under
the influence of neo-liberal ideology assisted informational capitalism in bringing
commodification of intangibles to a new level, both quantitatively and qualitatively. Examples of
IP expansionism abound: broadening of the scope of patent subject matter,Footnote16
extension of copyright duration,Footnote17 extended protection for pharmaceutical
patents,Footnote18 world-wide enforceability of patents and copyrights (with increasingly high
standards of protection imposed on low-income countries),Footnote19 extended trademark
protection for ‘famous’ brands,Footnote20 introduction of new IP rights (semiconductor
chips,Footnote21 sui generis database right),Footnote22 establishment of stronger and more
effective enforcement measures and remedies.Footnote23

Seen from the angle of the distinction between private property and the public domain, as
established within the traditional IP regime, the process of IP expansionism appears as the latest
frontier of a law-driven plunder of the commons.Footnote24 This was not just a quantitative
empowerment of existing rights, but a transformation of the very raison d’être of those rights.
In fact, the process of plunder is consistent with the changing nature of IP law in the hands of
neoliberal states, which loses its original neutral rule-setting character to become a mere
instrument of value extraction and capital accumulation. It can be observed that, within the
logic of never-ending capital accumulation, no boundaries can be set to the
expansion of instruments that make accumulation possible.Footnote25 This inherent
indefinability of limits to IP expansion is captured implicitly in the language of legislators and
courts alike. A case in point is the proclamation of ensuring ‘a high level of protection’ that
features in key EU directives and is regularly reiterated in the judgements of the European
Court.Footnote26 The judiciary has interpreted the expression as requiring generally a ‘broad’
interpretation of the property rights harmonised by the EU legislator.Footnote27 Yet, in the
absence of a defined yardstick, the concept of ‘highness’, as referred to the quantum of
protection to be ensured by property rights, cannot function as a meaningful hermeneutic
principle. It is rather a blunt assertion of an imperative: that of ensuring that the interests
protected by IP rights are given default priority over any other competing interests . The
quantum of protection is at liberty of expanding indefinitely to ensure that such priority is met.
In its abstractness, the language of the legislator seconds the logic of capital accumulation in
that, by definition, no ‘high level’ is ever high enough.Footnote28

Within the legal framework inspired by neoliberal ideology, commodification of intangibles

loses the character of a legal fiction strictly functional to the operation of markets in works,
inventions and other intellectual instances and turns into a never-ending task that law is
permanently summoned to achieve (and is never good enough at achieving) on behalf of capital
accumulation.
IMPACT
 Impact: Cultural Imperialism / Ethics
Any purported benefit will remain exclusively in the domain of elite
monopolists, which guarantees rampant inequality and exploitation.
McGillivray 17, PhD in Philosophy (James, “'Pyrates' of the Lyceum: Big Pharma, Patents, and
Academic Freedom in Neoliberal Times,” Osgoode Hall Law School Dissertations,
https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1030&context=phd)//BB

In “liberal capitalist countries” intellectual property regimes and peonage have been
instrumental tools and used as legal mechanisms to create, form, constitute and legitimate a
political economy that structures the restrictive allocation and adjudication of fundamental
(universal?) incorporeal “rights” and resources. This relationship shapes the distribution of
wealth, the development of future technology, the progress of knowledge and the general
welfare of humanity. Indeed, it is a central feature of intellectual property regimes and peonage
that it possesses the unique ability to colonise material and intellectual interests and structure a
“particular form of intellectual organization”628 that make it such a powerful metaphor in
shaping modernity and the modern world. C.B. Macpherson noted that “[p]roperty has always
been a central concern of political theory, and of none more so than liberal theory.”629 It is in
this sense that this study seeks to be equally concerned with the political economy of our liberal
intellectual property tradition: yet, it is also to support and extend the case that human
understanding, freedom, democracy, knowledge and creativity is best actualised when it is
organised for the common good and against privatising monopolies. The one caution that
haunts this study is that intellectual property regimes have a propensity to always-already
constitute and create a neo-colonialism of the mind. It could be said that intellectual property is
but another form of “legal imperialism.”630 Indeed, in as much as this imperialising strategy of
discourse is true, intellectual property rarely touches on or speaks to “freedom of the [legal]
imagination”631 and “to work out in… [our collective] imagination various future
possibilities.”632 Intellectual property is about raising fencing and making enclosures. Its
default setting is about exploitation: despite claims to the contrary, it is not about the
exploration of human possibilities.

Property culture legalizes crimes against humanity

McGillivray 17, PhD in Philosophy (James, “'Pyrates' of the Lyceum: Big Pharma, Patents, and
Academic Freedom in Neoliberal Times,” Osgoode Hall Law School Dissertations,
https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1030&context=phd)//BB

The theoretical position advanced here is against standard econometrics of neoliberalism and
neoclassical economics. A critical political economy is perhaps the most theoretically sensible,
reasonable and cogent approach to analyse and unpack the complex and multi-layered subject
of intellectual property. This is a position that rejects the blanket application of “academic
econometrics” to justify intellectual property policies. As a unit of analysis, intellectual property
does not easily fit into a hermetically sealed and comprehensible subject of economics.
Nonetheless, neoliberalism first principle ideologically is a commitment to a type of free market
that inevitably leads to monopoly capitalism:375 something that as an end result flies in the face
of the rhetoric of deregulation, the mind-set of ‘supply-siders’ 376 and the content and claims
of their purported free market ideology. Steve Keen ironically notes that this “naive faith in
economic theory has led to outcomes which, had they been inflicted by weapons rather than by
policy, would have led their perpetrators to the International Court of Justice.”377 In other
words, a critical political economy intellectual property is well equipped to confront and
examine the literature on academic and econometric economics. As noted, much of academic
economics consists of elaborate mathematical models. As such, the empirical work behind these
mathematical models consists in finding consistent data that correctly fits into its model.
Arguably, econometrics is the most abstract branch of economics and it is the most
mathematisied example of an under-theorised aspect of economic and financial theory. It is a
branch that tries to make the future predictable, but as Stanford economist Ezra Solomon
noted: “The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable.”378
That said, as complex as economic forecasting can be, one can always rest assured that in the
highly complex realm of global latecapitalism and finance that the outcome will always result
with “[n]o banker [or lawyer] left behind.” 379
 Impact: Global Inequality
Patents produce an unequal exchange that allow the Global North maintain
inequality through resource and labor expropriation
Hickel 22, PhD, professor at the Autonomous University of Barcelona, et al, (Jason, “Imperialist
appropriation in the world economy: Drain from the global South through unequal exchange,
1990–2015,” Global Environmental Change, 73,
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095937802200005X)//BB

In previous research, Dorninger et al. (2021) found that the main predictor of high export prices
(and therefore the capacity for net appropriation) was economic power, as measured by GDP. In
other words, rich countries are able to maintain price inequalities simply by virtue of being rich.
This finding supports longstanding claims by political economists that, all else being equal, price
inequalities are an artefact of power. Just as in a national economy wage rates are an artefact of
the relative bargaining power of labour vis-à-vis capital, so too in international trade prices are
an artefact of the relative bargaining power of national economies and corporate actors vis-à-vis
their trading partners and suppliers. Countries that grew rich during the colonial period are now
able to leverage their economic dominance to depress the costs of labour and resources
extracted from the South. In other words, the North “finances” net appropriation from the
South not with money, but rather by maintaining the prices of Southern resources and labour
below the global average level. There are a number of mechanisms that enable this pattern. In
section 1 we mentioned that Northern firms leverage monopsony and monopoly power to
depress Southern suppliers’ prices while setting final prices artificially high. Patents play a key
role here: 97% of all patents are held by corporations in high-income countries (Chang,
2008:141). We can see how this plays out in the case of major products like iPhones. The iPhone
is produced almost entirely in the global South, by arms-length suppliers. Apple, headquartered
in the North, forces its suppliers to compete to drive prices down to cost, with wages depressed
to the level of subsistence. This allows Apple to obtain the iPhone for cheap, and then,
leveraging its patent monopoly (a privilege granted and enforced not by the market but by the
state), mark up the final price by over 100% (see Smith, 2016). In some cases, patents involve
forcing people in the South to pay for access to resources they might otherwise have obtained
much more affordably, or even for free (Shiva, 2001, Shiva, 2016).

IP maintains colonialism
---no protection of non-European epistemology

---Enlightenment individualism

---rich-country hoarding

Vizoso and Byrnes 23, *Senior Non-Resident Fellow at the Arab Reform Initiative,
**intellectual property (IP) lawyer, independent scholar, and co-founder of the art collective
AbolishIP, (Julia and Chris, “Abolitionist creativity,” Transnational Institute,
https://www.tni.org/en/article/abolitionist-creativity)//BB
Founded on concepts of labour and individualism developed by Enlightenment philosophers, IP
was imposed throughout the globe through European colonial and settler-colonial projects and
trade agreements. To this day, the IP system remains rigidly Euro-centric with no agreed means
to recognise and respect non-European epistemologies or conceptions of the individual. The
regime is fortified by powerful and legally vindictive institutions whose jurisdiction extends to all
members of the World Trade Organization (WTO). Under the banner of policing ‘IP
infringement’, IP laws can block any good at the border and preclude even the most essential
innovations from being made available to the public. And its power seems to only expand.
Under pressure from a wide array of corporate lobbyists, exclusive rights that at one time
elapsed have become perpetual and expansive, eroding the public domain. Naturally, such a
system inspires resistance. Critical voices resist the colonial capitalist worldview of property
rights that undergirds the system. Pirates and free-culture advocates insist that ‘information
wants to be free’, establishing alternative platforms for sharing culture. Even liberal defenders
of IP regimes grudgingly admit that while the initial set-up was wise – it would promote ‘the
ideal of progress, a transparent marketplace, easy and cheap access to information,
decentralized and iconoclastic cultural production, self-correcting innovation policy’– the system
has been corrupted by corporate influence, undermining a culture of sharing and remixing.
 Answer to “Consequentialism Good”
Utilitarianism is a new link---under market fundamentalism it necessitates the
sacrifice of the Global South---only actively prioritizing discardable populations
can break this cycle of devastation.
Santos 3, Leading Portuguese social theorist, director of the Center for Social Studies at the
University of Coimbra, has written and published widely on the issue of globalization
(Boaventura de Sousa, March 26th, “Collective suicide or globalization from below?” Eurozine,
https://www.eurozine.com/collective-suicide-or-globalization-from-below/)

According to the German philosopher Franz Hinkelammert, living in Costa Rica, the West has
repeatedly been under the illusion that it should try to save humanity by destroying part of it.
This is a salvific and sacrificial destruction, committed in the name of the need to fulfill radically
all the possibilities opened up by a given social and political reality over which it is supposed to
have total power. This is how it was in colonialism, with the genocide of indigenous peoples,
and the African slaves. This is how it was in the period of imperialist struggles, which caused
millions of deaths in two world wars and many other colonial wars. This is how it was in
Stalinism, with the Gulag and in Nazism, with the holocaust. And now today, this is how it is in
neoliberalism, with the collective sacrifice of the periphery of the world system. With the war
against Iraq, it is fitting to ask whether what is in progress is a new genocidal and sacrificial
illusion, and what its scope might be. It is above all appropriate to ask if the new illusion will not
herald the radicalization and the ultimate perversion of the western illusion: destroying all of
humanity in the illusion of saving it.

Sacrificial genocide arises from a totalitarian illusion that is manifested in the belief that there
are no alternatives to the present-day reality and that the problems and difficulties confronting
it arise from failing to take its logic of development to its ultimate consequences. If there is
unemployment, hunger and death in the Third World, this is not the result of market failures;
instead, it is the outcome of the market laws not having been fully applied. If there is terrorism,
this is not due to the violence of the conditions that generate it; it is due, rather, to the fact that
total violence has not been employed to physically eradicate all terrorists and potential
terrorists.

This political logic is based on the supposition of total power and knowledge, and on the radical
rejection of alternatives; it is ultra-conservative in that it aims to infinitely reproduce the status
quo. Inherent to it is the notion of the end of history. During the last hundred years, the West
has experienced three versions of this logic, and, therefore, seen three versions of the end of
history: Stalinism, with its logic of insuperable efficiency of the plan; Nazism, with its logic of
racial superiority; and neoliberalism, with its logic of insuperable efficiency of the market. The
first two periods involved the destruction of democracy. The last one trivializes democracy,
disarming it in the face of social actors sufficiently powerful to be able to privatize the State and
international institutions in their favour. I have described this situation as a combination of
political democracy and social fascism. One current manifestation of this combination resides in
the fact that intensely strong public opinion, worldwide, against the war is found to be incapable
of halting the war machine set in motion by supposedly democratic rulers.

At all these moments, a death drive, a catastrophic heroism, predominates, the idea of a
looming collective suicide, only preventable by the massive destruction of the other.
Paradoxically, the broader the definition of the other and the efficacy of its destruction, the
more likely collective suicide becomes. In its sacrificial genocide version, neoliberalism is a
mixture of market radicalization, neoconservatism and Christian fundamentalism. Its death drive
takes a number of forms, from the idea of “discardable populations”, referring to citizens of the
Third World not capable of being exploited as workers and consumers, to the concept of
“collateral damage”, to refer to the deaths, as a result of war, of thousands of innocent civilians.
The last, catastrophic heroism, is quite clear on two facts: according to reliable calculations by
the Non-Governmental Organization MEDACT, in London, between 48 and 260 thousand
civilians will die during the war against Iraq and in the three months after (this is without there
being civil war or a nuclear attack); the war will cost 100 billion dollars, – and much more if the
costs of reconstruction are added – enough to pay the health costs of the world’s poorest
countries for four years.

Is it possible to fight this death drive? We must bear in mind that, historically, sacrificial
destruction has always been linked to the economic pillage of natural resources and the labor
force, to the imperial design of radically changing the terms of economic, social, political and
cultural exchanges in the face of falling efficiency rates postulated by the maximalist logic of the
totalitarian illusion in operation. It is as though hegemonic powers, both when they are on the
rise and when they are in decline, repeatedly go through times of primitive accumulation,
legitimizing the most shameful violence in the name of futures where, by definition, there is no
room for what must be destroyed. In today’s version, the period of primitive accumulation
consists of combining neoliberal economic globalization with the globalization of war. The
machine of democracy and liberty turns into a machine of horror and destruction.
 Answer to Cap Good --- “Life and Happiness”
Global inequality is increasing---structural adjustment policies and net outflows
have reversed progress and stagnated growth.
Hickel et al. 18, Jason Hickel: Anthropologist, author, and fellow of the Royal Society of Arts.
He serves on the Labour Party Task Force on International Development and works as Policy
Director for The Rules collective. Nima Shirazi: Editor at Muftah, a digital foreign affairs
magazine, and co-host of the media criticism podcast, Citations Needed. Adam Johnson: Host,
The Appeal podcast. Media analyst at FAIR.org and host of the Citations Needed podcast
(November 28th, “Episode 58: The Neoliberal Optimism Industry,” Citations Needed,
https://citationsneeded.medium.com/episode-58-the-neoliberal-optimism-industry-and-
development-shaming-the-global-south-cf399e88510e, Accessed 09-25-2021)

Nima: Can you dig a little deeper into, based on your work Jason, how the terms “development”
and “growth” are really, not only misunderstood, but often deliberately misrepresented both in
a political context and also throughout the media, like who do these misperceptions benefit?

Jason Hickel: So I think that there’s a narrative out there that poor countries are basically
effectively catching up to rich countries, right? Because we know that, there’s China and they’re
becoming a powerful player in the world stage and so on. And we’re seeing people lift out of
poverty in China and India also, you know, a booming tech industry and whatnot. So clearly, you
know, the gap between the rich and the poor on the global stage is shrinking. This is the
dominant narrative we have. And unfortunately it’s simply not true. There are, in fact, was a
period when that gap was shrinking, in the immediate postcolonial decades in the 1960s and the
1970s when newly independent governments were rolling out progressive economic reforms
using Keynesian policy, protecting their economies with tariffs, using subsidies to promote infant
industry developments, etcetera, etcetera. But, you know, and using land reform and labor laws
to improve wages and so on. But these policies turned out to be a threat to Global North
investors. Which, during the colonial years had enjoyed really easy access to cheap labor and
raw materials and so on in those countries. And that was being cut off. And so they responded
during the 1980s and 1990s by rolling back those progressive policies through structural
adjustments imposed by the World Bank and the IMF, right? Which basically forced Global
South countries to privatize public assets, to get rid of tariff barriers and subsidies, to cut
spending on education and healthcare. Like all of the crucial elements necessary for real
developments were basically denied to Global South countries. The vast majority of them at
least. So that’s not true of East Asia and in China, and as a consequence, that region of the world
did remarkably well, but what we see in the rest of the world is that the per capita income gap
between the Global North and the Global South has tripled since 1960 in real terms and shows
no sign of slowing down. I mean, there’s basically been, on per capita level, virtually stagnation
in the Global South since the 1980s. And that’s, you know, that’s really not part of our narrative
and that’s something that is a structural consequence of the way that the economy was
organized during those decades.

Nima: Yeah. I think that actually leads into something that I’ve been so fascinated about while
reading your work, which is that the conception that wealthy countries, countries that have
historically colonized most of the world are now in a position to give back, right? To, to help out
through aid or debt relief or whatever poorer countries in the Global South. So can you tell us
how that view of things, that colonialism is a thing of the past that there’s no more extraction or
exploitation, but now rather resources are flowing North to South from rich to poor, can you tell
us how that might not exactly be true?

