Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 98Digitalization, Law, and RegulationDigital Transformation in LawIntellectual Property Rights and Media

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Legal Implications of a Ubiquitous Metaverse and a Web3 Future

Open access
Garon, Jon M.·2022·SSRN Electronic Journal
DOI 10.2139/ssrn.4002551
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The metaverse is understood to be an immersive virtual world serving as the locus for all forms of work, education, and entertainment experiences. Depicted in books, movies, and games, the metaverse has the potential not just to supplement real-world experiences but to substantially supplant them. This article explores the rapid emergence and evolution of the Web3 technologies at the heart of the metaverse movement. Web3 itself is a paradigmatic shift in internet commerce. The article begins by exploring the competing economic and philosophical approaches to the future of the internet, which is being driven on one hand by the most successful internet advertising firms (Facebook and Google) as well as their videogame competitors (Roblox, Microsoft’s Minecraft, Epic Games, and Valve) and on the other hand by Web3 advocates focusing on cryptocurrencies, nonfungible tokens, decentralized finance (“DeFi”) and distributed autonomous organizations (DAOs). Limiting the focus on U.S. law, the article reviews three core areas for the development of the metaverse: the regulatory environment; the transactional essentials; and the limits on governmental intrusion into the metaverse. The review of the regulatory environment includes state and federal gambling laws, money transfer laws, securities laws, and regulation of unfair and deceptive trade practices used to enforce privacy and cybersecurity obligations. The section on transactional essentials focuses on contracts between metaverse enterprises and their customers, antitrust and competition restraints, copyright protections, protections of biometric data and rights of publicity, and protections of customer speech in metaverse environments. Finally, the article addresses the need for the continuing evolution of the Fourth Amendment protection from search and seizures, the third party doctrine limitations on reasonable expectations of privacy, and the statutory protections under the Stored Communications Act. The article highlights that although these doctrinal issues are not new, the scope of the metaverse and its potential social importance will reshape these doctrine in sometimes unpredictable ways. Technologists, practitioners, and regulators must be open to these shifts to appropriately develop the correct mix of user control, industry practice, and regulatory oversight.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2139/ssrn.4002551

