Mazie Dee

Mazie Dee
Mazie is a first-year J.D. candidate at the University of Denver, Sturm College of Law, where she is pursuing a certificate in corporate and commercial law. Mazie graduated from the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, in 2023, majoring in public relations and minoring in business administration. After finishing undergrad, Mazie worked as paralegal for two attorneys in Knoxville, handling personal injury, workers’ compensation, and Social Security matters. Mazie hopes to leverage her public relations background to practice corporate law and eventually work as in-house council.
Mazie spends any free time she can get with her dog, Franklin. When her schedule permits, Mazie loves to travel, go to concerts and music festivals, and try new restaurants.
Connect with Mazie on LinkedIn.
A California jury recently delivered a landmark verdict in K.G.M. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., finding Meta Platforms, Inc. (“Meta”) and Alphabet Inc.’s Google LLC (“Google”) negligent for designing products that harmed a young user’s mental health. (Cecilia Kang, Ryan Mac, & Eli Tan, N.Y. Times). The case is especially significant because it was selected as one of three scheduled bellwether trials, a representative test case used in large-scale litigation to help courts and parties evaluate how juries may respond to the core legal and factual issues that appear across thousands of similar lawsuits. (Bobby Allyn, NPR; Simmons & Fletcher). K.G.M. was chosen from a pool of more than 1,600 plaintiffs, including over 350 families and 250 school districts, all alleging harm from social media platforms. (Quynh Hoang, The Conversation). As a representative case, the verdict may shape settlement strategy, litigation posture, and the trajectory of similar lawsuits nationwide. This post examines the arguments raised at trial that led to the verdict, considers the issues Meta and Google will likely raise on appeal, and explores how the verdict could reshape liability for social media companies going forward.
Luxury counterfeit production has soared due to rising prices in the authentic luxury market. Now, luxury brands are fighting back and using the legal system to combat counterfeiters. An average 33% price increase occurred in the luxury market between 2019 and 2023, as consumer demand rose in the wake of the pandemic. (Reuters, Business of Fashion). The classic Chanel “quilted flap bag more than tripled [in price] between 2015 and 2024,” while the popular Louis Vuitton “Keepall travel bag more than doubled.” Id. Consequently, consumers struggled to keep up with rapid price increases, and the counterfeit industry worked to solidify its place in the market by mimicking luxury products. Id.; (Malique Morris, Business of Fashion). Luxury brands, in an effort to protect themselves and their customers, are targeting online retailers and luxury resale stores. Id. This post explores recent and ongoing trademark lawsuits directed at a variety of counterfeit and “dupe” markets, with luxury brands defending their reputations from purposeful copying and disguised counterfeit reselling.
Google has become so popular that it is now a verb, holding a place in colloquial conversation no other search engine has. In 2017, Google controlled about eighty percent of the search engine market, and by 2020, it controlled ninety percent. (Forbes Agency Council, Forbes); (Daisuke Wakabayashi, The New York Times). Bing is second, controlling only six percent of the market. United States v. Google, LLC, 747 F. Supp. 3d 1, 38 (D.D.C. 2024). This colossal market control invoked questions of monopolistic behavior and antitrust law violations, ultimately leading to a lawsuit filed in 2020 by the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and several states, including Colorado. (DOJ, Office of Public Affairs). In analyzing whether Google violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act by monopolizing key digital advertising technologies, a district court concluded in the affirmative on August 5, 2024, in a 188-page opinion, stating that Google was monopolistic and violated the Sherman Act. (DOJ, Office of Public Affairs); Google, 747 F. Supp. 3d at 32. While the court held that Google violated the Act, it failed to impose harsh remedies, such as isolating Google’s search engine from its advertising business. (Reuters); (Edward Longe, The James Madison Institute). The DOJ is currently appealing the court’s decision. (Reuters). This post explores how Google’s competitive strategy led to the case prior to appeal and further, focuses on how the emergence of new technology impacts Google’s future.