Jason Hickel: The dominant narrative development is that rich countries became rich kind of by
their own hard work, their good institutions, their scientific inventions and so on, and poor
countries are poor and remain poor because they have whatever bad governance or corruption,
or maybe they’re lazy or have backwards cultural values in the more racist sense of the
narrative, etcetera. But the idea is that rich countries, because they have this surplus, they’re
able to sort of reach across the divide and give generously of their surplus to help poor countries
up the development ladder. What I argue is that this narrative gets virtually everything about
the story wrong, right? First of all, the determinants of success and failure in various countries
around the world can’t be entirely attributed to only internal conditions, right? We live in a
global economic system. We have done since at least the past 500 years since the onset of
colonialism, and so we have to think about how the rules of that economy, of that global
economic system affect the outcomes that we see around the world, right? You know, of course,
that’s very easy to see during the colonial period, during the structural adjustment period in the
1980s and 1990s as well. And we can see it very clearly now in the way that capital flows around
the world, right? And so if we look at total flows of money around the world right now, between
the Global North and the Global South, we see something quite remarkable. This is using 2012
data, which is the last data that we have on this. But in 2012, developing countries received a
total of $2 trillion US dollars in total inflows from the Global North, right? That includes aid,
foreign investments, loans, remittances, everything, every bit of money, which is a lot, but in the
same year, some $5 trillion flowed the other direction from South to North. So in that year there
were $3 trillion in net outflows from South to North, so the South is in fact a net creditor to the
North rather than the other way around. So we might be able to say that it’s, in fact, the Global
South that’s developing the North rather than the North developing the South. And that really
does flip the aid narrative on its head. And if we compare those outflows to aid, what we see is
that for every dollar of aid that the South receives from the North, they lose $24 in net
outflows, which is a tremendous reversal of the way we normally think about the situation.
There’s lots of ways we can see this kind of reverse flow happening that are important to pay
attention to. So one of course is the most obvious one, which is, you know, interest payments
on exportable debts, which in and of itself outstrips the global aid budget, you know, almost
twice over. But then we also have profit repatriation for multinational companies from host
countries back to where they’re listed, which is about $500 billion per year. Sometimes even
outstrips foreign direct investment flows themselves, but probably the biggest single cause of
this in that outflow situation is illicit financial flows, which are largely through, you know, for the
sake of tax evasion by multinational companies who are using basically tax havens and secrecy
jurisdictions which are almost entirely in Global North countries controlled by Global North
governments in order to secret money out of developing countries into Western bank accounts.
Poverty is increasing because of capitalism---they put a happy face on
colonialism.
Hickel 19, An academic at the University of London and a fellow of the Royal Society of Arts
(Jason, January 29th, “Bill Gates says poverty is decreasing. He couldn’t be more wrong,” The
Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/29/bill-gates-davos-global-
poverty-infographic-neoliberal, Accessed 07-12-2021)

There are a number of problems with this graph, though. First of all, real data on poverty has
only been collected since 1981. Anything before that is extremely sketchy, and to go back as far
as 1820 is meaningless. Roser draws on a dataset that was never intended to describe poverty,
but rather inequality in the distribution of world GDP – and that for only a limited range of
countries. There is no actual research to bolster the claims about long-term poverty. It’s not
science; it’s social media.

What Roser’s numbers actually reveal is that the world went from a situation where most of
humanity had no need of money at all to one where today most of humanity struggles to survive
on extremely small amounts of money. The graph casts this as a decline in poverty, but in reality
what was going on was a process of dispossession that bulldozed people into the capitalist
labour system, during the enclosure movements in Europe and the colonisation of the global
south.

Prior to colonisation, most people lived in subsistence economies where they enjoyed access to
abundant commons – land, water, forests, livestock and robust systems of sharing and
reciprocity. They had little if any money, but then they didn’t need it in order to live well – so it
makes little sense to claim that they were poor. This way of life was violently destroyed by
colonisers who forced people off the land and into European-owned mines, factories and
plantations, where they were paid paltry wages for work they never wanted to do in the first
place.

In other words, Roser’s graph illustrates a story of coerced proletarianisation. It is not at all
clear that this represents an improvement in people’s lives, as in most cases we know that the
new income people earned from wages didn’t come anywhere close to compensating for their
loss of land and resources, which were of course gobbled up by colonisers. Gates’s favourite
infographic takes the violence of colonisation and repackages it as a happy story of progress.

But that’s not all that’s wrong here. The trend that the graph depicts is based on a poverty line
of $1.90 (£1.44) per day, which is the equivalent of what $1.90 could buy in the US in 2011. It’s
obscenely low by any standard, and we now have piles of evidence that people living just above
this line have terrible levels of malnutrition and mortality. Earning $2 per day doesn’t mean
that you’re somehow suddenly free of extreme poverty. Not by a long shot.

Scholars have been calling for a more reasonable poverty line for many years. Most agree that
people need a minimum of about $7.40 per day to achieve basic nutrition and normal human
life expectancy, plus a half-decent chance of seeing their kids survive their fifth birthday. And
many scholars, including Harvard economist Lant Pritchett, insist that the poverty line should be
set even higher, at $10 to $15 per day.
So what happens if we measure global poverty at the low end of this more realistic spectrum –
$7.40 per day, to be extra conservative? Well, we see that the number of people living under
this line has increased dramatically since measurements began in 1981, reaching some 4.2
billion people today. Suddenly the happy Davos narrative melts away.

Moreover, the few gains that have been made have virtually all happened in one place: China. It
is disingenuous, then, for the likes of Gates and Pinker to claim these gains as victories for
Washington-consensus neoliberalism. Take China out of the equation, and the numbers look
even worse. Over the four decades since 1981, not only has the number of people in poverty
gone up, the proportion of people in poverty has remained stagnant at about 60%. It would be
difficult to overstate the suffering that these numbers represent.

This is a ringing indictment of our global economic system, which is failing the vast majority of
humanity. Our world is richer than ever before, but virtually all of it is being captured by a small
elite. Only 5% of all new income from global growth trickles down to the poorest 60% – and yet
they are the people who produce most of the food and goods that the world consumes, toiling
away in those factories, plantations and mines to which they were condemned 200 years ago. It
is madness – and no amount of mansplaining from billionaires will be adequate to justify it.
 Answer to Cap Good --- “War”
The neoliberal order is unsustainable---populist backlash ensures instability and
conflict that flips any benefit to globalization.
---Specifically indicts interdependence theory.

Gonzalez-Vicente 18, University Lecturer in Global Political Economy @ U Leiden (Ruben, “The
liberal peace fallacy: violent neoliberalism and the temporal and spatial traps of state-based
approaches to peace,” Territoriality, Politics, Governance, 8.1)//BB

Yet, the contemporary ascension of nationalist and populist movements and leaders that herald
deeply illiberal views (Xi included) must come as no surprise after decades of neoliberal
triumphalism and the promotion of a transnational order that placed the crafting of a world
market above the needs of societies themselves. In such a context, the contemporary rise of
nationalism and populisms across the world is not some liberal order antithesis emerging from a
vacuum, but rather a logical consequence of this liberal order, constituting an often reactionary
‘counter movement’ that cannot be tackled with liberal prescriptions for increased market
globalization (Polanyi, 2001). This paper takes aim at the now long-held and recently revitalized
argument for a liberal peace. While not attempting to predict any specific outcome regarding
the future of global peace, it argues that the rise of illiberal and reactionary discourses that we
now observe, and their potential corollaries, must be understood in a dialectical sense as the
result of a liberal market-oriented inter-state order that failed to tackle the great social
dislocation that it played a fundamental role in fomenting.

To develop this critique, I draw upon three main bodies of literature that, despite their apparent
affinities, are seldom brought together. These include Polanyi and Gramsci-inspired
understandings of hegemonic crisis, counter-movements, and the rise of nationalism and
populism (Gill, 2015; Gonzalez-Vicente & Carroll, 2017); critical political economies of social
conflict within a context of neoliberal globalization (Harvey, 2005; Springer, 2015); and political
geography analyses of international relations theory (IRT), and more specifically critical
geographies of peace (Agnew & Corbridge, 1995; Flint, 2005; Koopman, 2016; McConnell,
Megoran, & Williams, 2014; Megoran, 2011; Nagle, 2010; Williams & McConnell, 2011).
Elaborating upon these, I contend that the methodological nationalism of the disciplines of
economics and international relations – in which much of the liberal view is based – has left
them in a sorry state in making sense of recent political development throughout the world,
specifically when addressing the contemporary rise of reactionary forms of populism.

In this sense, the high degrees of violence and vulnerability associated with processes of market
integration have often escaped the radars of economics and IR analyses, fixated as they are with
mono-scale scrutiny of national economies and state-to-state relations. Although some liberal IR
scholars have laid the grounds for a less normative paradigm that incorporates domestic
variables and bottom-up societal processes into the understanding of state action, the
assumption remains that policy interdependence and compatibility between states, combined
with the Pareto-efficient outcomes of globally integrated production and trade, result in ‘strong
incentives for coexistence with low conflict’ (Moravcsik, 1997, p. 521; see also Oneal & Russett,
1997; McDonald & Sweeney, 2007). Recent developments suggest there are fundamental flaws
with this largely deductive hypothesis. Whereas on aggregate terms, and according to some
measurements, nation-states may have benefitted more or less from globalization, social
conflict occurring at multiple scales – and indeed in a class-based dimension – is an undeniable
constitutive element of state action, the latter reflecting and/or attempting to contain particular
constellations of social forces and their interests. In this way, the damage inflicted upon many
by increasingly disembedded markets and post-political states that shield policy from popular
deliberation (both the products of the liberal agenda) are at the very root of the current crisis
of liberal hegemony (Gonzalez-Vicente & Carroll, 2017).
In what follows, I draw upon a variety of cases to explain how a dialectical approach to liberalism, neoliberalism and their illiberal responses,1 and a multi-scalar analysis of market violence are indispensable in
explaining much of the turbulence that world politics faces today. To be clear, the paper’s goal is not to deny that state leaders factor in the economic repercussions of conflict when they contemplate its
possibility – a logical assumption of liberal international relations scholarship. The aim is instead to argue that these calculations tell very little about the nature of peace and conflict as historically bounded
processes that need to be studied in relation to broader transformations in the global political economy, the latter affecting state behaviour in terms of both economic policy and inter-state rivalry. In this way, and
crucially, I also wish to refute the liberal argument that the pursuit of economic integration at any (social) cost will unequivocally lower the prospects for international conflict or, indeed, structural violence more
broadly understood as a multi-scalar phenomenon.

The paper is structured as follows. The next section problematizes the concept of peace in IRT, with a more detailed discussion of economic liberalism. The following section presents a temporal critique,
contextualizing the contemporary rise of illiberal politics within the transformation of the global political economy under world market capitalism. After this, I build upon Agnew (1994) to develop a scalar critique
and argue that liberalism’s methodological nationalism hampers a proper assessment of the transnational dimensions of processes such as development, violence or peace. I chart various scales of market-induced
violence and vulnerability (as a form of economic violence) in the global era, tracing the rescaling of violence and risk from the interstate scale to the individual sphere. I conclude by discussing the transition from a
‘durable disorder’ (Cerny, 1998) to an emerging (albeit contested) new populist order under world market capitalism. To do so, I echo Polanyi and Marx in contending that processes of marketization, replete as
they are with contradiction, cannot engender liberal or capitalist peace, but result instead in anti-liberal reactions of various kinds (what Polanyi called ‘counter movements’) to the violence of unrestrained
markets. Importantly, these counter movements can often take reactionary characteristics, as people under threat or the perception of threat retreat into culture and nationalism against the ‘other’ and
internationalism in all its variants.

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND THE LIBERAL PEACE

While the pursuit of peace is a central preoccupation for progressive IR scholarship, peace as a concept and as an actual manifestation is rarely discussed in the IR literature. Instead, peace often appears as a
negative occurrence, intuitively understood as the avoidance of war or an absence of overt inter-state violence (Galtung, 1969; Richmond, 2016, p. 57). Thereby, most IR literature focuses on the challenges to
state-based peace, with commentary typically dominated by the two main competing schools, realism and liberalism, both subdivided into further dissenting subcamps. Conventional realist approaches take the
‘anarchic’ or violent nature of international politics as a given and place their focus on states’ survival strategies. Offensive realists warn of the disruptive effects of ‘power transitions’ and in the contemporary
context claim, for example, that as China grows economically and militarily, and as its interests expand and it seeks greater influence, tensions with other countries are certain to arise (Mearsheimer, 2014).
Defensive neorealists hold similar assumptions about the foundations of the international system, yet contend that states privilege security over domination and that the incentives for conflict are contingent
rather than endemic, with balances of power potentially keeping states at bay and preventing conflict (Waltz, 1979).

Liberal theorists dispute these interpretations and reject that competition alone guides state behaviour. Elaborating on the Kantian ideal of ‘perpetual peace’, and drawing upon Adam Smith, David Ricardo or John
Stuart Mill, liberal theories contend that economic integration and institutional enmeshment or socialization exercise a constraining force on conflict and are conductive to peaceful scenarios (Doyle, 1986;
Howard, 1981; Johnston, 2008; Keohane & Nye, 1977). While there is no absolute agreement on the exact shape that such ‘interdependence’ should take (Mansfield & Pollins, 2001), liberal IR scholars often hold
that large-scale conflict in the 21st century can be avoided if the liberal world order survives the relative decline of the United States and manages to assimilate rising powers such as China. The emphasis is placed
both on institutions and norms of reciprocity, on the one hand, and on economic integration, on the other. Regarding the latter, and evoking Smithian language, the agenda for a ‘capitalist peace’ assumes that
free markets represent ‘“a hidden hand” that … build(s) up irrevocable and peaceful connections between states’ (Gartzke, 2007; Richmond, 2008, p. 23), and that ‘put simply, globalisation promotes peace’
(Gartzke & Li, 2003, p. 562). The theory is in many ways deductive, but relies also on the statistical data that on aggregate tends partially to support the liberal peace argument (except for the period leading to the
First World War; see also Barbieri, 1996) and on the ‘logic’ that national leaders are not expected to act irrationally or be insensitive ‘to economic loss and the preferences of powerful domestic actors’ (Hegre,
Oneal, & Russett, 2010, p. 772).

A more nuanced exposition of the liberal argument suggests that what brings nations together and heightens the opportunity cost of conflict is market integration according to a set of commonly devised
regulations – rather than the realization of an ideal ‘free’ trade archetype (Moravcsik, 2005). This results in a sort of ‘embedded liberalism’, with the successful integration of post-Soviet states and China in world
market capitalism through World Trade Organization (WTO) membership and other liberalizing initiatives understood as a deterrent to military action and, hence, as an effective strategy for both global growth
and security, particularly in the face of China’s rising economic and military might (Funabashi, Oksenberg, & Weiss, 1994). From this perspective, not only is violence avoidable but also peace may indeed be
engineered with the creation of a world market society being key to this endeavour as well as to the broader goal of crafting a liberal hegemony able to deliver a veritable ‘end of history’ where markets and
functioning liberal democracies prevail (Fukuyama, 1992). The engineering of market-orientated democracies has indeed often been the main task of liberal peace- and state-building operatives in post-conflict
areas (Campbell, Chandler, & Sabaratnam, 2011).

Yet, decades of neoliberal integration have not brought Fukuyama’s prophecy closer to its
realization. Across the world, liberal market integration has facilitated convivial relations among
key countries and paid important dividends to elites, yet it has also resulted in the
concentration of wealth in ever fewer hands, rising inequalities within countries (although not
between them) and higher concentration of wealth at the top, and increased risks and
vulnerability as the logic of market competitiveness takes hold of many aspects of our lives
(Anand & Segal, 2015; Lynch, 2006). The relation between the United States and China or the
processes of economic integration in the European Union are clear examples of these trends. In
these places as well as others, inequalities, precarization and economic insecurity have given
way to a populist and nationalist momentum that can be interpreted both as a popular
response to the extreme and diverse forms of violence engendered by processes of market
integration, or as a manoeuvre to channel discontent towards the ‘other’ in order to protect
elite interests (Gonzalez-Vicente & Carroll, 2017). By prescribing ever more market globalization
to counter populist politics and avoid conflict, liberal elites add fuel to the fire as they sever the
very conditions that led to the disfranchisement of significant segments of the population in the
first place. Thereby, it is crucial to understand how the argument for capitalist peace fails to
factor in the crisis-prone and socially destructive tendencies of capitalism , particularly in a
context of unfenced global competitiveness along market lines.2

Two of the underlying problems in the liberal peace argument stand out. The first has to do with
the statistical selection of fixed points in time that suggest correlations between growth in trade
and diminished conflict – while failing to discern mechanisms of causation (Hayes, 2012). A
wider temporal lens is needed to situate the contemporary rise of mercantilist and illiberal
politics in the context of neoliberal globalization, representing the same sort of ‘counter
movement’ that Polanyi had warned of in his reading of the 19th-century downward spiral
towards war – aided in our contemporary case by the demise of the traditional left (Blyth &
Matthijs, 2017; Carroll & Gonzalez-Vicente, 2017). The second problem relates to liberal
international political economy and IRT’s scalar fixation on inter-state matters and hence their
inability to factor in violence in the absence of war. I turn now to these two points.

NEOLIBERALISM’S ILLIBERAL MOMENT AS COUNTER MOVEMENT

On paper, the two intertwined arguments for liberal peace would seem to make sense: if
countries remove the barriers to trade and investment and choose to specialize in their
comparative advantages, international productivity will be raised and we will enjoy a more
prosperous global economy with satisfied consumers and states; also, if states develop close
economic linkages, they will have important material incentives to avoid conflict with one
another. In the real world, competition between jurisdictions and social groups implies often
that the development and prosperity of some is based on the exploitation and vulnerability of
others, as typically emphasized by the extensive literature on bifurcated economies, temporally
constrained and contradictory growth patterns, and uneven and destructive forms of
development. In this way, it is not that economic interdependence, when removed from its
social context and put under the microscope, does not raise the costs of conflict. However, the
political choices and social transformations needed to achieve interdependence are a key
variable to understanding a state’s behaviour and predisposition to conflict. And while
governments may in many junctures align with the interests of capital, they are not immune to
crises of legitimacy, and will need to mediate issues of accumulation and social cohesion when
people perceive the social transformations required to achieve interdependence to have a
negative impact on their lives (Jessop, 2016, p. 189). This will reflect in a way or another on state
behaviour as political elites, current and prospective, jostle for votes and/or legitimacy.

A key problem with the argument for liberal peace lies in its emphasis on narrow temporal
correlations between trade and (lack of) conflict, which removes interdependence from its
broader political economic context, disembedding peace and conflict from the broader set of
historically bounded and politically contingent social relations that underpin them. A widened
analytical timeframe renders clear the dialectical relationship between (neo)liberal social
projects and their social responses, both progressive and reactionary. Whereas high volumes of
trade may coincide at a particular ‘optimal’ period of liberal expansionism with interstate peace,
they may also transform societies in ways that engender the conditions for a potential ‘illiberal’
turn or counter movement resulting in a higher risk of conflict as beggar-thy-neighbour
positions emerge and new enemies need to be sought by political elites to bind national-
constrained constituencies to their agendas to maintain power.