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Citations

Cites

Show all 4 references

Research works printed but not linked: 32

  1. Cyber-Digital Task Force, illicit uses of cryptocurrency typically fall into three categories: (1) financial transactions associated with the commission of crimes; (2) money laundering and the shielding of legitimate activity from tax, reporting, or other legal requirements; or (3) crimes, such as theft, directly implicating the cryptocurrency marketplace itself
  2. Gerard M Id, 2016, In the first six months of 2019, data breaches compromised an estimated 4.1 billion records, 3.2 billion of which came from just eight isolated breaches, Caveat Director Analyzing Cybersecurity Challenges in Corporate Governance
  3. Gregory See, 2011, The most popular approach to category management involves "outsourcing" decisions to a single manufacturer in the category (a.k.a., the "category captain"). ... The extent of involvement and the level of influence and control held by a category captain can be extensive, See also Bradley J. Lorden, Category Management: The Antitrust Implications in the United States and Europe
  4. Lorden, 2001, supra note __ at 545 quoting FED. TRADE COMM'N, REPORT ON THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION WORKSHOP ON SLOTTING ALLOWANCES AND OTHER MARKETING PRACTICES IN THE GROCERY INDUSTRY, 50
  5. See Nikolas, 2021, Essential Platforms, 24 STAN. TECH. L. REV, 237
  6. See Aditya, 2019, ) at A1 ("Last year, Americans bought more books, T-shirts and other products on Amazon than eBay, Walmart and its next seven largest online competitors combined, N. Y. TIMES
  7. Aditya Kalra & Steve Stecklow, supra note
  8. Guggenberger, 2020, supra note __ at 259 citing JUNGLE SCOUT, THE STATE OF THE AMAZON SELLER 2020, 24
  9. Ftc V See, 2008, Facebook has maintained its monopoly position in significant part by pursuing Chief Executive Officer
  10. Press Release, 2021, FTC Alleges Facebook Resorted to Illegal Buy-or-Bury Scheme to Crush Competition After String of Failed Attempts to Innovate, FTC
  11. Epic Games, 2021, See Sean Hollister, The Epic v. Google Lawsuit Finally Makes Sense, THE VERGE, 165
  12. See Jennifer, 2012, The right of publicity encompasses rights far beyond the mere collection of income and entitlement to the economic value that flows from uses of a person's identity. The right of publicity provides control over the use of a person's identity and, therefore, ultimately over the person herself, L.J, 185
  13. Jon M Garon, 1993, Commercializing the Digital Canvas: Renewing Rights of Attribution for Artists, Authors, and Performers, 1 TEX. A&M L. REV, Michael Madow, Private Ownership of Public Image: Popular Cultural and Publicity Rights
  14. 2001, Cal. 4th, 387
  15. Inc V Time, 1952, That books, newspapers, and magazines are published and sold for profit does not prevent them from being a form of expression whose liberty is safeguarded by the First Amendment, 397, 501
  16. Ashley Cullins, 2018, FX Wins Appellate Court 'Feud' With Olivia de Havilland, HOLLY'D RPTR
  17. De Havilland, 2018, FX Networks, LLC, 230 Cal, 625
  18. Id, 2006, Many of the cases in this area involve products and merchandise such as T-shirts and lithographs (Comedy III, ante), greeting cards (Hilton v. Hallmark Cards (9th Cir. 2010) 599 F.3d 894), and video games, ) 775 F.3d 1172; In re NCAA Student-Athlete Name & Likeness 724 F.3d 1268
  19. 1998, Rptr.3d 607), or advertisements for products and merchandise, Cal.App, 686, 691
  20. Bradley See, 2021, Silenced? Transparency Effort Looks to Squash Vendor Restrictions on Product Reviews by Users, SC MEDIA
  21. Id, 2004, See also Lydia Pallas Loren, Slaying the Leather-Winged Demons in the Night: Reforming Copyright Owner Contracting with Clickwrap Misuse
  22. David R Collins, 2009, Software License Agreements: Litigating a Digital Pig in a Poke in West Virginia, 111 W
  23. 2021, Surveillance, and Human Rights Network. Surveillance and the 'New Normal' of Covid-19: Public Health, Data, and Justice
  24. See Ronald Bayer, 2007, The Continuing Tensions Between Individual Rights And Public Health. Talking Point On Public Health Versus Civil Liberties, EMBO Reports, 8
  25. Solove, supra note __ at 1804-85 Inadequately constrained government information-gathering can lead to at least three types of harms. First, it can result in the slow creep toward a totalitarian state. Second, it can chill democratic activities and interfere with individual self-determination. Third, it can lead to the danger of harms arising in bureaucratic settings
  26. Tricia A Martino, 2002, See also James J. Tomkovicz, Technology and the Threshold of the Fourth Amendment: A Tale of Two Futures, 72 MISS, L.J, 353, 324
  27. See, 1967, By the time of the landmark Supreme Court decision in Olmstead, however, at least forty-one of the forty-eight states had banned wiretapping or forbidden telephone and telegraph employees and officers from disclosing the content of telephone or telegraph messages or both, CONG. RES. SCVS, 302
  28. Id, 1944, 2220 quoting Northwest Airlines, 292
  29. Amendment, 2015, In re Cell Tower Records Under 18 U.S.C. 2703(D), Matter of Search of Information Stored at Premises Controlled by Google, 28
  30. 2019, United States v. Adkinson, 916 F.3d 605
  31. Jay Greene, 2021, Tech Giants Have to Hand Over your Data When Federal Investigators Ask. Here's Why, WASH. POST
  32. 1968, Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (Pub. L. 90-351, 82 Stat, 197

Cited by

See all 98

Related

Metadata

Authors
Garon, J. M.
Corresponding author
Garon, Jon M.
ORCID
Garon, Jon M.
Venue
SSRN Electronic Journal
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022
ISSN
1556-5068 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.2139/ssrn.4002551
OpenAlex
W4206704173
Cited by
92
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 23
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
  • Marquette law review (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
  • Social Sciences › Law › Digital Transformation in Law
  • Social Sciences › Law › Intellectual Property Rights and Media
Keywords
metaverse, Web3, cryptocurrency, non-fungible tokens, decentralized finance, metaverse regulation, gambling regulation, securities regulation, competition law, copyright, biometric data, image rights, Fourth Amendment, third-party doctrine, Stored Communications Act, privacy, cybersecurity, e-commerce

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.