João Marinotti

Workshop on Private Law & Emerging Technology Register for more information about our yearly workshop series!

Deadline approaching: Oct 31 for the 2026 Workshop on Private Law & Emerging Technology!

We're looking for works-in-progress that explore the interactions between private law & tech change.

Hosted by Harvard Proj. on Private Law, Yale ISP, & Yale Center for Private Law. Details: privatelawtech.org

More details about "The Metaverse: What Everyone Needs to Know," including its table of contents is available at the OUP website: global.oup.com/academic/pro...

The cover page to the book "The Metaverse: What Everyone Needs to Know" by Scott Shackelford, Michael Mattioli, Jeffrey Prince, and João Marinotti published by Oxford University Press

Immersive tech & generative AI are reshaping how we work, connect, & govern online spaces.

I had the pleasure of co-authoring a new book on the legal, economic, & privacy implications of this tech w/ Scott Shackelford, Jeffrey Prince, & Michael Mattioli, published by Oxford University Press.

🧵 on an important new paper measuring memorization by LLMs.

I’m excited to present two related projects today at the Harvard Law School Private Law Workshop.

🔹 Defragging Ownership: How Corporations Sliced, Diced, and Sold the Bundle. Available on SSRN: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

🔹 Property Defaults
Draft available upon request.

"Property Defaults"

This project explores the theoretical & doctrinal tools that property law can still use to fight back. Property defaults resist corporate customization & restore stable ownership expectations—especially in a world of software-laden "conduit goods." Draft available upon request.

"Defragging Ownership: How Corporations Sliced, Diced, and Sold the Bundle"

From Spotify car accessories to $100k exoskeletons, this paper maps the structural tactics used to destroy ownership. What used to be "mine" is now leased, licensed, geo-fenced, and surveilled. SSRN: lnkd.in/gw2-cpYx

I’m excited to present two related projects today at the Harvard Law School Private Law Workshop.

🔹 Defragging Ownership: How Corporations Sliced, Diced, and Sold the Bundle. Available on SSRN: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

🔹 Property Defaults
Draft available upon request.

Flyer for the “Workshop on Private Law & Emerging Technology,” co-sponsored by Harvard Law School’s Project on the Foundations of Private Law, Yale Law School’s Information Society Project, and Yale Law School’s Center for Private Law. The workshop is a virtual series held over three Fridays: April 11, 18, and 25, 2025, from 1:30–3:30 PM Eastern. Spring 2025 Program: Property & Ownership – April 11 • 1:30–2:30: The Death of Ownership: Sale, Use, & Control of Goods with Embedded Software in the Digital Era – Sean Thomas (U. York Law, UK); Discussant: João Marinotti (Indiana Law – Maurer) • 2:30–3:30: Custom & Separate Ownership of Natural Resources – Joseph Schremmer (Oklahoma Law); Discussant: Monika Ehrman (SMU Law) Torts & Corporate Liability – April 18 • 1:30–2:30: The Trustworthy Company – Bryant Walker Smith (South Carolina Law); Discussant: Cristina Tilley (Iowa Law) • 2:30–3:30: The Tort Law We Need (Enterprise Liability) – Ben Sundholm (St. John’s Law); Discussant: Gregory Keating (USC Law) AI & Algorithmic Harms – April 25 • 1:30–2:30: AI & Causation: A Plea for Caution – Jonathan Irwy (Wharton Accountable AI Lab); Discussant: Mark Geistfeld (NYU Law) • 2:30–3:30: Beyond Algorithmic Disgorgement: Remedying Algorithmic Harms – Christina Lee (George Washington Law); Discussant: Caprice Roberts (Louisiana State Law) The flyer includes logos of the co-sponsoring institutions and a cartoon robot sitting at a desk. Registration and more information are available at privatelawtech.org.

Thrilled to share the final program for the 2025 Workshop on Private Law & Emerging Technology!

This 3-part virtual series is co-sponsored by Harvard’s Project on the Foundations of Private Law and Yale’s Information Society Project & Center for Private Law.

Don’t miss this incredible lineup!

Workshop on Private Law & Emerging Technology Register to Attend the Virtual Workshop on April 11, 18, & 25

Over the next 3 Fridays (April 11, 18, & 25), we’ll explore cutting-edge questions about how technology shapes—& is shaped by—private law theory, doctrine, & policy.

Each session runs from 1:30 to 3:30 PM Eastern (US).

Join us for any or all of the sessions by registering on privatelawtech.org.