We can observe this temporal incongruity in the work of some of the key proponents of the
capitalist peace. For example, Oneal and Russett (1999, p. 439) argue that trade ‘sharply reduces
the onset of or involvement in militarized disputes among contiguous and major-power pairs’,
which are identified by Maoz and Russett (1993) as the set of countries more likely to enter into
conflict with each other. Despite Oneal and Russett’s sophisticated approach to the data
(modelling, for example, to avoid ‘false negatives’ by factoring in geographic contiguity, or
controlling for alliances) and the attention paid to statistical rejections of the liberal peace
argument, trade interdependence and the occurrence of conflict are analyzed on a year-by-year
basis (Oneal & Russett, 1999, p. 428). This is also the case with other comparable studies (Hegre,
2000; Oneal & Russett, 2001; Souva & Prins, 2006). This temporal frame is problematic, as inter-
national conflict tends to build up over prolonged periods of time, and the adverse impacts of
interdependence and liberal integration are more likely to result first in crisis and social
dislocation, followed by some sort of economic distancing (perhaps under a new administration
that replaces the one that embraced liberalization) and a wide range of policy measures, before
leading to military conflict – underpinned either by the state that perceives that liberal
integration is having negative impacts on socioeconomic development, or more often than not
by the one which wants to prevent the deterioration of important trade and investment links.

Here, one vital issue often left out of the liberal peace equations is the fact that most military
interventions in the post-Second World War period were aimed at disciplining countries that
opted out of the United States’ global liberalizing project and sought to pursue a variety of
indigenous pathways to modernity, often including many that did so under the rubric of
socialism, democratically achieved or otherwise. The reverse is also true, as countries that chose
to ally with the United States during the Cold War were shielded from attacks, and in some
cases given preferential trade access, technology transfer and allowed to engage in market
protection. In this context, associating conflict with the lack of strong trade links, rather than to
the meticulous unfolding of a market-based imperial agenda, would be tantamount to
concluding that low opium consumption was responsible for British military expeditions in 19th-
century China. While there is certainly a correlation between China’s ban on opium and British
intervention, nobody could seriously suggest that opium consumption reduces interstate
conflict. Similarly, in many of these cases, it is not that the absence of trade results in conflict,
but on the contrary, that military intervention has often been aimed at expanding markets and
protecting investment.
 Answer to Cap Good --- “Warming”
Green capitalism fails, reinforces imperialism, and linearly increases extractive
violence.
Brand & Wissen 21, Ulrich Brand: Professor for International Politics @ University of Vienna.
Markus Wissen: Professor of Social Sciences at the Berlin School of Economics and Law.
Translated by Zachary King (The Imperial Mode of Living: Everyday Life and the Ecological Crisis
of Capitalism, Verso Books)

EXTERNALIZATION AND RESISTANCE

Green capitalism is anything but inevitable. In many places, the creation of a green economy
has encountered resistance from the fossil factions of capital and from people’s everyday
practices. In the US especially, these forces have received an additional boost with the
presidency of Donald Trump. There is a boom in the extraction of oil and gas through fracking, in
tar sand oil extraction and in the exploration and exploitation of deep sea fossil energy sources.
42 In the EU, the transition to a renewable energy regime is slowed down by the Visegrád
Group (Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary). And even in places where green
capital factions and practices are becoming socially relevant, they are in constant conflict with
retrograde social forces. This description even applies to the ‘pioneer’ in renewable energies,
Germany, where powerful social forces from industry, energy suppliers and trade unions are
increasingly aggressive in articulating their resistance to the energy transition and find political
advocates in state apparatus such as the German Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and
Energy. 43

Eventually, green capitalism will neither effectively manage the ecological crisis nor reduce
inequality, let alone create good living conditions for all; instead, it will generate and externalize
new socioecological costs. It will impose these costs on the workers in China, Africa or
elsewhere who under miserable conditions extract rare earth metals and other raw materials
that are indispensable for ‘green’ technologies; on the sugar cane workers on Brazilian
plantations who risk life and limb to supply the US and European markets with ‘biofuels’; on the
peasants who are evicted from their farms and villages because of land grabbing; on Kenyan
women as they are ‘rewarded’ for reforestation activities with certificates of dubious value
while they sacrifice food security to protect the climate; and on unpaid care work and poorly
paid personalized services that are not considered in green economy concepts. 44

The power relationships between different factions of capital, as well as between the developed
capitalist world and the emerging economies of the global South, will be readjusted; inequality
will increase within industrialized and industrializing countries; relations with other parts of the
world will be reorganized on the basis of military coercion and by actively pursuing ‘a raw
materials diplomacy’. 45 The green capitalism project will therefore necessarily represent a
spatially ‘fragmented hegemony’ with a highly unclear temporal perspective; it is characterized
by exclusion and exploitation, and yet ensures the continuation of the
imperial mode of living. 46
Growth and emissions are recoupling. Past decoupling was insufficient and
temporary.
Parrique 21, PhD in economics from the Centre d’Études et de Recherches sur le
Développement—University of Clermont Auvergne, France and the Stockholm Resilience Centre
—Stockholm University, Sweden (Timothée, April 29th, “Is green growth happening?” Uneven
Earth, https://unevenearth.org/2021/04/is-green-growth-happening/)

The decoupling rates are minuscule

The study analyses 18 developed economies (Sweden, Romania, France, Ireland, Spain, UK,
Bulgaria, The Netherlands, Italy, United States, Germany, Denmark, Portugal, Austria, Hungary,
Belgium, Finland, and Croatia) between 2005 and 2015, finding that emissions decreased by a
median -2.4% per year during that decade.

This is tiny – three times smaller than the yearly 7.6% cut of global emissions that would be
necessary to meet 1.5°C Paris target (and this number is from 2019; the cuts would need to be
even larger today). One striking example is France. The study indicates that France decreased its
consumption-based emissions by a yearly -1.9% over the period with barely any GDP growth
(+0.9%). Now compare this to the French climate target, which is to reach 80 MtCO2 by 2050, an
80% reduction compared to 2019 levels of emissions.

The UK is another case in point. The country is often lauded to have achieved the fastest
experience of decoupling on Earth. In the Le Quéré study, its consumption-based emissions
decreased by -2.1% per year between 2005 and 2015 with positive GDP rates of around 1.1%.
This is not much in the way of decoupling; the country has pledged to reduce emissions by twice
that amount (5.1% per year). To actually comply with the Paris Agreement, the UK must achieve
a yearly 13% cut in emissions, starting now and for the decades to come. This is much – much –
more than what green growth can provide.

The authors themselves err on the side of caution: “as significant as they have been, the
emissions reductions observed […] fall a long way short of the deep and rapid global
decarbonization of the energy system implied by the Paris Agreement temperature goals,
especially given the increases in global CO2 emissions in 2017 and 2018, and the slowdown of
decarbonization in Europe since 2014.” Data from this year supports the authors’ precaution:
de-carbonisation in many high-income economies has slowed down after 2015.

The fact that these rates are so small is worrying because we’re dealing here with the
supposedly best country cases of decoupling. Assuming these rates can now suddenly accelerate
would be like expecting Usain Bolt to triple his running speed. Even more unlikely, we would
need all countries in the world to match the triple of these record levels.
A “sustainable” economy in any meaningful understanding of the term must consider all the
complex interactions it has with ecosystems, and not only carbon

Minuscule is a long way from enough

In March 2021, the authors published a new study showing that 64 countries managed to cut
their CO2 emissions by 0.16 GtCO2 every year between 2016 and 2019. This is good, but again,
not good enough. And not good enough has dire consequences. To be precise, this is one tenth
of what would be needed at the global level to meet the Paris climate goals; and if 64 countries
managed to reduce emissions, 150 others did not. The latter increased their emissions by 0.37
GtCO2 each year. Put the two numbers together and you realise that global emissions have
actually been growing by 0.21 billion tonnes per year.

This puts pressure on high-income economies. For developing countries to be able to increase
their ecological footprint, affluent nations must reduce theirs as much as possible. Climate-
neutrality at the national level by 2050 is not enough if we want today’s poorest to have the
option of increasing their material consumption. And rates of reduction in rich nations of 1-3%
are far from enough to compensate for the surge in resource use currently taking place in the
global South.

This is only fair considering historical emissions. The global North is responsible for 92% of
excess global CO2 emissions (the ones past the 350ppm threshold). For example, France has
already overshot its fair share of the climate budget by 29.4 GtCO2. The Le Quéré study shows
that it has decreased its emissions by 10 MtCO2 every year between 2005 and 2015. At that
pace, and assuming carbon neutrality, it would take almost three millennia for France to resorb
its climate debt.

Green growth without growth

Emissions in the 18 studied countries decreased by -2.4% each year, but how big was GDP
growth during that period? The answer: small. These economies grew by a median +1.1%.
Denmark, Italy, and Spain are leading the decoupling pack with yearly carbon reductions of -
3.7%, -3.3%, and -3.2% respectively. This, however, can hardly be called green growth because
these economies barely grew – or actually receded (+0.6% of GDP in the case of Denmark, -3.3%
for Italy, and -3.2% for Spain).

The authors acknowledge that this period is nothing extraordinary: “These reductions in the
energy intensity of GDP in 2005-2015 do no stand out compared to similar reductions observed
since the 1970s, indicating that decreases in energy use in the peak-and-decline group could be
explained at least in part by the lower growth in GDP.”

So, the paper most popularly cited to assert that carbon-free economic growth is possible also
shows that part of the decarbonisation is due to the fact that there was little or no growth. It
comes as no surprise then that, using simulations, the authors estimate that “if GDP returns to
strong growth in the peak-and-decline group, reductions in energy use may weaken or be
reversed unless strong climate and energy policies are implemented.”

Sustainability is more than just carbon

The authors’ study is about carbon, but carbon is one environmental problem among many
others. Unfortunately, it is the only one that is adequately researched, with 80% of decoupling
studies focusing on primary energy and greenhouse gases. This leaves only a few studies that
have been conducted on other aspects of ecological breakdown, including material use, water
use, land change, water pollution, waste, and biodiversity loss.

While there are a few inspiring stories of decoupling concerning carbon emissions, studies that
track other indicators tell us a different story, one in which the economy is still strongly coupled
with biophysical throughput. Materials are a good case in point. If the world economy was
gradually de-materializing in the 20th century, this trend has since been reversing in the last two
decades. This alone should temper optimism concerning an assumption of endless supplies of
renewable energy, which after all, are dependent on the mining of finite quantities of minerals.

My point is that a “sustainable” economy in any meaningful understanding of the term must
consider all the complex interactions it has with ecosystems, and not only carbon. A genuinely
sustainable economy should not only be carbon neutral, but also remains within the
regenerative capacities of all renewable resources, within the acceptable stocks of non-
renewable resources, and within the assimilative capacities of ecosystems. Although
sustainability ought to be understood as being about much more than only the condition of the
biophysical environment, it seems evident that living within planetary boundaries is a minimum,
non-negotiable condition for any kind of long-lasting prosperity.

Since GDP remains significantly coupled with carbon emissions and other environmental
pressures, a good way of limiting ecological wreckage is to put limits on the scale of the
economy

Temporary decoupling

Mitigating environmental pressures in a growing economy not only implies achieving absolute
decoupling from GDP, but also requires maintaining such decoupling in time for as long as the
economy grows (recalling that emissions must be reduced by at least 7.6% every year from now
on). Said differently, continuous economic growth requires a permanent absolute decoupling
between GDP growth and environmental pressures. Yet, in the same way that economic growth
and environmental pressures can decouple at one point in time, they can just as easily recouple
later on.

This happens more often than we think. Let’s reflect upon the time when the International
Energy Agency declared that decoupling was “confirmed” after observing a levelling of global
emissions in 2015 and 2016. Yet, this decoupling was short-lived. In fact, it was mainly due to
China moving from coal to oil and gas at the same time that the United States was shifting to
shale gas. The shift was temporary. After that, economic growth recoupled with carbon
emissions.

Situations of recoupling can also happen with renewables. In the decade between 2005 and
2015, Austria, Finland, and Sweden greened their energy mix and, as a result, lowered their
emissions. But once this shift is complete, further growth will require an expansion of the energy
infrastructure, which will imply additional environmental pressures. In fact, this is what
happened after the studied period. Austria decreased its emissions by -0.6% in 2006-2010 and -
1.6% in 2011-2015, but emissions returned positive by +0.3% in 2016-2019. A similar story took
place in Finland and Sweden; the rates of reduction accelerated between 2006 and 2015 but
slowed down after that.

Some commentators hypothesized that the return of economic growth after the pandemic
would be green, or at least, greener. Yet, global energy-related carbon dioxide emissions are on
course to surge by 1.5 billion tons in 2021 – the second-largest increase in history – reversing
most of the decline caused by the pandemic. The lesson from the corona crisis is this: slight
oscillations from light to heavy ecological beating are not enough – we need to radically and
immediately transform the economy.
ALTERNATIVE / FRAMEWORK
 Answer to “2AC Framework”
The debate is about the ideological paradigm of the 1ac. Epistemology and
ethics are prior to analysis of consequences.
Epistemology first. It’s the story of IP that makes it seem so appealing. But,
those benefits are a fiction created through neoliberal subjectification of the
masses.
Hull 19, PhD, Professor of Philosophy @ UNC-Charlotte (Gordon, “The Biopolitics of Intellectual
Property,” p. 55)//BB

Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, as Kapczynski (2012) notes, contemporary information
economics tells a much more nuanced story about other kinds of incentives to creation, which
are not obviously inferior to markets. When Demsetz says property rights are not clearly
inefficient, he is comparing them to the “socialist ideal,” which stacks the deck in favor of

neoliberal property rights by mischaracterizing the alternatives. It

is here that one can clearly see the production of a social truth: Based on a Hayekian claim
about the efficiency of markets, the neoliberal account of IP ignores serious challenges to its
central claims about efficiency, producing a discourse about the production of information that
presupposes the merits of proprietization. Ignoring the potential benefits of positive
externalities and structurally downplaying the risks of negative externalities makes a public
biopolitics unintelligible. Not only that, this supposed truth about the necessity of IP then
generates the need to create both a regulatory infrastructure and individual market actors that
subscribe to its basic framework.

Those actors do not just think economically; they accept a very specific narrative about
epistemically independent market actors making investment decisions based on the price
mechanism. They believe that the best way to deal with information is through proprietary
exclusion mechanisms, and not as a public good. Indeed, they think that being too solicitous of
a nebulous public interest poses an unacceptable risk to future innovation. This framing then
makes it difficult for them to articulate distributive or other concerns, because they always live
in a theoretical world where access is in conflict with creation. In this way, neoliberal reliance on
prices, its tolerance of monopoly, and the radical extension of market mechanisms into all of life
becomes the truth through which the production of information is understood. Because people
are not necessarily born with the beliefs and dispositions necessary to support the Demsetzian
account of property, they will have to be created. The theory, in other words, encourages a
process of subjectification. How such a process is to happen emerges as a question even in the
basic articulation of the theory. As Carol Rose notes, the Demsetzian account basically takes a
before and an after snapshot, and proposes that “people figured it out” in between. However,
one needs immediately to ask where the norms on which the property regime relies came from,
and how they became generally accepted (2006, p. 10). The only plausible answer to this
question is that these governing norms had to be created, which is to say that the property
regime has to make people who follow these norms and that the presence of a mass of people
who follow the norms is central to making the property regime.39 As the following chapters will
argue, making people who assent to the basic Demsetzian narrative about IP is a central task of
current IP regimes.

The alternative is not vague. If you think it is, that’s because the debate is
heavily controlled by neoliberal dogmatists. That doesn’t mean there ISN’T one,
just that questioning pro-IP propaganda is an absolute pre-requisite to realizing
it.
Shirazi & Johnson 21, Nima Shirazi: Editor at Muftah, a digital foreign affairs magazine, and co-
host of the media criticism podcast, Citations Needed. Adam Johnson: Host, The Appeal podcast.
Media analyst at FAIR.org and host of the Citations Needed podcast (January 27 th, “Episode 129:
Vaccine Apartheid and US Media’s Uncritical Adoption of Racist “Intellectual Property” Dogma,”
Citations Needed Podcast, https://citationsneeded.medium.com/episode-129-vaccine-
apartheid-us-medias-uncritical-adoption-of-racist-intellectual-property-b7fed9e288e6)//BB

Adam: Yeah, I think one of the things, one of the barriers that we come up against, and we
talked about this a great deal, and I’m sure you come across this as well, is that many, most of
the media, at least here in the United States, I assume in UK as well, they frame the issue of
intellectual property fidelity or fetishism, if you will, as a law of nature, like gravity or the tides,
it’s just something that always is, and always will be, and it’s sort of, you know, you saw this all
the time with dozens of headlines throughout the summer and the fall about people hacking the
vaccine technology, and it was sort of done in a sinister way. Now, if it’s zero sum, there’s
problems there, right? If you’re like physically stealing vaccines, I can understand why that’s a
problem, but I mean, if you’re just stealing the quote-unquote “intellectual property,” I have a
hard time getting too upset about that, because the real crime here is that we’re proprietary
about life saving medicine. I want to take some time to sort of, without getting a little too dorm-
room-bong-hit here, I want to sort of analyze the existential, or the sort of fundamental
premises here about the sanctity of intellectual property, and how so much of our leaders in the
media sort of take for granted these constructs that were largely invented by a kind of post
World War Two and post Cold War more specifically, arrangements — WTO, TRIPS, all that fun
stuff — and what you’re hearing activists are saying is that we have to sort of begin to
deprogram this dogma to really kind of get to the core of the issue, and that these
things are just things we made up. They’re not actual, they’re not commandments handed
down by god.

Heidi Chow: Yeah, yeah, no, you’re right, I think you really hit the nail on the head and you
talked about, you mentioned TRIPS, I’m not sure if your listeners know what TRIPS is, but TRIPS
is the global trade agreement where the standards for intellectual property have been
enshrined. And you know, for decades prior to TRIPS, the pharmaceutical industry were really
active in lobbying for global standards, intellectual property, so that they could go into any part
of the world and have strong intellectual property rights to protect their monopolies and so I
think that they’ve actually been really successful, like you said, they’ve actually pushed this so
that actually, the idea of intellectual property rights has become normalized, has become, like
you said said, a law of nature. And actually, what we’ve seen that really deadly result of that is
that we’ve seen time and time again, public health being sacrificed to protect this kind of, yeah,
this dogma or this altar of intellectual property rights. And it was, like you said, completely a
construct, and I would say, campaign success of the pharmaceutical industry to essentially stitch
up the global rules to work in their favor, in perpetuity. And they were very, you know, they
were very savvy about it, they knew that sticking in these rules into a global trade agreement
would mean that these rules would have teeth, that these rules would have the force of law
behind them. And so now we have a situation where the intellectual property rights are now
enshrined in such a way that no one can touch them, and no one has touched them for the last
20 years, I would say. And so what I find really exciting is the proposal that’s being discussed at
the World Trade Organization right now being put forward by the South African and Indian
governments to actually suspend four chapters of the TRIPS agreement which covers patents,
industrial design, copyrights and trade secrets, to suspend them in the current context of a
global pandemic, to allow all countries to have access to the health tools and health
technologies that they’re going to need to tackle this pandemic. And so for me, this proposal
when it came onto the table in October, it was like the first time in two decades since TRIPS was
set up that actually we are beginning to wake up and actually start to question, like you said,
that law of nature.

