A Historical Approach to Negligent Misrepresentation and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b)
- Share The University of Chicago Law Review | A Historical Approach to Negligent Misrepresentation and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) on Facebook
- Share The University of Chicago Law Review | A Historical Approach to Negligent Misrepresentation and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) on Twitter
- Share The University of Chicago Law Review | A Historical Approach to Negligent Misrepresentation and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) on Email
- Share The University of Chicago Law Review | A Historical Approach to Negligent Misrepresentation and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) on LinkedIn
This Essay benefitted greatly from advice from I. Glenn Cohen, Christopher Robertson, Chris Raine, and Julia Etkin.
More Americans are turning to AI to solve problems in their everyday lives. Recent studies show that healthcare is no exception. For the underinsured, the rural, the disabled, and anyone too stigmatized to ask a pharmacist about the drugs they are actually taking, AI chatbots are becoming an increasingly attractive source of drug information.
The crystallizing liability landscape, anchored by Garcia v. Character Technologies’ treatment of AI outputs as products, creates perverse incentives toward either surveillance-heavy monitoring or blanket refusal to engage with drug queries. This Essay proposes an alternate path grounded in harm reduction principles already embedded in pharmacist duty doctrine developed over four decades in state courts. These existing duties, mapped onto AI systems through targeted refusals, accurate pharmacological information, nonjudgmental risk warnings, data minimization, and crisis pathways, provide an actionable liability framework before more deaths force reactive regulatory responses.
I would like to thank Professors Lior Strahilevitz and Jeff Leslie for their invaluable insights and guidance. I would also like to thank the editors and staff of The University of Chicago Law Review—especially Margaret Schaack, Beck Reiferson, and Zoë Lewis Ewing—who could not have been more thoughtful editors.
This Comment creates the first comprehensive taxonomy of state eminent domain regimes’ treatment of private-to-private takings for the purpose of preventing future blight. Following the Supreme Court’s expansion of the Public Use Clause, many states moved to limit takings justified solely by economic development, yet maintained broad blight statutes that continued to authorize the condemnation of property to eliminate or prevent blight. The Comment exposes the indeterminate contours of the future-blight takings landscape, urging legislatures and courts seeking to cabin sweeping public use determinations to find the prevention of future blight an invalid public use.
The authors thank Deyaa Alriwishdi, Cody Corliss, Janka Deli, Assaf Harpaz, Jocelyn Getgen Kestenbaum, Lawrence Liu, Asaf Lubin, Natalie McCauley, Trang (Mae) Nguyen, Miyoko Pettit-Toledo, Charlie Trumbull, and Kate Yoon for very helpful comments and suggestions on the project. Thanks also to the Junior International Law Scholars Association for providing both the impetus for this project and a platform to receive feedback, and to the editors of the University of Chicago Law Review Online for their confidence in the project and thoughtful editorial guidance. All errors are the authors’ alone.
The U.S. government exerts powerful pressure on parties around the world through its use of unilateral economic sanctions. Oftentimes, this involves prohibiting U.S. corporate and natural persons from doing business with certain foreign jurisdictions, entities and individuals, or industries. A less noticed way the U.S. regulates conduct abroad is by prohibiting all transactions with sanctioned parties that simply pass through the U.S. financial system. This Essay examines the role of currency-based jurisdiction in U.S. sanctions practice by introducing a novel data set of enforcement actions and reveals that a controversial but largely overlooked jurisdictional basis in fact represents a cornerstone of current practice.