1. Jonathan G. Lebed was a 15-year-old Internet maven who, over about a six-month period, on 11 separate occasions “engaged in a scheme in which he purchased large blocks of thinly traded stocks and, within hours of making such purchases, sent numerous false and misleading messages over the Internet touting the stocks that he had just purchased.” Lebed sold these shares, usually by the next day. From these activities he realized a total profit during the period of $ 272,826. Is Lebed guilty of violating the securities laws?
2. Kenneth Lipsitz sold magazine subscriptions through a friendly and congenial staff located in New York City. Numerous affidavits and complaints alleged either that the magazines never arrived or that they stopped coming long before the subscription was due to expire. Lipsitz was charged with deceptive advertising in New York. Can Lipsitz be found in violation of the New York laws against deceptive advertising even though he sold subscriptions via e-mail and the web?
3. Napster, Inc. provided a free service for visitors to its website that allowed users to share music digitally. Napster did not receive permission from the owners of the music. Several large recording studios that owned much of the music that was being shared filed a lawsuit against Napster, requesting that a federal court order Napster to cease its free online file-sharing service. Will the recording studios be successful in convincing the court to order Napster to cease these operations?
4. Netscape offered all visitors to its website free “Smart Load” software provided the visitor clicked his or her mouse on a designated box labeled “Download.” A reference to a license agreement appeared on the screen in which the “Download” box was located, but the license agreement itself appeared on the next screen. The license agreement contained a clause requiring that any dispute between the parties proceed to arbitration, rather than to court. Six plaintiffs later filed suit against Netscape relating to the software. Netscape demanded that the suit be dismissed and that all the plaintiffs be compelled to have their claims arbitrated instead. Will the plaintiffs be required to have their disputes resolved by an arbitrator, or will the court rule that the license agreement was not a part of the contract?