Nima: Yeah, this idea that the capitalization of innovation is supreme over any kind of public
benefit and that the kind of association between invention and ownership is so enshrined and I
think that, you know, much of this criticism around what we’ve been calling vaccine apartheid,
mirror those leveled by activists for years now, if not decades, right? This is sadly not a new
scenario, you know, especially when we look at the issue of access to HIV and AIDS drugs in the
Global South over the past number of decades. So obviously, there are differences here
between HIV and AIDS and COVID-19 pandemic, but can we, Heidi, talk about some of the
similarities here and maybe what previous examples of Big Pharma and WTO working against
the interests of the poor and others in the Global South and what that kind of can tell us what
we can learn from that and then how we can mobilize most effectively during this current crisis?
 Answer to “Market Fill-in Turn”
The alternative is to reject the ideology of property. That’s vital to a democratic
reorganization of society that equalizes the benefits of knowledge.
Andrews 19, Associate Professor of Cultural Studies at Columbia College Chicago, PhD in
Cultural Studies (Sean, “The Cultural Production of Intellectual Property Rights,” p. 170)//BB

The contemporary Law and Economics movement is a reaction against the appearance of an
active U.S. welfare state and a radical set of legal ideas, both of which seemed to be kowtowing
to militant pressure from below. The goal of this movement, like Locke’s at the end of the
English Civil War, is to reinstate the liberal understanding of the state. In Locke’s time, the
choice was to use the religious ideology ascendant in his culture; in the second half of the
twentieth century, activist scholars in the Law and Economics movement have used what they
argue is a scientific understanding of human behavior known as “economics.” In both cases,
these reactionary doctrines are largely successful because they help uphold—or, in the case of
the Law and Economics movement, reinstantiate—the functional power of property owners. In
short, both movements attempt to impose (or reimpose) a liberal doctrine of natural law that
matches the dictates of what I have called “the reified culture of property.” We must not shrink
from critiquing the more fundamental, neoliberal, Law and Economics ideology of property and
its nearly authoritarian resistance to the democratic reorganization of society: they begin by
defending class property but must end by bolstering the patriarchy, neocolonialism, and white
supremacy that have helped bring current distribution of all property into existence . The power
of property is not a neutral question of liberty, particularly when the effective liberty of the
majority relies on stifling that power, ideally through the expropriation and redistribution of
that property. This position is certainly political: it is supported by Piketty and other economists
studying the toxic—and growing—social effects of inequality. Pretending that the defense of
property rights—or IPR—is somehow innocent of politics overlooks the longue durée of the
coercive, state-led imposition of capitalist social relations. The advent of participatory digital
media—and the emergence of new forms of digital labor—should provide us an opportunity to
look anew at the fundamental premises and faulty conclusions of the Law and Economics
movement and to reconsider the role that the law and the state can play in helping secure a
more just and humane society and culture, where the benefits of effective liberty are enjoyed
by more than the top 1 percent of the population.
 Answer to “Alternative Fails”
Abolition solves by producing a revolution
Vizoso and Byrnes 23, *Senior Non-Resident Fellow at the Arab Reform Initiative,
**intellectual property (IP) lawyer, independent scholar, and co-founder of the art collective
AbolishIP, (Julia and Chris, “Abolitionist creativity,” Transnational Institute,
https://www.tni.org/en/article/abolitionist-creativity)//BB

We cannot understand digital capitalism today, and its many inequities, without understanding
how it has transformed every act of the human imagination, every data point, past and present,
into a potential commodity. A new generation of ‘disruptive’ tech firms have found ways to use
IP as an important part of their arsenal to control and exploit the labour and data of digital
workers and consumers alike in the so-called sharing economy. Yet perhaps no other asset
class is as ripe for revolution. For all its power in the economy, IP is also uniquely
vulnerable. We can occupy the vulnerabilities of the current system, untether creativity and
data from exclusion and personal possession, and forge it instead as a radically imaginative,
generative, and socially productive community-building practice. Abolitionist creativity Today,
trillions of imaginary dollars are exchanged for rights to imaginary property, yet we lack the
imagination necessary to transform the economy into something that could help life flourish.
Now, more than ever, creativity is the way out of the deadlocks we face. But for it to thrive we
must first abolish the economic and legal codes that shackle it .
Topicality_NEG
 1NC – Topicality “Domestic” vs. SHOP SAFE

The [first/next] off-case is Topicality “Domestic”

A. Domestic means the plan must exclusively create protection within the
United States
Kellie Kunkle, 2023 – “Understanding The Difference Between Domestic And International
Intellectual Property Law” Intellectual Property Law, 8/31, https://www.intipsa.com/what-is-
the-difference-between-domestic-and-international-intellectual-property-law //DH

Intellectual property (IP) law is a complex and ever-evolving field, with different rules and
regulations governing different countries. It is essential to comprehend the distinction between
domestic and international IP law to guarantee that your IP rights are secured. Domestic IP law
is the set of laws that control intellectual property inside a particular nation. These laws are
typically set up by the legislature of that nation and are intended to secure the privileges of
people and organizations to their intellectual property.

This incorporates patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets, and other forms of IP.
Domestic IP law is usually enforced by the courts of that country, although some countries may
have international agreements in place that allow for enforcement of IP rights in other countries
as well. International IP law, then again, is a set of laws that control intellectual property across
multiple countries. These laws are typically established through international treaties or
agreements between countries.

International IP law is intended to give a uniform set of rules for protecting IP rights across
multiple countries. This incorporates giving assurance for patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade
secrets, and other forms of IP. International IP law is usually enforced by international courts or
tribunals. The primary contrast between domestic and international IP law is that domestic IP
law applies just inside a particular nation, while international IP law applies across multiple
countries. Domestic IP law is typically more prohibitive than international IP law, as it is
intended to secure the privileges of people and organizations within a particular country.

B. Violation - Enforcement against trademark counterfeiting is extraterritorial,

not domestic
Kari Kammel, et al, 2023 – Director of the Center for Anti-Counterfeiting and Product
Protection at Michigan State University and an adjunct professor of law at MSU College of
Law“Trademark Counterfeiting Enforcement Beyond Borders: The Complexities of Enforcing
Trademark Rights Extraterritorially in a Global Marketplace with Territorial-Based Enforcement,”
33 Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L.J. 595 (2023).
https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/iplj/vol33/iss3/3 //DH
Today, e-commerce and the sale of products occurs on a global scale. Whereas commerce and
the trade of goods used to be done almost entirely within a territory or through goods moving
across borders, the global supply chain now has many different forms and can cross many
borders, jurisdictions, and the online space. While reaching consumers has become easier for
sellers, protecting intellectual property has become increasingly complex. Globalization is
prompting a reevaluation of this field as the Internet reduces the importance of national
borders. Trademarks are particularly susceptible to the effects of globalization because, unlike
copyrights and patents, trademark law is perceived, at least in the United States, to “extend
across national borders.”1 In this paper, we focus on the enforcement of trademark rights,
particularly those used against counterfeiters. We examine the concept of extraterritorial
enforcement of trademark rights—the extending of enforcement across national borders—and
review how different countries and jurisdictions approach this practice. In order to examine
extraterritoriality in this context, we need to review the history and basis of jurisdiction. In the
global enforcement of intellectual property rights, a general principle of territoriality exists.2
This principle exists beyond the scope of intellectual property and goes to the root of
international law, noting that countries, or nation-states, can only enact and enforce laws within
their own territory.3 This concept originates in public international law and can be found in
international intellectual property conventions and treaties, such as the Agreement on Trade-
Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights,4 the Madrid Agreement Concerning the
International Registration of Marks,5 and the Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement.6
However, while spelling out details of enforcement in intellectual property, these international
agreements contain only minimum standards,7 and each individual country must have domestic
implementing legislation to enforce that law and fulfill their treaty obligations.8 Once a country
creates and implements domestic legislation, the executive, judiciary, or other appropriate
government body interprets the laws, which is often where we see the doctrine of
extraterritoriality arise.9

C. Prefer our interpretation –

1. Limits – allowing teams to act internationally explodes the research base by
including extraterritoriality, international law, and harmonization with other
countries

2. Ground – their interpretation artificially expands aff ground to include

unpredictable advantages like international money laundering enforcement –
they could claim specific country advantages or treaties
D. Topicality is a voting issue for fairness and education.
 BLOCK:
They Say: “Counterinterpretation – Used in Commerce”

Domestic means the plan can only apply to actual harm in US commerce. Their
interpretation means anything that could potentially affect commerce would be
topical
JEFFREY A. LAMKEN, 2022 – Counsel of Record for Arbitron. Brief for Petitioners in the case
ABITRON AUSTRIA GMBH, ET AL., Petitioners, v. HETRONIC INTERNATIONAL, INC. Respondent.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-1043/250394/20221219183705310_Abitron
%20-%20Brief%20for%20Petitioners.pdf //DH

II.A-B. The government agrees the Lanham Act does not apply extraterritorially. It suggests that
applying the Act to a foreign sale represents a “domestic” application if the “effect” of that sale
might be U.S. consumer confusion. That argument is waived and without merit. The Lanham
Act requires “use in commerce.” Because the Act’s definition of “commerce” does not extend to
foreign conduct, the “use in commerce” must be in the United States.

Likewise, the Act’s text and structure make clear that its “focus” is trademarks’ “use in
commerce.” It is that “use” that must be domestic. The government suggests that the statute’s
“focus” is consumer confusion, such that the Act is applied “domestically” to foreign conduct if
that conduct has the potential “effect” of confusing U.S. consumers. But extraterritoriality is
primarily concerned with conduct, not effects. The government’s standard is a test for
determining when an extraterritorial law should cover foreign conduct—not distinguishing
extraterritorial from domestic application. The government’s test gives the statutory term “use
in commerce” inconsistent meanings. It is unpredictable, threatens international friction, and
serves little practical purpose.

III.A. The Tenth Circuit’s diversion-of-foreign-sales theory—that the Lanham Act applies
extraterritorially whenever U.S. plaintiffs claim lost foreign sales—distorts the Act beyond
recognition. It is divorced from statutory text; exceeds the commerce power; and would impose
a protectionist regime in breach of treaty obligations.

E-Commerce by definition has a cross-border application

Kari Kammel, et al, 2023 – Director of the Center for Anti-Counterfeiting and Product
Protection at Michigan State University and an adjunct professor of law at MSU College of
Law“Trademark Counterfeiting Enforcement Beyond Borders: The Complexities of Enforcing
Trademark Rights Extraterritorially in a Global Marketplace with Territorial-Based Enforcement,”
33 Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L.J. 595 (2023).
https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/iplj/vol33/iss3/3 //DH
Despite the seemingly territorial nature of trademarks, the sale of trademarked goods on e-
commerce and social media have exponentially increased the amount of cross-border
transactions, and therefore also the amount of infringing goods sold online across multiple
jurisdictions. Because infringers can reach potential consumers of goods and services anywhere
in the world, a tension now exists between the territorial nature of a trademark and the global
nature of the potential consumer. The basis for extraterritorial reach is mainly “to either prevent
spillovers from extraterritorial activities into the local market (inbound regulation) or to protect
and enforce the interests of the rightsholders also in other territories by implementing the local
IP regime (outbound regulation).”19
Neg Case Answers
Counterfeiting Advantage Answers
 1NC – Counterfeiting Advantage Answers

1. Counterfeiting is exaggerated and their statistics include physical sales

Matthew Schruers, 2023 - President Computer & Communications Industry Association “Back
to School with the SHOP SAFE Act: Protecting Our Families from Unsafe Online Counterfeits”
10/3, Proquest Congressional, accessed via University of Michigan //DH

MATTHEW SCHRUERS: We're just talking about the scale of the problem. And I would note that
all of these statistics that we're looking at are by their own terms, wildly inflated relative to the
problem that we're talking about. First of all, many of them are the upper range and so we get a
site of between X and Y. And Y is the top figure and then Y becomes the figure, so. We need to
realize that -- that the outer bound is not the median figure.

Secondly, most of these figures apply and include copyright piracy, patent infringement. And --
and I'll be the first to acknowledge that infringement in foreign markets that have weak rule of
law is a serious policy problem. That is not the problem that -- that we're talking about here.
This bill is not going to do anything about pirated software in China.

It's not going to prevent patent infringement. It's -- it's not going to prevent the sale of -- a
physical sale of a bootleg handbag on the street of Moscow, right? This is just about regulating
online platforms. And those numbers are wildly over inclusive based on what we're talking
about here. So I think we have to take these numbers with many grains of salt.

2. Status quo voluntary enforcement solves now

Matt Schruers, 2023 - President Computer & Communications Industry Association. Written
Statement submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee, “Back to School with the SHOP SAFE
Act: Protecting Our Families from Unsafe Online Counterfeits” Senate Hearing, 10/3,
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2023-10-03_-_testimony_-_schruers.pdf
//DH

b. Services Are Already Combating Counterfeits

The digital sector shares the sponsors' goals of preventing unsafe counterfeit products from
spreading online. Responsible services invest significant resources in protecting users from
illegal or unsafe goods, enforcing their terms of service and existing law to combat unsafe
products and protect consumers online. Many online intermediaries engage with brand owners
extensively and have established programs that encourage information sharing to enable the
identification of and enforcement against counterfeit and infringing goods.4 Industry also works
with law enforcement to find and hold bad actors accountable and protect consumers.
Some major e-commerce providers voluntarily provide legal tools for trademark or brand
owners. These brand registration programs allow the service to better utilize automated tools to
identify and remove confirmed counterfeit products. Through enrollment, brand owners provide
relevant information to the service about their products that better enables the service to
proactively address counterfeits, and to streamline brand owners’ reporting process. In
enforcing their strict prohibitions against counterfeiting, in many cases services will take more
extensive action than merely removing content that is specifically reported to them, and are
exploring ways to remove additional suspected counterfeit content on a proactive basis, with
some already doing so 99% of the time.5 Some sites voluntarily publish data in their recurring
transparency reports that detail removals on counterfeit goods, in addition to takedowns
related to trademark claims.6

3. Cyber-attacks won’t escalate to nuclear war – history demonstrates restraint

Erica Lonergan and Shawn Lonergan, 2023 - Erica D. Lonergan is an assistant professor at
the Army Cyber Institute at the US Military Academy at West Point and a research scholar at the
Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies at Columbia University. Shawn W. Lonergan is a US
Army Reserve officer assigned to 75th Innovation Command and a senior director in the Cyber,
Risk & Regulatory Practice at PricewaterhouseCoopers. Escalation Dynamics in Cyberspace,
google books, p. 6 //DH

Rather than dangerous escalatory spirals that threaten to spill over into kinetic conflict, even the
most heated interactions between rivals in cyberspace are characterized by limited, tit-for-tat
retaliations that are often separated by significant periods of time and that remain far below any
conflict or armed attack threshold. Indeed, in a survey of cyber incidents and responses between
2000 and 2014, Brandon Valeriano et al. find that "rivals tend to respond only to lower-level
[cyber] incidents and the response tends to check the intrusion as opposed to seek escalation
dominance. The majority of cyber escalation episodes are at a low severity threshold and are
nonescalatory."20 Similarly, Sarah Kreps and Jacquelyn Schneider conduct an original
experiment to test different logics of cyber escalation and find that cyber attacks "create a
threshold that restrains the escalation of conflict."21 Specifically, they find that Americans are
less likely to support using kinetic force to respond to a cyber attack, even when the effects of
the latter are comparable to other types of kinetic attacks.22

Even the most destructive cyber attack in history, NotPetya, launched by Russia in the spring of
2017 (reportedly using a leaked National Security Agency tool, EternalBlue), did not cause
escalation. NotPetya wreaked $10 billion worth of damage across the globe, including to large
multinational companies such as Maersk, Merck, and FedEx.23 If cyber operations are likely to
cause escalation, NotPetya would be a prime contender, not only because of the extent of the
damage inflicted, but also because it was carried out by a longstanding adversary of the nations
it affected, which included some of the most powerful states in cyberspace.

Yet, the response on the part of the countries affected by NotPetya was rather restrained. In
February 2018—nearly a year after the attack, seven allied nations (the United States, United
Kingdom, Denmark, Lithuania, Estonia, Canada, and Australia) issued official statements
attributing the NotPetya cyber attack to Russia.24 Concurrent with the coordinated attribution,
Rob Joyce, then the White House cybersecurity czar, threatened other ambiguous consequences
in remarks delivered at the Munich Security Conference in Germany. Joyce warned that the
United States would "work on the international stage to impose consequences. Russia has to
understand that they have to behave responsibly on the international stage ... So we're going to
see levers the U.S. government can do to impose those costs."25 However, it took nearly a year
for allied governments to organize a public, diplomatic attribution effort. The only observable
costs that were imposed on Russia were sanctions targeting a limited number of individuals
associated with the NotPetya attack as well as with the 2016 U.S. Presidential election
interference and cyber penetration of the U.S. power grid.26 Of course, it's possible that there
were additional, covert measures taken to impose costs on Russia. But if so, there was no
demonstrable effect on any escalation dynamic with Russia.

4. Power grids are resilient – and natural disasters prove there’s no impact
Tom Johansmeyer, 2024 - POLIR Ph.D. candidate at the University of Kent, Canterbury “Why
Natural Catastrophes Will Always Be Worse Than Cyber Catastrophes”
https://warontherocks.com/2024/04/why-natural-catastrophes-will-always-be-worse-than-
cyber-catastrophes/ //DH

When it comes to disaster, reach is far less important than physical impact. Lewis noted that
mass physical damage from cyber events hasn’t been realized, and the contrary is observably
true for natural disasters. Reversibility is an important and often overlooked aspect of physical
impact, as it defines the longevity of damage. Small-arms damage, for example, is generally
reversible, while nuclear attacks are not. Cyber attacks have been demonstrably reversible,
given their transitory nature. U.S. institutions and communities have become quite adept at
reversing the damage from natural disasters, but their widespread physical impact makes the
process much slower and labor-intensive than remediation after cyber attacks. A comparison of
two events makes this clear.