Flyer for the “Workshop on Private Law & Emerging Technology,” co-sponsored by Harvard Law School’s Project on the Foundations of Private Law, Yale Law School’s Information Society Project, and Yale Law School’s Center for Private Law. The workshop is a virtual series held over three Fridays: April 11, 18, and 25, 2025, from 1:30–3:30 PM Eastern. Spring 2025 Program: Property & Ownership – April 11 • 1:30–2:30: The Death of Ownership: Sale, Use, & Control of Goods with Embedded Software in the Digital Era – Sean Thomas (U. York Law, UK); Discussant: João Marinotti (Indiana Law – Maurer) • 2:30–3:30: Custom & Separate Ownership of Natural Resources – Joseph Schremmer (Oklahoma Law); Discussant: Monika Ehrman (SMU Law) Torts & Corporate Liability – April 18 • 1:30–2:30: The Trustworthy Company – Bryant Walker Smith (South Carolina Law); Discussant: Cristina Tilley (Iowa Law) • 2:30–3:30: The Tort Law We Need (Enterprise Liability) – Ben Sundholm (St. John’s Law); Discussant: Gregory Keating (USC Law) AI & Algorithmic Harms – April 25 • 1:30–2:30: AI & Causation: A Plea for Caution – Jonathan Irwy (Wharton Accountable AI Lab); Discussant: Mark Geistfeld (NYU Law) • 2:30–3:30: Beyond Algorithmic Disgorgement: Remedying Algorithmic Harms – Christina Lee (George Washington Law); Discussant: Caprice Roberts (Louisiana State Law) The flyer includes logos of the co-sponsoring institutions and a cartoon robot sitting at a desk. Registration and more information are available at privatelawtech.org.

Thrilled to share the final program for the 2025 Workshop on Private Law & Emerging Technology!

This 3-part virtual series is co-sponsored by Harvard’s Project on the Foundations of Private Law and Yale’s Information Society Project & Center for Private Law.

Don’t miss this incredible lineup!

Join us tomorrow for the (virtual) Law & Tech Workshop! I'll be co-hosting this super interesting session about "Dignity and Deepfakes."

I don’t have strong feelings about the Tik Tok ban. I do have strong feelings about the idea that Trump is just going to waive a law passed by Congress on a bipartisan basis. And that Biden was apparently going to do the same. That’s lawless.

On Friday 3 PM ET, the Law and Tech Workshop will be discussing Aileen Nielsen's (@hls.harvard.edu) "Legibility and Lawmaking," with Jens Frankenreiter as the discussant. To sign up for the workshop, email lawtechworkshop@gmail.com. More information at lawtechworkshop.org.

Of course, there are may be legitimate reasons for these unique results, but public perception is important—especially in a democracy. Law enforcement, courts, and the government in general need to pay more attention to the perception of legitimacy and the rule of law. 5/

Unfortunately, many people are murdered in New York City every year. According to the NYPD, there were 141 murders in 2024 & 170 in 2023.

Yet, only the murder of a CEO triggered such a massive response from law enforcement and coverage by the media. 4/

This just adds to the public's anger. It underscored a pattern of unequal treatment, especially after the Luigi Mangione saga. The sheer amount of police & prosecutorial resources poured into finding, arresting, and charging him also rubbed people the wrong way. 3/

Usually, legal cases involving presidents are so unique they hide that courts have *always* treated presidents differently. This case is also unique but in its normalcy. As a state felony case, it shone bright neon lights on the unequal application of criminal law. 2/

Trump will face *no consequences* for his hush-money guilty verdict on 34 felony counts. The only result is being labeled a felon in NY. Legally, this is called an "unconditional discharge" and it is no wonder that people are upset. 1/

The long wait is over. 2025 is going to be a great year. Coming soon with Oxford University Press.

Florida Judge Allows VR Simulation of Alleged Crime to Be Submitted as Evidence The defendant's attorney wanted the judge to see the altercation from his client's eyes.

The VR headsets and simulation were actually used in a pre-trial hearing rather than during the jury trial, which will take place in February. gizmodo.com/florida-judg...

If we assume everyone agrees on the facts to be simulated in VR, are there any legal/policy downsides to this use of VR? It would be interesting to know if the viewer can move the camera/switch perspectives or whether they're locked into the most beneficial one as chosen by the lawyer.

VR has have been used to simulate firefighting, medicine, & military scenarios. It was only a matter of time before VR was used to simulate legal ones. The only difference is that this isn't an educational exercise.

A defense attorney in Florida brought VR headsets to court to use as evidence!

"We put headsets on the judge, the prosecutors, and the witness and the judge was able to see from my client’s own eyes, from his own perspective"

Illinois Supreme Court Announces Policy on Artificial Intelligence The Illinois Supreme Court announced today the release of its policy on Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the courts, following the approval of a report submitted by the Illinois Judicial Conference (IJ...

Here's a link to the policy page: www.illinoiscourts.gov/News/1485/Il...

This is unacceptable and—in my opinion—unavoidable when LLMs are used at the early stages of ideation and analysis. Ultimately, because this policy does not sufficiently protect against these risks, I think a more detailed policy—especially for judges—is necessary in the long run. 6/

However, when judges (& their clerks) begin using ChatGPT for first-pass legal analyses or legal interpretation, I think the line of legitimacy is crossed.

Cognitive biases such as anchoring effects will inevitably affect judicial decisions based on the random output of an LLM 5/

In fact, the policy realistically accepts that "Disclosure of Al use should not be required in a pleading." Such disclosure rules would likely be routinely ignored/broken. That is especially the case when multiple parties collaborate on a single document/pleading. 4/

The policy is both fascinating and troubling. In some ways, it is obvious that all these parties will use (and have already been using) AI. Just like in education, it's futile to issue an outright ban on generative AI. 3/

Notably, the policy states that "the use of Al by litigants, attorneys, judges, judicial clerks, research attorneys, and court staff ... may be expected, should not be discouraged, and is authorized provided it complies with legal and ethical standards." 2/