1. Using a Microsoft Word document, please post one federal and one state statute utilizing standard legal notation and a hyperlink to each statute. 2. In the same document, please post one federal and one state statute using standard legal notation and a hyperlink to each case. 1. Please post the hyperlink to one federal statute which influences commerce on the internet and summarize in not less than 100 words what that statute accomplishes. 2. Please post the hyperlink to one state statute which influences commerce on the internet and summarize in not less than 100 words what that statute accomplishes. 3. Please post the hyperlink to one federal case which influences commerce on the internet and summarize in not less than 100 words what that case accomplishes. 4. Please post the hyperlink to one state case which influences commerce on the internet and summarize in not less than 100 words what that case accomplishes. 1. Please choose a topic (tentative, you can change it if you feel you need to later) for your 4000 class project research paper. On a Microsoft word document, please describe that topic and submit that document.

Federal Statute:
US Code Title 15, Section 45: Unfair methods of competition unlawful; prevention by Commission
Link: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/45
Summary: This federal statute, also known as the Federal Trade Commission Act, prohibits unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices affecting commerce. The statute empowers the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to prevent and investigate deceptive business practices, such as false advertising, fraud, and monopolistic behavior. The FTC is authorized to issue cease and desist orders, impose civil penalties, and bring legal actions against violators of this statute. The goal of this statute is to ensure fair competition and protect consumers from deceptive practices in commerce.

State Statute:
California Business and Professions Code Section 17500: False advertising
Link: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=BPC&sectionNum=17500.
Summary: This California state statute prohibits false advertising and deceptive marketing practices. It states that any statement or representation in advertising that is untrue, misleading, or fraudulent is unlawful. The statute applies to all business activities in California and aims to protect consumers from false or deceptive advertising. Violators can be subject to civil penalties, injunctions, and other legal remedies. The statute also empowers the California Attorney General and local district attorneys to bring legal actions against businesses engaged in false advertising. The purpose of this statute is to maintain fair business practices and ensure the accuracy and truthfulness of advertising in California.

Federal Case:
Amazon.com Inc. v. Commissioner: 148 T.C. No. 8 (2017)
Link: https://www.ustaxcourt.gov/UstcInOp/OpinionViewer.aspx?ID=11425
Summary: In this federal case, Amazon.com Inc. challenged the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) determination of income tax deficiencies for certain tax years. The case revolved around the transfer pricing rules and the proper valuation of intellectual property rights in intercompany transactions. The court examined whether the IRS’s adjustments to Amazon’s taxable income were supported by the arm’s length standard set by Section 482 of the Internal Revenue Code. The case had significant implications for e-commerce companies conducting cross-border transactions and the appropriate allocation of income. The court’s decision clarified the application of transfer pricing rules in the context of online retail and provided guidance on valuing intangible assets for tax purposes.

State Case:
Google LLC v. Equustek Solutions Inc.: Supreme Court of Canada, 2017 SCC 34
Link: https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2017/2017scc34/2017scc34.html
Summary: This state case, heard by the Supreme Court of Canada, involved a dispute between Google and Equustek Solutions Inc., a technology company. Equustek sought an order against Google to de-index certain websites from its search results to stop the sale of infringing product listings. The key issue in this case was whether a Canadian court could order Google, a global search engine, to delist or block search results worldwide. The court ruled in favor of Equustek, holding that Google had to remove the search results worldwide to prevent the ongoing harm caused by the infringing websites. The case had significant implications for internet governance and the jurisdiction of courts to regulate online activities beyond their national borders. It established a precedent for holding search engines accountable for facilitating access to illegal content.

Need your ASSIGNMENT done? Use our paper writing service to score better and meet your deadline.


Click Here to Make an Order Click Here to Hire a Writer