In 2015, a cyber attack on the power grid affected 230,000 people in Ukraine. Due to what has
often been characterized as an act of cyber war (a questionable use of that expression at best),
the lights were out for as long as six hours. This came as part of a wave of cyber attacks on the
grid in 2015 and 2016, none of which had any further meaningful impact. The 2015 cyber attack-
induced blackout tends to be seen as the “success story” for offensive cyber against power grids,
even despite the lack of sustained impact. Natural catastrophes, on the other hand, have had
no trouble depriving millions of people of access to electricity for days at a time. One of the
most interesting cases for closer study, though, is Hurricane Ida.

Hurricane Ida challenges the belief that natural catastrophes, due to geographical constraint,
are limited in their potential impacts. First, the storm was hardly limited by geography. It made
landfall in Louisiana and ultimately affected more than a dozen states directly or indirectly
before leaving the northeastern United States in its wake. The overall economic loss from the
storm exceeded $65 billion, according to Munich Re NatCatSERVICE. Yet, you don’t need to view
the storm as a whole to understand the challenges associated with reversibility.
Let’s go back to Louisiana, where 1.1 million people went without power for more than a week.
Compared to the 2015 cyber attack in Ukraine, the depth and breadth of the outage is
incredible. However, the week-long outage should be seen as brief, given the effort required to
bring the lights back. Hurricane Ida “destroyed more than 22,000 power poles, 26,000 spans of
wire and 5,261 transformers — that’s more poles damaged or destroyed than hurricanes
Katrina, Zeta and Delta combined.” Cyber catastrophes could thus be seen as more
geographically constrained than natural catastrophes, when viewed from the perspective of
remediation efforts. The need to engage directly with what has been damaged is far more
concentrated. The relative speed and ease with which cyber catastrophe damage can be
reversed appears to have created an upper limit for economic effect, while the need to go out
and fix broken equipment after a natural disaster necessarily takes more time, people, and
expense.

5. Cooperation turn - contributory liability undermines cooperation between

brands and platforms, which increases counterfeiting
Jonathan Berroya, 2021 - Senior Vice President and General Counsel, Internet Association.
Testimony before the Subcommittee On Courts, Intellectual Property, and The Internet Judiciary
Committee U.S. House of Representatives. The SHOP SAFE Act: Stemming the Rising Tide of
Unsafe Counterfeit Products Online. 5/27,
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU03/20210527/112713/HHRG-117-JU03-Wstate-
BerroyaJ-20210527.pdf //DH

IV. REMOVING PROTECTIONS FOR ONLINE SERVICE PROVIDERSIS NOT THE SOLUTION TO THE
COUNTERFEITING PROBLEM.

Changing the secondary liability standards, as SHOP Safe does, will not address the true cause of
counterfeiting—the actual infringer. A company that delivers the products consumers order
from third parties may have no way to know whether the third-party seller of those products, in
turn, bought them from a legitimate supplier. Cloud storage companies have no way to tell
whether documents stored on their sites violate a third party’s trademark rights. But all could be
subject to incredibly onerous obligations if this overbroad legislation becomes law.

Instituting a strict legislative regime could backfire. Currently, online services are working
cooperatively with rights holders and the government to stop counterfeiting; but in the face of a
legislative mandate, companies may hesitate to do anything other than what the law requires
to avoid the risk of future liability. For example, companies may not explore alternative
counterfeiting solutions, even if those solutions would ultimately be more effective at getting
counterfeits off of the internet than the legislative framework. That would help nobody—not
the brand owner, not the online service, and not the consumer. People who commit intellectual
property crimes are adept at adjusting their sales and distribution methods to evade detection
as intellectual property enforcement techniques improve. Because enforcement can be such a
cat-and-mouse endeavor, flexibility and good faith collaboration, not legislative mandates, are
most likely paths to effective solutions.
 Extend: “Counterfeiting Exaggerated”
Affirmative statistics are prior to the passage of the INFORM Act and include
non-trademark forms of counterfeiting
Matt Schruers, 2023 - President Computer & Communications Industry Association. Written
Statement submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee, “Back to School with the SHOP SAFE
Act: Protecting Our Families from Unsafe Online Counterfeits” Senate Hearing, 10/3,
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2023-10-03_-_testimony_-_schruers.pdf
//DH

Fighting counterfeits is a shared mission and we advise Congress to regulate the retail market in
its totality, including e-commerce, traditional brick-and-mortar, and small businesses, using a
coherent regulatory approach that applies to everyone. However, American small businesses
should not be expected to shoulder a disproportionate burden. Instead, the regulatory approach
should also be proportional to the scale, and the scale of the problem is far from clear. A
popular figure that is frequently invoked ($500 billion) is a four-year-old, worst-case scenario
that sweeps in estimated copyright and patent infringement and precedes recent legislation,
and is thus not useful for this policy discussion.

II. SHOP SAFE Is Not Needed

a. Give INFORM Time to Work

Like SHOP SAFE, INFORM aimed to reduce the sale of counterfeit, stolen, and dangerous
consumer products with updated transparency requirements and verification of third-party
sellers online along with contact information for consumers. INFORM was designed to help build
more trust online by providing consumers additional transparency about third-party sellers
online and because CCIA supports this goal we endorsed INFORM.

This law went into effect only three months ago on June 27, 2023. The recently reintroduced
SHOP SAFE contains largely the same provisions that were proposed before INFORM passed.
The 117th Congress simultaneously debated both bills and Congress ultimately reached
consensus around INFORM, with broad cross-sectoral support from the private sector.

Advocacy for the newly reintroduced SHOP SAFE advances the same pre-INFORM figures,
lacking any learnings or conclusions about the impact of INFORM. Rather than relying on
outdated numbers, Congress should obtain updated information that takes into account this
newly enacted and implemented law before rushing to pass new legislation that could destroy
many legitimate small businesses operating online.

The best course of action is to allow INFORM time to work. We need to see and understand its
impact in the real world to judge if additional legislative responses or course corrections are
required.
The INFORM Act is reducing counterfeiting now- it just needs time
Matt Schruers, 2023 - President Computer & Communications Industry Association. Responses
to questions from Senator Tillis. “Back to School with the SHOP SAFE Act: Protecting Our
Families from Unsafe Online Counterfeits” Senate Hearing, 10/3,
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2023-10-03_-_qfr_responses_-
_schruers.pdf //DH

Online marketplaces and sellers have invested significant time and resources to implement the
INFORM Consumers Act. It will take time to understand how INFORM impacts both
marketplaces and especially small and medium-sized sellers. Lawmakers should give INFORM
time to work before pushing legislation that is more burdensome and harmful to online sellers.
Because of INFORM, covered “online marketplaces” have placed additional identification,
verification, and disclosure requirements on sellers. This will help prevent bad actors from
selling through online marketplaces and give stakeholders improved tools against repeat
offenders. In addition, INFORM will help boost collaboration between digital services, industry
stakeholders across the online ecosystem, and with law enforcement. INFORM will also help
protect small business sellers who are running legitimate businesses online by helping to weed
out bad actors and give consumers more confidence online.

Most counterfeiting occurs in physical marketplaces, not online

Jonathan Berroya, 2021 - Senior Vice President and General Counsel, Internet Association.
Testimony before the Subcommittee On Courts, Intellectual Property, and The Internet Judiciary
Committee U.S. House of Representatives. The SHOP SAFE Act: Stemming the Rising Tide of
Unsafe Counterfeit Products Online. 5/27,
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU03/20210527/112713/HHRG-117-JU03-Wstate-
BerroyaJ-20210527.pdf //DH

A small percentage of bad actors misuse online marketplaces to offer counterfeit goods. But
counterfeiting did not begin with the internet. Spurious trademarks are as old as trademarks
themselves; by the early 1980s, long before the commercial internet, 30 percent of businesses
responding to an ITC questionnaire reported that their goods had recently been subject to
counterfeiting.4 Nor did counterfeiting through brick and mortar stores end with the growth of
online services. Some of the most significant recent secondary liability trademark cases in the
United States involved physical storefronts, not online companies.

Even as the sale of goods has moved increasingly online, physical markets continue to play the
dominant role in facilitating the trade in counterfeit goods, including markets in China, Russia,
and Vietnam, among other places. In 2019, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (“OECD”) released a report titled Illicit Trade: Trends in Trade in Counterfeit and
Pirated Goods, which provides a comprehensive, “quantitative analysis of the value, scope and
magnitude of world trade in counterfeit and pirated products.” The report demonstrates the
complex 6 issues with tracking and identifying counterfeit goods. The problem is only
compounded as “parties that engage in the trade of counterfeit and pirated products tend to
ship infringing products via complex routes, with many intermediary points... to facilitate
falsification of documents in ways that camouflage the original point of departure, establish
distribution centers for counterfeit and pirated goods, and repackage or re-label goods.” This
often makes it nearly 7 impossible for external experts, and even trained government officials,
to spot counterfeit goods.

Efforts to stem the flow of counterfeit goods should not focus solely on online marketplaces. To
protect consumers, any proposal must also take into account the dominant role that physical
marketplaces continue to play, and should also be directed at the sources of counterfeits
manufacturing.
 Extend: “Status Quo Solves”
Online platforms are incorporating new technology to detect counterfeiting
now
Krista Chavez, 2024 – Senior Communications Manager at NetChoice “4 Ways Retailers
Combat Counterfeiting” 5/9, https://netchoice.org/4-ways-retailers-combat-counterfeiting //DH

But retailers are working hard to counter these trends and protect their customers. Here’s four
ways how:

Using AI to Spot Fakes

Retail marketplaces are deploying AI algorithms to recognize features like logo placement and
trademarks that distinguish genuine products from counterfeit ones. When marketplaces can
partner directly with rightsholders to identify key markers, it makes these AI algorithms even
more powerful. AI programs also flag sellers who engage in counterfeiting. Some retail platforms
use third-party software, like Corsearch, to help them find counterfeit goods. eBay purchased
3PM Shield, a provider of AI marketplace tools, to “enhance its ability to address suspicious or
harmful seller behavior, and potentially problematic items.”

In 2023, Amazon identified and removed seven million counterfeit items from the supply chain.
And the sneaker resale platform StockX stopped nearly $30 million of fake sneakers from trading
on the platform.

At the same time, many luxury retailers like Mulberry and Prada are investing in digital IDs for
their products to make identifying counterfeits easier. And LVMH and Cartier, along with others,
have created the Aura Blockchain Consortium, which offers a certificate that guarantees the
authenticity of luxury products.

Creating Databases of Bad Actors

The U.S. Department of Justice has created a database to track pharmaceutical, electronic and
food counterfeiting crimes with open-source information. But retailers are also taking measures
into their own hands. Etsy, for example, added a portal to report alleged copyright violations.

Retailers can flag bad actors in the supply chain by avoiding unknown manufacturers who seem
overly eager to do business – stick with reputable manufacturers instead. Ship times can also be
a red flag; counterfeit products, particularly those involved in drop shipping schemes, typically
take much longer to ship than reputable retailers.

Taking Legal Action

Companies also aggressively pursue counterfeit goods manufacturers and sellers. In 2023,
Bulgari sued several online stores for selling ‘Bvlgari’ products. The suit says the defendants sell
counterfeit merchandise at e-commerce stores that are difficult to distinguish from the
company’s official online presence. In 2022, Crocs won a default judgment against a footwear
maker accused of selling counterfeit versions of Crocs’ signature plastic clogs.
Amazon’s Counterfeit Crimes Unit (CCU) detects, investigates and removes counterfeit items
from the site and identifies bad actors as targets for prosecution all over the world. Since its
launch in 2020, the unit has pursued more than 21,000 bad actors through litigation and
criminal referrals to law enforcement, according to its 2024 Brand Protection Report.

In addition to the disposal of counterfeit products, in 2023, Amazon collaborated with brands
and Chinese law enforcement, which led to more than 50 successful raid actions against
manufacturers, suppliers, or upstream distributors of counterfeit products. This collaboration
resulted in numerous criminal convictions.

Educating Consumers

Retailers are taking measures to: 1) help consumers identify potential counterfeit goods; and 2)
educate consumers on the risks of purchasing counterfeit products. This includes engaging with
media outlets, utilizing social media and creating reports, like Etsy’s transparency report.

According to IncoPro, millennials ages 25 to 34 are most at risk for these scams, being much
more likely to buy fake goods unknowingly (41%) than those over 55 (18%). But education can
help. According to Michigan State University, “the higher consumers’ awareness of the severity
of counterfeit risks, the less likely they are to purchase counterfeits.”

For example, Amazon has partnered with the International Trademark Association and not-for-
profit career student organization DECA to launch the Unreal Campaign Challenge, a campaign
to make consumers better aware of the risks that counterfeit goods pose.

The counterfeit goods trade often supports organized crime, including gangs, drug cartels and
terrorist organizations. Profits from counterfeit sales can fund other illegal activities,
contributing to societal harm. Another byproduct is environmental: Counterfeit goods often
bypass environmental regulations, leading to harmful production practices and waste disposal
methods.

Worldwide trade in counterfeit products adds up to more than $500 billion each year. But
retailers and online marketplaces are working hard and taking proactive steps to protect
consumers and legitimate business services.
 Extend: “Cyber Attacks Won’t Escalate”

History disproves escalation

Erica Lonergan and Shawn Lonergan, 2023 - Erica D. Lonergan is an assistant professor at
the Army Cyber Institute at the US Military Academy at West Point and a research scholar at the
Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies at Columbia University. Shawn W. Lonergan is a US
Army Reserve officer assigned to 75th Innovation Command and a senior director in the Cyber,
Risk & Regulatory Practice at PricewaterhouseCoopers. Escalation Dynamics in Cyberspace,
google books, p. 6-7 //DH

The NotPetya case is just one example. Nevertheless, the overall absence of any meaningful
instances of cyber escalation raises questions about the extent to which the cyber domain is
truly escalatory, let alone more dangerous than other domains of warfare or strategic
competition. In other words, there is a significant mismatch between the cyber escalation views
held by many prominent experts and the available evidence. Three factors could account for this
gap.

First, differences between theoretical expectations and empirical reality may stem from
definitional issues—specifically, how those who assert that the cyber domain is inherently
escalatory define what "escalation" means. As we discuss in detail later in this chapter, we
conceptualize escalation as something that changes the nature of a strategic interaction
between parties in a way that makes war more likely or, if conflict is already taking place, more
severe. According to this definition, neither the sheer volume of cyber incidents in the
international system nor evidence of any type of response to a cyber incident necessarily
constitutes escalation.2, In contrast, some may point to the observation of a high volume of
cyber incidents or any form of tit-for-tat dynamic (irrespective of the relative level of cost and
risk they may generate) as forms of escalation. However, the mere presence of behavior or
activity per se is not sufficient evidence of escalation.

Alternatively, some may acknowledge that cyber escalation has not yet occurred, but it could be
lurking around the next corner. This reasoning has some parallels to academic debates about
the success of nuclear deterrence during the Cold War. Deterrence optimists opined that the
absence of nuclear war between the United States and Soviet Union was due to the success of
the strategy, while others have argued that the world simply got lucky.28 However, unlike the
Cold War, where neither superpower ultimately chose to unleash its nuclear arsenal on the
other, the offensive employment of cyber capabilities is hardly unthinkable. States have
developed and employed offensive cyber capabilities since the 1980s and their use is only
becoming more prevalent.29 The sheer number of cyber incidents that has occurred over the
course of multiple decades raises questions about how likely it is that cyber escalation would
take place in the future, given the multi-decade track record of cyber incidents not causing that
outcome. That said, as part of our analysis in this book we explore plausible hypothetical
escalation scenarios, with a focus on cyber operations that take place during conflict. Finally,
there may simply be a mismatch between the conventional wisdom about cyber escalation and
the empirical reality because the conventional wisdom is wrong. This is the core contention of
our book.

Crisis diplomacy and restraint disproves the impact

James Lewis, 2021 – Senior Vice President and Director, Strategic Technologies Program at the
Center for Strategic and International Studies, “Toward a More Coercive Cyber Strategy” 3/10,
https://www.csis.org/analysis/toward-more-coercive-cyber-strategy //DH

The risk of escalation is grossly exaggerated. Countless Track II dialogues are undertaken to
reduce the risk of miscalculations that could lead a cyber incident to escalate into kinetic
violence. Yet, in two decades of malicious cyber action, there has never been an incident that
has led to escalation. While there have been a few instances of unintended consequences and
collateral damage, these did not lead to an escalation of conflict. We can now reject the initial
hypothesis of miscalculation and escalation as inaccurate. The likely reasons there have been no
cyber incidents that resulted in escalation is that states maintain careful control of their most
dangerous cyber capabilities and have devoted their own strategies to reduce risk. We should
learn from their experience of tight leadership and control as we design our own active policies.

A new strategy must use communications, messaging, and signals with opponents, allies, and
publics. This does not mean that every action should be accompanied by a press release, but a
new cyber strategy will need to use public and private communications to shape opinion in ways
favorable to the United States and make it clear that our actions are guided by international law
and agreement. Adopting a more assertive posture in cyberspace is in itself a message that will
improve our position with opponents. Diplomatic and public messaging can help manage
escalation risk and strengthen collective responses with allies while shaping opponents’
planning. Decisions on timing and audience will be determined by the specifics of each action,
but our overall goal should be to end Strangelovian opacity.

No one’s ever died from cyber, and even the hypothetical catastrophes are not
as bad as a war
Erica D. Lonergan & Shawn W. Lonergan, 2022 - Erica D. Lonergan is an assistant professor
at the Army Cyber Institute at the US Military Academy at West Point and a research scholar at
the Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies at Columbia University. Shawn W. Lonergan is a
US Army Reserve officer assigned to 75th Innovation Command and a senior director in the
Cyber, Risk & Regulatory Practice at PricewaterhouseCoopers. “Cyber Operations,
Accommodative Signaling, and the De-Escalation of International Crises,” Security Studies, 31:1,
32-64, DOI: 10.1080/09636412.2022.2040584 //DH
Finally, an essential aspect of cyber operations’ strategic effects is the level of harm to the
target. Most malicious cyber activity to date has not risen to a threshold of significant harm,
violent effects, or loss of life.44 This is especially the case when compared to other military
capabilities.45 That said, there are different ways to operationalize level of harm. One potential
metric is loss of life. To date, no one has reportedly died as a direct result of a cyberattack,
despite over thirty years of recorded cyber operations. 46 Even in hypothetical catastrophic
scenarios, the cost in terms of human casualties is relatively low compared to other military
capabilities. For instance, a common worst-case scenario is a cyberattack on a power grid.47
However, the 2015 Russian cyberattack against Ukraine’s power grid, the first known example of
an offensive cyber operation targeting a state’s power grid, did not lead to any reported
casualties.48

It is also possible to measure the harm cyber operations inflict in treasure rather than blood.
According to this metric, the financial or economic costs of cyberattacks are significant. For
example, the total cost of the most expensive cyberattack in history, the 2017 NotPetya attack,
is estimated at $10 billion.49 However, governments have largely avoided characterizing these
operations as crossing an “act of war” or “use of force” threshold.50 While still of strategic
consequence, cyber operations (especially absent physical violence) appear to be perceived
differently than other military operations.51

Given different approaches, we chose to measure level of harm in terms of the target state’s
perception of a cyber operation’s national security consequences. Perception may not perfectly
align with the objective human or economic costs. For instance, the SolarWinds supply chain
breach, revealed in December 2020, compromised many US federal government and private
sector networks but did not cause loss of life.52 Nevertheless, the US government chose to
activate the response process outlined in Presidential Policy Directive 41, which applies to cyber
incidents that rise to a certain level of significance.53 This example illustrates how the perceived
level of harm ultimately is a political or strategic assessment, rather than an objective measure
of calculatable damage.

Taken together, the strategic effects of most cyber operations are relatively limited when
compared to other types of military operations. That said, different types of cyber operations
vary in their level of effects. These two points have implications for accommodative signaling.
Specifically, in the context of an international crisis, the relative effects of a cyber operation
inform how the adversary perceives the intent behind the signal.54 In this sense, the key
audience for a cyber operation’s effects is the adversary government. Because cyber operations
lack the physical violence and permanent destruction associated with other military capabilities
—and may even be less painful than some economic instruments, such as sanctions— they
could signal restraint relative to other options. Moreover, the choice of a disruptive cyber
operation that has temporary effects, in comparison to a destructive cyber operation with
longer-term effects, could also send an accommodative signal. The sequencing of the cyber
operation could also inform its interpretation. For instance, if a cyberattack follows a kinetic
one, it could be perceived as a de-escalatory choice.
Cyberattacks are minor and manageable
John Mueller, 2022 - Political Scientist at Ohio State University and a Senior Fellow at the Cato
Institute “The Cyber-Delusion: Digital Threats Are Manageable, Not Existential” Foreign Affairs,
3/22, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/russia-fsu/2022-03-22/cyber-delusion //DH

This contemporary approach to cyberthreats resembles the aftermath of 9/11, when almost all
experts believed an even larger terrorist attack would soon take place. Then, as now, the threat
is overblown. Although occasionally dramatic, cyberattacks have turned out to be a
comparatively minor and manageable threat. Far too much discussion around the issue focuses
on worst-case scenarios, fails to contextualize the problem, and neglects to weigh the costs of
cyberattacks against the enormous value of the Internet and artificial intelligence. Most
commentary, moreover, does not fully appreciate the ability of the business sector—by far the
most tempting of targets for malevolent hackers—to develop effective countermeasures.

CYBERWAR

Over the past decade, the global obsession with digital threats has taken various forms, with a
particular focus on the potential military implications of emerging cyber-capabilities. To be sure,
the military needs to worry about keeping its communications and command and control
operations secure from hostile attackers. Any disruptions, however, are more likely to be
instrumental or tactical than strategic.

Despite statements to the contrary, the U.S. military itself seems to have recognized this reality.
When Panetta proclaimed in 2013 that cyber was “without question, the battlefield for the
future,” political scientist Micah Zenko observed at the time that the Pentagon was spending
less than one percent of its budget on cybersecurity, and an assessment from 2019 suggests it
may be more like one-tenth of one percent. If those funds prove adequate for the challenge, it
would be something of a bargain.
 Extend: “Power Grids Are Resilient”

Grids are resilient and disruption is temporary

John Mueller, 2022 - Political Scientist at Ohio State University and a Senior Fellow at the Cato
Institute “The Cyber-Delusion: Digital Threats Are Manageable, Not Existential” Foreign Affairs,
3/22, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/russia-fsu/2022-03-22/cyber-delusion //DH

Cyber-alarmists have also warned about hackers disabling major infrastructure such as power
grids—potentially crippling entire countries. Grids do go down occasionally, but the culprits are
typically squirrels and lightning. Regardless of the source, such disruptions are usually brief and
bearable, and engineers are increasingly designing systems that are resilient to such threats.
Estonia, for instance, the victim of a major and oft-discussed cyberattack in 2007, is now the
home of NATO’s Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence.

Grid cybersecurity is increasing

Sonal Patel, 2024 – staff writer “The Power Sector’s High-Stakes Battle for Cyber-Resiliency”
Power: News & Technology for the Global Energy Industry, https://www.powermag.com/the-
power-sectors-high-stakes-battle-for-cyber-resiliency/ //DH

A Collective Push Toward Resilience

For the power sector, cyber threats remain top-of-mind, but its quest for good cybersecurity
posture has evolved into a crucial risk management strategy with several new drivers. For one,
significant security risks are associated with the changing resource mix. The grid transformation
“is expanding the existing attack surface due to the use of emerging technologies, additional
communications, and industrial controls as well as remote control capabilities,” explains the
North American Electric Reliability Corp. (NERC), a quasi-governmental compliance enforcement
authority.

Modern cybersecurity, which includes several security principles and concepts, typically
comprises a defense-in-depth philosophy, but these were not historically integrated into the
planning, design, and operation of the grid’s OT systems, NERC notes. As part of their embrace
of digitalization, power companies are increasingly connecting the OT environment to outside
networks through the incorporation of intelligent devices capable of internet protocol (IP)
communications. “These channels provide opportunities for adversaries to exploit latent
vulnerabilities within the existing system, as cybersecurity was not part of the design equation
for legacy equipment, software, and networks. The introduction of new technologies and new
types of entities entering electricity markets also present new cyber-attack vectors,” it added.

In North America, power entities abide by NERC Critical Infrastructure Protection (NERC CIP)
standards, which have set requirements for cybersecurity management and control, personnel
training, incident reporting, response planning, recovery plans for critical cyber assets, and
security controls for grid technology and product suppliers. The European Union, meanwhile, in
October 2023, modernized its 2016 Network and Information Directive (NIS). The update
broadens the scope of critical entities to recharging point operators and various electricity
market participants, and it reinforces cybersecurity requirements along their supply chain.

Power sector cybersecurity posture has also been guided by voluntary cybersecurity
frameworks, including from the DOE and the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST), and public-private collaborations, such as an effort led by the Electricity Information
Sharing and Analysis Center (E-ISAC). One example is the Cybersecurity Risk Information Sharing
Program (CRISP), which facilitates the timely bi-directional sharing of unclassified and classified
threat information, and development of situational awareness tools. CRISP participants
currently provide power to more than 75% of U.S. customers, the DOE said.

However, the power sector’s cybersecurity imperative also largely responds to shareholder
concerns about corporate risks posed by cybersecurity. In March 2022, the U.S. enacted the
Cyber Incident Reporting for Critical Infrastructure Act, placing a reporting obligation on
companies in some critical infrastructure sectors, including energy and nuclear reactors. And in
July 2023, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) finalized a rule that mandates
disclosure regarding cybersecurity risk management, strategy, governance, and incident
reporting for publicly traded companies. Future rules may hinge on the White House’s March
2023 rollout of a National Cybersecurity Strategy, which envisions “fundamental shifts” in how
the U.S. allocates roles, responsibilities, and resources in the cyberspace.

Industry-Led Innovation

“Regulations, if done correctly, are good and required to set a baseline,” noted Patrik Boo,
portfolio manager of Cyber Security Services at ABB. “The risk, when regulations are not done
well, is that they set a minimum level,” he noted. Industry appears to understand this. Despite
pressures, it is today leveraging a legacy in innovation and has embarked on exploring new tools
to enhance cybersecurity along with efficiency.

Some companies are looking into integrating artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance and
streamline cybersecurity. AI for cybersecurity offerings also appears to be ramping up.
Technology firm NVIDIA recently rolled out Morpheus, an open application framework that
“enables cybersecurity developers to create optimized AI pipelines for filtering, processing, and
classifying large volumes of real-time data,” It essentially brings a “new level of security to the
data center, cloud, and edge,” by using AI to “identify, capture, and act on threats and
anomalies that were previously impossible to identify.” One attribute, for example, uses digital
fingerprinting of the AI workflow to “uniquely fingerprint every user, service, account, and
machine across the network—employing unsupervised learning to flag when activity patterns
shift.”

Efforts are also progressing to integrate blockchain—best known for securing digital currency
payments—with cybersecurity. A project under Oak Ridge National Laboratory’s Darknet
initiative had developed a framework to detect unusual activity, including data manipulation,
spoofing, and illicit changes to device settings. “Cyber risks have increased with two-way
communication between grid power electronics equipment and new edge devices ranging from
solar panels to electric car chargers and intelligent home electronics. These activities could
trigger cascading power outages as breakers are tripped by protection devices,” ORNL noted.
The framework proposes a “totally new capability” to respond to anomalies rapidly,” it said. “In
the long run, we could more quickly identify an unauthorized system change, find its source, and
provide more trustworthy failure analysis. The goal is to limit the damage caused by a
cyberattack or equipment failure.”

The DOE’s Office of Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and Emergency Response (CESER) is
spearheading several notable partnerships with industry, including funding initiatives, aimed at
enhancing power sector cybersecurity. A notable program is the Cyber Testing for Resilient
Industrial Control Systems (CyTRICS) program at Idaho National Laboratory, which tests critical
system components to identify cyber vulnerabilities before they are exploited. The effort is
geared to improve the security of ICS and software supply chains.
 Extend: “Cooperation Turn”

Cooperation is a prerequisite to solvency. Platforms don’t have access to brand

data so they can’t determine whether a mark is counterfeit
Matt Schruers, 2023 - President Computer & Communications Industry Association. Written
Statement submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee, “Back to School with the SHOP SAFE
Act: Protecting Our Families from Unsafe Online Counterfeits” Senate Hearing, 10/3,
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2023-10-03_-_testimony_-_schruers.pdf
//DH

III. Concerns with SHOP SAFE

CCIA has significant concerns with SHOP SAFE including broad, ambiguous definitions,
prescriptive and inflexible requirements to escape automatic liability, and lack of meaningful
responsibilities on the brand side, which mean the bill will not successfully accomplish what it
seeks to address.

a. Lack of Rightsholder Participation

SHOP SAFE's new regulatory responsibilities place enormous burdens on small businesses, of
which the vast majority are operating legitimately. We should not impose an unreasonable
compliance burden on small U.S. sellers, particularly if the principal beneficiaries are to be
overseas luxury brands that don't care for pro-consumer retail practices in the first place. In
order for digital services to effectively protect consumers from unsafe counterfeit goods, brand
owners must be required to provide detailed information to digital services about the scope of
their trademark rights and licensing. "Counterfeit mark," as defined by statute,8 turns on non-
public information about when manufacture occurred and whether it was licensed at the time.
With no way of proactively determining whether a seller was licensed to manufacture a
particular product at a point in the past, digital services cannot plausibly administer this
definition without possessing up-to-date and comprehensive information controlled by brand
owners.

Everyone in the retail ecosystem has an important role to play. If there are data gaps that can
only be populated with non-public information then this legislation should ensure that brand-
owners share this data. Unfortunately SHOP SAFE does not balance burdens between digital
commerce sites and brands.

Notably, the revised version also removed the cause of action for "material misrepresentations,"
aimed at abusive takedown notices provided by brands.9 Unfortunately, this continues to
demonstrate the unbalanced nature of SHOP SAFE that places all significant burdens on sellers
and not brands who are best positioned to accurately identify and report counterfeit items. The
new version appears to attempt to add one new minimal obligation on brands to provide a
notice of their mark and point of contact in advance of electronic commerce platforms adopting
proactive measures. However, Paragraph 4(B)(iv)(III) removes any obligation of the registrant to
participate. Under this language, if information about their marks is publicly available, they don't
have to participate, and information about all registered marks is publicly available through the
USPTO. In addition, the legislation prevents registrants from being required to participate in any
program designed by the electronic commerce platform to crack down on counterfeiting. To
truly combat trademark infringement we need significantly more cooperation on the brand
side. Small and medium-sized businesses simply do not have the bandwidth and resources to
spend multiple days investigating such claims and could be forced out of business for an
incorrect challenge from a brand. Unfortunately SHOP SAFE does not contain any small seller
exception ensuring that all sellers, no matter how small, will be bound by the terms of the law.

Requiring proactive screening creates enormous compliance costs and means

platforms will reduce infringement enforcement to solely what the law requires
Matt Schruers, 2023 - President Computer & Communications Industry Association. Written
Statement submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee, “Back to School with the SHOP SAFE
Act: Protecting Our Families from Unsafe Online Counterfeits” Senate Hearing, 10/3,
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2023-10-03_-_testimony_-_schruers.pdf
//DH

b. Compliance Burdens

SHOP SAFE is very prescriptive and inflexible, with numerous mandates to escape automatic
liability ("shall be contributorily liable") — a drastic change to existing U.S. trademark law. These
requirements include "proactive measures for screening listings", a three-strikes repeat infringer
policy, and to "expeditiously disable or remove from the platform any listing for which the
platform has actual or constructive knowledge of the use of a counterfeit mark."

1. Requiring proactive screening measures before listings go live would take an untold
amount of technological and human resources, both for smaller firms and larger services
operating at scale. Under existing intellectual property law, there is no obligation on the part of
online service providers to proactively monitor users for potential infringements. Rather, this is
a matter of discretion and policy for each service, and should remain that way because, as
discussed above, sellers are not in a good position to identify potentially infringing activity.
Specifically, Paragraph 4(B)(iv)(I) should be clarified to better understand the burdens on
registrants and online service providers. For example, the legislation is ambiguous as to whether
online services are expected to provide screening capabilities to the registrants, and whether
these provisions apply to the seller's own goods, or goods being transacted under the first-sale
doctrine. Under this regime, existing digital services would likely be disincentivized from
developing new and innovative brand protection strategies, instead conforming solely to what
the law required. This would benefit neither consumers nor brands. In addition, the monitoring
contemplated under these provisions unnecessarily undermines user privacy.
The status quo is the best option – platforms work cooperatively with brands
now to proactively enforce
Jonathan Berroya, 2021 - Senior Vice President and General Counsel, Internet Association.
Testimony before the Subcommittee On Courts, Intellectual Property, and The Internet Judiciary
Committee U.S. House of Representatives. The SHOP SAFE Act: Stemming the Rising Tide of
Unsafe Counterfeit Products Online. 5/27,
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU03/20210527/112713/HHRG-117-JU03-Wstate-
BerroyaJ-20210527.pdf //DH

Anyone who has enforced IP rights can tell you that identifying counterfeit goods can be difficult
- if not impossible unless you have a high level of expertise and familiarity with the brand and
products that are being counterfeited. Trademark owners often hire employees and consultants
who are solely focused on expertly identifying the subtle differences between genuine products
and counterfeits in support of their enforcement efforts. These individuals work with a host of
federal, state, and local agencies, including the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”), U.S. Customs
and Border Protection (“CBP”), and state and local police departments, as well as district
attorneys’ offices that have staff dedicated to enforcing criminal anti-counterfeiting laws.21

Regardless of whether enforcement activities are occurring online or offline, U.S. trademark law
puts the onus of identifying counterfeit goods on those who have the requisite expertise to
accurately perform that task: brand owners and their agents. Brand owners are in the best
position to know when a product being sold online is counterfeit; online services cannot have
expertise in every trademark. For example, online services don’t know whether a particular
seller is authorized by the brand owner or not, nor whether a listing for a product depicts a
counterfeit product. Indeed, identifying counterfeits based on the quality, design and
specifications of a product is often, if not exclusively, within the expertise of the brand itself.
Further, since many online services never possess the counterfeit goods, they cannot examine
the goods for obvious signs of counterfeiting, even if such signs were known to them. Nor would
they know what to look for concerning any particular problem. And as hard as detecting
counterfeiting is for large companies, that problem is even worse for small- and medium-sized
companies, who cannot afford to build systems to police all possible counterfeiting on their
sites.

However, it would be a mistake to conclude that online services can get off scot-free anytime a
counterfeit product is sold via their services. On the contrary, even though identifying
counterfeit goods can be incredibly difficult for anyone other than a trademark owner—
especially online services which might never come into physical contact with the products—the
law today does not exempt an online service from liability where a service knows that a
particular listing is infringing, or where a service is willfully blind to infringing listings. IA’s
members have invested heavily in developing collaborative and productive relationships with
brands across industries and around the world, and worked cooperatively with brand owners to
take down infringing listings and make the online environment as safe as possible for
consumers.
Accordingly, existing trademark law protections, coupled with the natural incentive to maintain
a trustworthy environment for consumers and business partnerships, encourage online service
providers to work proactively to support enforcement by brand owners and remove listings for
counterfeit products whenever they are identified.
Money Laundering Advantage Answers
 1NC – Money Laundering Advantage Answers

1. Anti-money laundering fails – terrorists and kleptocrats circumvent

restrictions
Elisabeth Krecké, 2024 – independent, Luxembourg-based economist, as well as a former
policy advisor and university professor “Why anti-money laundering policies are failing” GIS
Reports, 2/15, https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/why-anti-money-laundering-policies-are-
failing/ //DH

KYC = Know Your Customer regulations, AML = Anti-money laundering

When it comes to the benefits, it is worth asking tough questions. For instance, do KYC and anti-
money laundering regulations adequately protect consumers, investors and the overall financial
system from financial crime? How much do they deter would-be criminals? How much of the
illicit flows are recovered thanks to such checks?

A 2018 study by American political scientist Ronald Pol suggested that the overall impact of AML
policy intervention on criminal finances is less than 0.1 percent – that is, absolutely negligible.

Mr. Pol’s findings are in line with those of a 2011 research report by the UNODC, according to
which “much less than one percent (probably around 0.2 percent)” of the proceeds of crime
laundered via the global financial system are seized and frozen.

A 2023 Europol report confirmed what one could have suspected: terrorists, criminals and
fraudsters always find ways to circumvent even the most complicated regulatory processes.
Among others, they exploit cutting-edge technologies much faster than authorities can keep up.

If criminal enterprises are keeping 99.8 percent or more of their dirty money, it is hard to call
the current regulatory systems efficient. Mr. Pol acknowledged that his data and methodology
could be subject to criticism. Money laundering is a secretive activity, so accurate information
on illicit flows is difficult to obtain and estimations cannot be definitive.

Nevertheless, the gap between policy intent and results is huge. A similar critique also came
from Christopher Giancarlo, former chairman of the United States Commodity Futures Trading
Commission (CFTC).

2. Alternate causality – shell companies in the US make circumvention

inevitable
Casey Michel, 2024 – journalist. “How the US Became the World’s Refuge for Dirty Money”
Mother Jones, Jan-Feb, https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2024/01/dirty-money-united-
states-bahamas-sioux-falls-financial-crimes/ //DH
It was the first time that FinCEN—ever, in its 30-year history—had busted a trust company for
violating money-laundering prevention laws. And its investigation spotlighted not just the lapses
of Kingdom Trust but an entire system that helps kleptocrats (who have looted their countries
for private gain) and wealthy Westerners alike anonymously route their money through the US
economy. It’s a system that’s evolved over decades—a race to the bottom led by states
desperate to ensure a steady flow of revenue. It involves a sprawling network of trust
companies, law firms, and real estate agencies that facilitate the transfer of suspect money. And
it’s made the United States one of the world capitals of kleptocratic cash.

Today, there’s no need to stash your money in the Bahamas, Malta, or the Caymans when you
can keep it in places like Sioux Falls, South Dakota. Thanks to favorable laws that make it an
ideal refuge for the world’s wealth, America now sits at the center of the global offshore
economy—an international pot of riches even larger than the GDP of China, by some estimates.

Journalistic investigations like the Panama Papers and Pandora Papers have helped expose the
scourge of shell companies that are the linchpins of these offshore networks. Such corporate
formations—which provide anonymity to the people behind them and are largely impenetrable
to authorities trying to track the money—are not unique to the United States. Other Western
democracies, including the United Kingdom, have also allowed them to flourish. But the US has
gone far beyond most other countries in the level of secrecy that it provides, and it has done so
at a far greater clip than any of its peers.

3. No nuclear terrorism – too many barriers

John Mueller & Mark G. Stewart, 2021 - *Mershon Center for International Security Studies,
Department of Political Science, Ohio State University and **Centre for Infrastructure
Performance and Reliability, The University of Newcastle “Terrorism and Bathtubs: Comparing
and Assessing the Risks,” Terrorism and Political Violence, 33:1, 138-163, DOI:
10.1080/09546553.2018.1530662, online at Taylor & Francis, Accessed via University of
Michigan //DH

Thus far, 9/11 stands out as an extreme outlier: scarcely any terrorist act, before or after, in war
zones or outside them, has inflicted even one-tenth as much total destruction. That is, contrary
to common expectations, the attack has thus far been an aberration, not a harbinger.8 And al-
Qaeda central, the group responsible for the attack, has, in some respects at least, proved to
resemble President John Kennedy's assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald—an entity of almost trivial
proportions that got horribly lucky once. The tiny group of perhaps 100 or so does appear to
have served as something of an inspiration to some Muslim extremists. They may have done
some training, may have contributed a bit to the Taliban's far larger insurgency in Afghanistan,
and may have participated in a few terrorist acts in Pakistan. In his examination of the major
terrorist plots against the West since 9/11, Mitchell Silber finds only two—the shoe bomber
attempt of 2001 and the effort to blow up transat- lantic airliners with liquid bombs in 2006—
that could be said to be under the "command and control" of al-Qaeda central (as opposed to
ones suggested, endorsed, or inspired by the organization), and there are questions about how
full its control was even in these two instances, both of which, as it happens, failed miserably.9
And, although some al-Qaeda affiliates have committed substantial damage in the Middle East,
usually in the context of civil wars, their efforts to carry out terrorism in the West have been
rare and completely ineffective.10 Even under siege, it is difficult to see why al-Qaeda could not
have carried out attacks at least as costly and shocking as the shooting rampages (organized by
other groups) that took place in Mumbai in 2008 or at a shopping center in Kenya in 2013.
Neither took huge resources, presented major logistical challenges, required the organization of
a large number of perpetrators, or needed extensive planning.

However, there is of course no guarantee that things will remain that way, and the 9/11 attacks
inspired the remarkable extrapolation that, because the terrorists were successful with box
cutters, they might soon be able to turn out weapons of mass destruction— particularly nuclear
ones—and then detonate them in an American city. For example, in his influential 2004 book,
Nuclear Terrorism, Harvard's Graham Allison relayed his "considered judgment" that "on the
current path, a nuclear terrorist attack on America in the decade ahead is more likely than
not."11 Allison has had a great deal of company in his alarming pronouncements. In 2007, the
distinguished physicist Richard Garwin put the likelihood of a nuclear explosion on an American
or European city by terrorist or other means at 20 percent per year, which would work out to 91
percent over the eleven- year period to 2018.12

Allison's time is up, and so is Garwin's. These oft-repeated warnings have proven to be empty.
And it is important to point out that not only have terrorists failed to go nuclear, but as William
Langewiesche, who has assessed the process in detail, put it in 2007, "The best information is
that no one has gotten anywhere near this. I mean, if you look carefully and practically at this
process, you see that it is an enormous undertaking full of risks for the would-be terrorists."13
That process requires trusting corrupted foreign collaborators and other criminals, obtaining
and transporting highly guarded material, setting up a machine shop staffed with top scientists
and technicians, and rolling the heavy, cumbersome, and untested finished product into position
to be detonated by a skilled crew, all the while attracting no attention from outsiders.

Nor have terrorist groups been able to steal existing nuclear weapons—characteristically
burdened with multiple safety devices and often stored in pieces at separate secure locales—
from existing arsenals as was once much feared. And they certainly have not been able to cajole
leaders in nuclear states to palm one off to them—though a war inflicting more death than
Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined was launched against Iraq in 2003 in major part under the
spell of fantasies about such a handover.1'1

More generally, the actual terrorist "adversaries" in the West scarcely deserve accolades for
either dedication or prowess. It is true, of course, that sometimes even incompetents can get
lucky, but such instances, however tragic, are rare. For the most part, terrorists in the United
States are a confused, inadequate, incompetent, blundering, and gullible bunch, only
occasionally able to get their act together. Most seem to be far better at frenetic and often self-
deluded scheming than at actual execution. A summary assessment by RAND's Brian Jenkins is
apt: "their numbers remain small, their determination limp, and their competence poor ."13 And
much the same holds for Europe and the rest of the developed world.16 Also working against
terrorist success in the West is the fact that almost all are amateurs: they have never before
tried to do something like this. Unlike criminals they have not been able to develop street
smarts.

4. Safe harbors fail – costs and litigation are onerous, blocking harmonization
Eric Goldman, 2021 – professor of law at Santa Clara Law. “The SHOP SAFE Act Is a Terrible Bill
That Will Eliminate Online Marketplaces” Technology and Marketing Law Blog, 9/28,
https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2021/09/the-shop-safe-act-is-a-terrible-bill-that-will-
eliminate-online-marketplaces.htm //DH

Overturning Tiffany v. eBay

In 2010, the Second Circuit issued a watershed decision about secondary trademark
infringement. Essentially, the court held that eBay wasn’t liable for counterfeit sales of Tiffany
items because eBay honored takedown notices and Tiffany’s claims sought to hold eBay
accountable for generalized knowledge. That ruling has produced a kind of détente in the online
secondary trademark infringement field, where we just don’t see broad counterfeiting lawsuits
against online marketplaces any more.

The SHOP SAFE Act ends that détente. First, it creates a new statutory contributory trademark
infringement claim for selling the regulated items. Second, the bill says that the new
contributory claim doesn’t preempt other plaintiff claims, so trademark owners will still bring
the standard statutory direct trademark infringement claim and common law contributory
trademark claims (and dilution, false designation of origin, etc.). Third, online marketplaces
nominally can try to “earn” a safe harbor from the new statutory contributory liability claim (but
not from the other legal claims) by jumping through an onerous gauntlet of responsibilities.
Those requirements will impose huge compliance costs, but those investments won’t prevent
online marketplaces from being dragged into extraordinarily expensive and high-stakes
litigation over eligibility for this defense. Fourth, the law imposes a proactive screening
obligation, something that Tiffany v. eBay rejected. Fifth, unlike Tiffany v. eBay, generalized
knowledge can create liability; and takedown notices aren’t required as a prerequisite to
liability. Sixth, in litigation over direct trademark infringement and common law contributory
trademark infringement claims, trademark owners can cite compliance/non-compliance with
the defense factors against the online marketplace, putting the online marketplace in a worse
legal position than they currently are in.

All told, the SHOP SAFE Act will functionally repeal the Tiffany v. eBay standard that has
fostered the growth of online marketplaces for the last decade-plus, and usher in a new era of
online shopping that will likely exclude online marketplaces entirely.
 Extend: “Anti-Money Laundering Fails”

Even the former head of the Financial Action Task Force admits AML efforts fail
Elisabeth Krecké, 2024 – independent, Luxembourg-based economist, as well as a former
policy advisor and university professor “Why anti-money laundering policies are failing” GIS
Reports, 2/15, https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/why-anti-money-laundering-policies-are-
failing/ //DH

AML = Anti Money Laundering

Unexpectedly, another top financial regulator recently came to share Mr. Pol’s opinion that
AML, in its present form, is “the world’s least effective policy experiment.” During a 2020
interview, David Lewis – the former executive secretary of the Financial Action Task Force
(FATF), the most powerful global AML watchdog – said that despite efforts made by countries
under FATF surveillance, “everyone is doing badly.” Seemingly, AML/CFT measures are often
poorly implemented on a national level. Mr. Lewis lamented that some nations only want to
avoid bad reports that put them on FATF’s list of low-scoring countries.

Organized crime adapts to AML changes faster than enforcement can keep up
Eve Sampson, 2023 – ICIJ's 2023 editorial fellow as part of the Scripps Howard Foundation’s
Roy W. Howard Fellowship program. “Money-laundering criminals are adapting to new
technology faster than authorities can keep up, EU report says” International Consortium of
Investigative Journalists, 9/26, https://www.icij.org/investigations/fincen-files/money-
laundering-criminals-are-adapting-to-new-technology-faster-than-authorities-can-keep-up-eu-
report-says/ //DH

Criminal networks in Europe are increasingly mixing illicit finances with seemingly legal
businesses, and exploiting new technology to grow their operations and launder money faster
than authorities can keep up, a new Europol report revealed.

Nearly 70% of criminal elements operating in the European Union use money-laundering
techniques to garner revenue and hide assets, degrading the region’s financial stability and
impeding its economic growth, according to the European Financial and Economic Crime Threat
Assessment report released last week by the EU’s law enforcement arm, Europol. The increasing
speed of deception is outpacing authorities which are struggling to uncover and prosecute
financial crimes.

Though trade and technology have connected a globalized world, criminals are increasingly
using modern advances to profit, Catherine De Bolle, the executive director of Europol, wrote in
the report.
“Organised crime has built a parallel global criminal economic and financial system around
money laundering, illicit financial transfers and corruption,” De Bolle said. “The ability to launder
illicit proceeds on an industrial scale, to move them through a web of criminal financial brokers,
and to corrupt the relevant actors, has become indispensable for modern organised crime.”

As services went virtual during the COVID-19 pandemic, digital banking has helped open new
doors for criminal networks looking for a toehold in the financial system. Online banks, with no
physical branches or offices, now offer nearly anonymous international deposits at lightning
speed, making nefarious activity difficult to detect.

The Europol report cited ICIJ’s 2021 Pandora Papers investigation as an example of how criminal
enterprises have found ways to hide beneficial ownership and evade sanctions through the use
of intermediaries and offshore firms. The report also highlighted the criminal use of third
countries to move money connected to Russia in defiance of Western sanctions levied against
the country following the 2014 invasion of Ukraine.
 Extend: “Alternate Causality – Shell Companies”
US real estate is exempt from AML enforcement – which means it has become a
safe haven for kleptocrats
Casey Michel, 2024 – journalist. “How the US Became the World’s Refuge for Dirty Money”
Mother Jones, Jan-Feb, https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2024/01/dirty-money-united-
states-bahamas-sioux-falls-financial-crimes/ //DH

Tracing how US real estate became the asset of choice for sanctioned Russian tycoons, African
autocrats, drug lords, and uberrich Americans requires going back to the darkest days of the
early 21st century. The PATRIOT Act—passed in the aftermath of 9/11, when fears about money
being spirited to terrorist cells were white-hot—contained a suite of policies to prevent suspect
funds from entering the United States. American banks were required to scrutinize transactions
and flag suspicious activity.

The law’s money-laundering provisions were intended to go much further, forcing other
industries—particularly real estate—to shore up their dirty money defenses. But shortly after
the law’s passage, the Treasury Department announced a temporary exemption for real estate
deals. Bush administration officials declared that they wanted to further study the law to make
sure it wouldn’t inadvertently hamstring the industry. Months passed, then years, then decades.
Today, this exemption remains firmly in place, and American real estate agents and firms are still
under no legal obligation to check the sources of their clients’ wealth or report even the most
obvious red flags. Not surprisingly, the world’s elites have taken full advantage.

Pick a case of international kleptocracy, and you are likely to discover a link to US properties.
Millions connected to Malaysia’s sprawling IMDB scandal, all looted from the country’s
sovereign wealth fund, were plowed into hotels in New York and Beverly Hills. (Plundered funds,
fittingly, were also allegedly used to finance the film The Wolf of Wall Street.) In 2014, the New
York Times reported, the daughter of a former longtime ruler of the Republic of Congo bought
an apartment at the Trump International Hotel and Tower in Manhattan. (There’s no indication
Trump broke the law, but this was one of many intersections between kleptocratic regimes and
his real estate empire.) Another example: The world’s second-longest-standing dictator,
Equatorial Guinea’s Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo, owns a massive home in Maryland,
where for years he was neighbors with former Gambian despot Yahya Jammeh.

Financial secrecy makes the impact inevitable

Charles G. Davidson and Ben Judah, 2023 – *publisher of The American Interest and a
former Freedom House board member. From 2014 to 2018, he was executive director of the
Hudson Institute’s Kleptocracy Initiative, and **senior fellow at the Atlantic Council “How
Financial Secrecy Undermines Democracy” Journal of Democracy, October,
https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/how-financial-secrecy-undermines-
democracy/ //DH
Beneath the surface of our financial system lies an unseen world worth trillions of dollars. This
vast and expansive realm, both offshore and onshore, is undermining capitalism and democracy
from the inside. Raymond Baker calls it the financial-secrecy system, and among today’s grave
threats to democracy it is one of the least acknowledged.1 Made up of millions of hidden
accounts, secret trusts, disguised entities, artificial trades, opaque ownerships, and more, this
parallel world could not differ more starkly from what the average citizen of a Western
democracy experiences as the financial system. Rather than being a space under intense
scrutiny and observation, monitored by everything from the latest banking algorithms to the
beady eyes of tax officials, this hidden dimension is where those wealthy enough to gain access
to it go to hide their wealth and avoid taxes. Rather than serving as an asset to Western
capitalism and democracy, this secret world and its covert dealings are acting on both as a quiet
poison.

Or perhaps the poison is no longer so quiet: This parallel world has now grown so large that it is
visibly cracking the political order from which it sprang. Financial secrecy has swollen in recent
years as elites have abandoned their duty to pay their fair share. A metastasizing culture of tax
avoidance by corporations and the wealthy has weakened national values, institutions, and
goals across the West while fueling levels of inequality that wreck national cohesion, drive
spiraling resentment, and stoke anger. This is empowering the enemies of democracy at home
and abroad, be they domestic populists who vow to crush the abusive system, or authoritarian
kleptocrats and criminals who manipulate the system to cover their own misdeeds.

The scale of American financial secrecy has created a money laundering golden
age
Charles G. Davidson and Ben Judah, 2023 – *publisher of The American Interest and a
former Freedom House board member. From 2014 to 2018, he was executive director of the
Hudson Institute’s Kleptocracy Initiative, and **senior fellow at the Atlantic Council “How
Financial Secrecy Undermines Democracy” Journal of Democracy, October,
https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/how-financial-secrecy-undermines-
democracy/ //DH

Accepting secrecy’s “enablers” and the full spate of its instruments is also undermining the
West’s ability to compete with authoritarian powers and protect Western political
institutions.17 Kleptocrats in Russia or China can move money anonymously into the West,
buying assets and building networks that facilitate political interference and compromise
Western nations’ security and democratic institutions. The sheer scale of global financial
secrecy, moreover, has made possible a golden age of money laundering that aids kleptocrats in
converting stolen wealth into new sources of power. These can include corrupted Western
officials, private armies of mercenaries, and phalanxes of enablers recruited from Western
professional ranks.18
 Extend: “No Nuclear Terrorism”
Terrorism risk is very low
Daniel Silverman et al, 2022 – Institute for Politics and Strategy, Carnegie Mellon
University“Putting Terror in Its Place: An Experiment on Mitigating Fears of Terrorism among the
American Public” Journal of Conflict Resolution 2022, Vol. 66(2) 191 –216,
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/00220027211036935 //DH

The American public’s fear of terrorism persists in spite of the fact that the actual risk of
terrorism for those in the United States is extremely low. Over the past half-century, the chance
that an American would be killed by a terror attack on U.S. soil is roughly 1 in 3.5 million, with
under ninety deaths per year between 1970 and 2007. Even in 2001, a year when terrorism was
uniquely dangerous in the United States, terrorism accounted for less than 0.14 percent of
deaths in the country. In contrast, the risk of death from other hazards like cancer (1 in 540), car
accidents (1 in 8,000), drowning in a bathtub (1 in 950,000), and flying on a plane (1 in 2.9
million) are all greater than terrorism (Mueller 2006).

Too many obstacles exist to getting a nuke

John Mueller, 2020 – emeritus professor of political science at Ohio State “Nuclear Alarmism:
Proliferation and Terrorism” 6/24, https://www.cato.org/publications/nuclear-alarmism-
proliferation-terrorism //DH

However, thus far, terrorist groups seem to have exhibited only limited desire and even less
progress in going atomic. That lack of action may be because, after a brief exploration of the
possible routes, they — unlike generations of alarmists — have discovered that the tremendous
effort required is scarcely likely to be successful.34

Obtaining a Finished Bomb: Assistance by a State

One route a would‐be atomic terrorist might take would be to receive or buy a bomb from a
generous like‐minded nuclear state for delivery abroad. That route is highly improbable,
however, because there would be too much risk — even for a country led by extremists — that
the ultimate source of the weapon would be discovered. As one prominent analyst, Matthew
Bunn, puts it, “A dictator or oligarch bent on maintaining power is highly unlikely to take the
immense risk of transferring such a devastating capability to terrorists they cannot control,
given the ever‐present possibility that the material would be traced back to its origin.”
Important in this last consideration are deterrent safeguards afforded by “nuclear forensics,”
which is the rapidly developing science (and art) of connecting nuclear materials to their sources
even after a bomb has been exploded.35

Moreover, there is a very considerable danger to the donor that the bomb (and its source)
would be discovered before delivery or that it would be exploded in a manner and on a target
the donor would not approve of — including on the donor itself. Another concern would be that
the terrorist group might be infiltrated by foreign intelligence.36

In addition, almost no one would trust al Qaeda. As one observer has pointed out, the terrorist
group’s explicit enemies list includes not only Christians and Jews but also all Middle Eastern
regimes; Muslims who don’t share its views; most Western countries; the governments of
Afghanistan, India, Pakistan, and Russia; most news organizations; the United Nations; and
international nongovernmental organizations.37 Most of the time, it didn’t get along all that
well even with its host in Afghanistan, the Taliban government.38

Stealing or Illicitly Purchasing a Bomb: Loose Nukes

There has also been great worry about “loose nukes,” especially in postcommunist Russia —
weapons, “suitcase bombs” in particular, that can be stolen or bought illicitly. A careful
assessment conducted by the Center for Nonproliferation Studies has concluded that it is
unlikely that any of those devices have been lost and that, regardless, their effectiveness would
be very low or even nonexistent because they (like all nuclear weapons) require continual
maintenance.39 Even some of those people most alarmed by the prospect of atomic terrorism
have concluded, “It is probably true that there are no ‘loose nukes,’ transportable nuclear
weapons missing from their proper storage locations and available for purchase in some
way.“40

It might be added that Russia has an intense interest in controlling any weapons on its territory
because it is likely to be a prime target of any illicit use by terrorist groups, particularly Chechen
ones of course, with whom it has been waging a vicious on‐and‐off war for two decades. The
government of Pakistan, which has been repeatedly threatened by terrorists, has a similar
interest in controlling its nuclear weapons and material — and scientists. As noted by Stephen
Younger, former head of nuclear weapons research and development at Los Alamos National
Laboratory, “Regardless of what is reported in the news, all nuclear nations take the security of
their weapons very seriously.“41 Even if a finished bomb were somehow lifted somewhere, the
loss would soon be noted and a worldwide pursuit launched.

Moreover, finished bombs are outfitted with devices designed to trigger a nonnuclear explosion
that would destroy the bomb if it were tampered with. And there are other security techniques:
bombs can be kept disassembled with the components stored in separate high‐security vaults,
and security can be organized so that two people and multiple codes are required not only to
use the bomb but also to store, maintain, and deploy it. If the terrorists seek to enlist (or force)
the services of someone who already knows how to set off the bomb, they would find, as
Younger stresses, that “only few people in the world have the knowledge to cause an
unauthorized detonation of a nuclear weapon.” Weapons designers know how a weapon works,
he explains, but not the multiple types of signals necessary to set it off, and maintenance
personnel are trained in only a limited set of functions.42

There could be dangers in the chaos that would emerge if a nuclear state were to fail, collapsing
in full disarray — Pakistan is frequently brought up in this context and sometimes North Korea
as well. However, even under those conditions, nuclear weapons would likely remain under
heavy guard by people who know that a purloined bomb would most likely end up going off in
their own territory; would still have locks (and in the case of Pakistan would be disassembled);
and could probably be followed, located, and hunted down by an alarmed international
community. The worst‐case scenario in that instance requires not only a failed state but also a
considerable series of additional permissive conditions, including consistent (and perfect) insider
complicity and a sequence of hasty, opportunistic decisions or developments that click flawlessly
in a manner far more familiar to Hollywood scriptwriters than to people experienced with
reality.43

Building a Bomb of One’s Own

Because they are unlikely to be able to buy or steal a usable bomb and because they are further
unlikely to have one handed off to them by an established nuclear state, the most plausible
route for terrorists would be to manufacture the device themselves from purloined materials.
That is the course identified by a majority of leading experts as the one most likely to lead to
nuclear terrorism.44

The simplest design is a “gun” type of device in which masses of highly enriched uranium are
hurled at each other within a tube. Such a device would be, as Allison acknowledges, “large,
cumbersome, unsafe, unreliable, unpredictable, and inefficient.“45

The process of making such a weapon is daunting even in this minimal case. In particular, the
task requires that a considerable series of difficult hurdles be conquered and in sequence.

To begin with, now and likely for the foreseeable future, stateless groups are incapable of
manufacturing the requisite weapons‐grade uranium themselves because the process requires
an effort on an industrial scale. Moreover, they are unlikely to be supplied with the material by a
state for the same reasons a state is unlikely to give them a workable bomb.46 Thus, they would
need to steal or illicitly purchase the crucial material.

A successful armed theft is exceedingly unlikely, not only because of the resistance of guards but
also because chase would be immediate. A more plausible route would be to corrupt insiders to
smuggle out the necessary fissile material. However, that approach requires the terrorists to pay
off a host of greedy confederates, including brokers and money transmitters, any one of whom
could turn on them or — either out of guile or incompetence — furnish them with stuff that is
useless.47 Moreover, because of improved safeguards and accounting practices, it is
decreasingly likely that the theft would remain undetected.48 That development is important
because if any missing uranium is noticed, the authorities would investigate the few people who
might have been able to assist the thieves, and one who seems suddenly to have become
prosperous is likely to arrest their attention right from the start. Even one initially tempted by,
seduced by, or sympathetic to, the blandishments of the smooth‐talking foreign terrorists might
soon develop sobering second thoughts and go to the authorities. Insiders tempted to assist
terrorists might also come to ruminate over the fact that, once the heist was accomplished, the
terrorists would, as analyst Brian Jenkins puts it none too delicately, “have every incentive to
cover their trail, beginning with eliminating their confederates.“49

It is also relevant to note that over the years, known thefts of highly enriched uranium have
totaled fewer than 16 pounds. That amount is far less than that required for an atomic
explosion: for a crude bomb, more than 100 pounds are necessary to produce a likely yield of
one kiloton. Moreover, none of those thieves was connected to al Qaeda, and, most arrestingly,
none had buyers lined up — nearly all were caught while trying to peddle their wares. Indeed,
concludes analyst Robin Frost, “There appears to be no true demand, except where the buyers
were government agents running a sting.” Because there appears to be no commercial market
for fissile material, each sale would be a one‐time affair, not a continuing source of profit such
as drugs, and there is no evidence of established underworld commercial trade in this illicit
commodity.50

If terrorists were somehow successful in obtaining a sufficient mass of relevant material, they
would then have to transport it out of the country over unfamiliar terrain, probably while being
pursued by security forces. Then, they would need to set up a large and well‐equipped machine
shop to manufacture a bomb and populate it with a select team of highly skilled scientists,
technicians, and machinists. The process would also require good managers and organizers. The
group would have to be assembled and retained for the monumental task without generating
consequential suspicions among friends, family, and police about their curious and sudden
absence from normal pursuits back home. Pakistan, for example, maintains a strict watch on
many of its nuclear scientists even after retirement.51

Some observers have insisted that it would be “easy” for terrorists to assemble a crude bomb if
they could get enough fissile material.52 However, Christoph Wirz and Emmanuel Egger, two
senior physicists in charge of nuclear issues at Switzerland’s Spiez Laboratory, conclude that the
task “could hardly be accomplished by a subnational group.” They point out that precise
blueprints are required, not just sketches and general ideas, and that even with a good
blueprint, the terrorist group “would most certainly be forced to redesign.” They also stress that
the work, far from being “easy,” is difficult, dangerous, and extremely exacting and that the
technical requirements “in several fields verge on the unfeasible.“53
 Extend: “Safe Harbors Fail”
SHOP SAFE’s ambiguous on requirements to meet a safe harbor – that prevents
it from functioning
Patricia E. Campbell, 2023 - Law School Professor and Director of the Intellectual Property
Law Program at the University of Maryland Carey School of Law “Debugging the Trademark
Laws: The Lanham Act and Counterfeit Microelectronics,” 31 TEX. INTELL. PROP. L.J. 211 (2023).
Hein Online. Accessed via University of Michigan //DH

The SHOP SAFE Act had a laudable goal (to reduce or eradicate the use of counterfeit marks in
connection with the sale and distribution of goods that implicate health and safety on e-
commerce platforms), but the Act simply went too far. Rather than addressing the real question-
the level of knowledge required for any third party accused of contributory infringement- SHOP
SAFE was limited to e-commerce platforms, and it attempted to impose on the platform the
burden of demonstrating that it took twelve separate steps to verify the identity of the listing
party and the authenticity of marks used in connection with the sale of goods, in order to avoid
liability. The processes to be implemented were not gauged to any perceived risk that the items
offered for sale might be counterfeit or could potentially cause a level of harm to purchasers or
end users. Further, many of the terms in the act were ill-defined, and there was much
ambiguity about precisely what was required from the ecommerce platforms in order for them
to avoid contributory liability. For example, the proposed act required "reasonable proactive
technological measures for screening goods before displaying the goods to the public" in order
to prevent use of a counterfeit mark,416 but it was unclear whether this was intended to
require screening of the actual goods themselves, images depicting the goods, descriptions of
the goods, or something else entirely. "Reasonable technological measures for screening third-
party sellers" were also required, in order to ensure that terminated sellers do not later rejoin
the platform under an alias,417 but again no further details were provided.
 File Explanation
This file contains responses to the Shop Safe Act affirmative.
 Counterfeiting Advantage Answers
The negative can argue that many of the claims made by the 1ac is false: online counterfeiting is
not a huge problem, that most counterfeiting occurs in physical markets, not online markets,
and that the impact claims about cyber-attacks on the military and the power grid are greatly
exaggerated. The negative also has a cooperation turn that says that putting liability on online
platforms reduces their incentive to cooperate against counterfeiting now. The turn assumes
that platforms are doing a lot to try to stop counterfeiting, but that liability means they’ll
decrease their efforts to only comply with the bare minimum of what the law requires.
 Money Laundering Advantage Answers
The negative can also challenge the central claims of this advantage. The strongest argument is
the claim that current anti-money laundering efforts fail. The affirmative might reduce online
counterfeiting, but money laundering occurs in many different areas that the affirmative does
not affect. The negative can also say that the impact to terrorism is greatly exaggerated. Finally,
they can contest the claim that the plan harmonizes a global approach to anti-money
laundering. The argument is that the safe harbor provision in the SHOP SAFE Act is so expensive
to meet that it will disrupt e-commerce altogether, rather than create stronger enforcement.
 Circular Economy Disadvantage
This disadvantage claims the SHOP SAFE Act will harm small online platforms – startups and
secondary resale markets – that are developing innovative methods to build and market
products, especially second-hand products. It claims that the economy is in the midst of a
transition to becoming more ‘circular’ – in other words, there’s a growing market for reusing,
recycling, refurbishing, or upcycling (modifying) products, and that this transition will reduce
consumption of new resources, reducing the environmental footprint of US consumerism.

It claims that the plan’s imposition of liability on online platforms will be abused by trademark
owners, who will try to file lawsuits against perfectly legitimate online platforms because they
want to shut down re-sale markets that compete with the trademark owners’ products. Abusive
enforcement is called “trademark bullying.” The idea is that if online resale platforms fail, then
the circular economy transition fails as well. The impact is environmental damage from
consumption – the greater amount of new resources we consume, the greater the likelihood of
more pollution and eventual environmental collapse.
 Information Sharing Counterplan
This counterplan claims that instead of imposing trademark liability on online platforms, the
Congress should just increase counterfeiting enforcement through other channels. Primarily,
this means that Customs and Border Protection, the law enforcement agency in charge of
stopping imported counterfeit products, should work directly with both trademark owners
(“brands”) and online platforms, to share information about best practices, to work on
developing new or improved detection technology, and work cooperatively to develop cost-
effective proactive enforcement.

The net benefit is all three disadvantages turned out in the packet, as well as the Circular
Economy DA. All of these arguments say “strengthening trademark protection is bad.” The
counterplan strengthens anti-counterfeiting enforcement, but it does not strengthen trademark
protection.
 AI Industry Disadvantage
This is the AI industry da. It argues that the plan would harm innovation in artificial intelligence.
To be able to explain this da well, you’ll need to know what each of the four parts of the DA say.
If you are affirmative, you can find affirmative answers to every part of this da in the aff answers
section at the bottom of the file.
 Uniqueness:
The negative wants to make uniqueness argument (arguments about why the status quo is
doing something that is good) is that the AI industry is growing rapidly in the status quo. We are
currently experiencing an AI boom where new innovations occur frequently.
 Link:
Depending on what affirmative you are debating against, you will need to make a different link
argument (argument about what the plan does that starts a negative chain of events)

Against trademark, your link argument is that creating contributory liability for trademark will
serve as a new model to create contributory liability for copyright. If there is contributory
liability for copyright, AI companies would be liable for any mis-use of their product that people
do, which would be extremely legally risky for them and likely bankrupt them.
 Internal link and impact:
The negative’s impact scenario is that AI innovation is necessary to prevent extinction because it
can accelerate decision making and help us systematically make better decisions. In particular,
this impact relies on the idea that humans are not particularly effective decision makers.
 Court Clog Disadvantage
This is the court clog DA. It argues that the plan would cause so many lawsuits that the federal
court system would not be able to handle it. To be able to explain this da well, you’ll need to
know what each of the four parts of the DA say.
 Uniqueness:
The negative wants to make their uniqueness argument (arguments about why the status quo is
doing something that is good) is that the courts are able to manage their caseload now. They do
not have excessive backlogs and they are not overburdened by cases now. They also want to
make the argument that patent, trademark, and copyright cases are not clogging the courts now
because there aren’t very many of them.
 Link:
Against each aff, you want to win that the plan would result in more lawsuits because there
would be more instances of IPR infringement.
 Internal link and impact:
The negative’s impact scenario is that an efficient court system can successfully handle climate
litigation that can help prevent climate change. Courts can fill an important gap when
policymakers in congress will not pass climate regulations.
 Inflation DA
This is the inflation da. It argues that the plan would increase inflation (aka an increase in prices
that consumers pay for goods across the economy). To be able to explain this da well, you’ll
need to know what each of the four parts of the DA say.
 Uniqueness:
The negative wants to make 2 uniqueness arguments (arguments about why the status quo is
doing something that is good):

1. Inflation is cooling now- that means that prices are not rising as quickly as they used to be.
It does not necessarily mean prices are going down, just that they aren’t going up by as
much (for instance, if inflation used to be 4% and now it is 3%, prices still went up by 3%.
However, that 3% increase is less than the 4% increase that it used to be).
2. The economy is doing well now. You want to win that, without doing the plan, the economy
will continue to grow and avoid a recession.
 Link:
Depending on what affirmative you are debating against, you will need to make a different link
argument (argument about what the plan does that starts a negative chain of events)

Against trademark, your link argument is about over-enforcement. The owners of a trademark
(brands) will start filing lawsuits over anything that could maybe, possibly, potentially be a
counterfeit, even if it ends up being totally legitimate. To proactively prevent that from
happening, third-party online sellers will have to severely restrict what they sell, which
undermines supply and competition, both of which cause higher prices.
 Internal link:
The negative’s internal link argument is that higher inflation would cause economic decline.
There are lots of reasons for this, including that it hurts people’s ability to purchase things, it
hurts businesses investment plans, and it makes people harder to employ.
 Impact:
The negative’s impact argument is that economic decline causes war. Some potential reasons
for that include that economic decline causes instability by stoking populist nationalism, that it
undermines international trade which usually prevents countries from wanting to go to war, or
that it causes leaders to want to divert attention away from a bad economy by starting a war.
 Topicality
This file contains two distinct topicality arguments – one to read against PERA, and one to read
against Shop Safe.

While all three affirmatives in the packet are very topical, these violations exist so that you can
learn what topicality is and practice it. The arguments in this file lean very heavily in favor of the
affirmative.
 Topicality Domestic

This argument can only be read against the SHOP SAFE affirmative. It argues that “domestic”
means that the plan can only apply in the United States only, and says that the affirmative
violates this because there are parts of the SHOP SAFE that are applied extraterritorially
(outside of US borders).
 Capitalism Kritik
The 1nc evidence for this violation is also very good. However, the affirmative responses are
very strong.

1. The affirmative only applies domestically, even if there are international aspects of e-
commerce. It’s only enforced against US service providers, so the affirmative will argue
that they meet the violation.
2. The affirmative has a counter-interpretation that says that ‘domestic’ in the context of
trademark law means that “the use in commerce” is what had to occur domestically.
Even if infringement occurs overseas, if the products are sold or used in the United
States, it still counts as ‘domestic’ under the Lanham Act. While the negative has good
responses to this, the affirmative cards are from an authoritative Supreme Court
decision that settled the issue.
3. This critique argues that intellectual property, and property broadly, are
neoliberal. Most affirmatives will rely on several neoliberal assumptions: people
should own property and the government should protect that ownership,
individuals are motivated by financial incentives, property rights should
supersede other rights, property owners should be able to self-select who
accesses their property, when creative advances do enter the public domain,
they should be monetized, and others. The critique disagrees with each of those
assumptions, thus providing good “epistemology” and “turns case” arguments.
4.
5. The negative’s alternative is to reject the ideology of property. This means that
private property should cease to exist. This would shatter a lot of what we know
about the world, but the negative position is that drastic actions are necessary to
escape the neoliberal dilemma of the status quo.
6.
7. The affirmative has several options. One is to use the permutation to argue that
property rights are important for solving the aff, but can be accompanied by
measures that place the innovations in the public domain for free access.
Another is to impact turn with capitalism good. Which avenue the aff chooses
should be heavily dictated by the structure of the 1ac.