BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//Talks.cam//talks.cam.ac.uk//
X-WR-CALNAME:Talks.cam
BEGIN:VEVENT
SUMMARY:How the Usefulness of Statistical Evidence Depends on the Relevant
  Legal Criteria in Civil Cases in the U.S. - Joseph Gastwirth (George Wash
 ington University)
DTSTART:20260219T113000Z
DTEND:20260219T123000Z
UID:TALK244060@talks.cam.ac.uk
DESCRIPTION:The meaning of cause in civil law differs from its meaning in 
 scientific applications. Civil law is a dispute resolution process and mus
 t reach a decision attributing an observed harm to the defendant&rsquo\;s 
 acts or omission at the conclusion of a trial. In contrast\, when the evid
 ence in favor of a causal relationship is not conclusive\, scientists can 
 carry our new studies designed to resolve open issues. Courts often requir
 e plaintiffs in tort cases to prove that &ldquo\;but for&rdquo\; the acts 
 or omissions of the defendant\, they would not have suffered harm. In case
 s arising in securities law and in fraud or misleading advertisement cases
 \, plaintiffs only need to show that the defendant&rsquo\;s actions or ina
 ctions were &ldquo\;material&rdquo\; to their suffering a loss. A very cur
 rent case concerning a different statistical error will also be discussed.
 \nThe first case is one where plaintiffs\, who suffered loss of smell afte
 r using a product lost all tort law cases requiring &ldquo\;but for&rdquo\
 ; causality\, while investors prevailed in a securities law case using the
  &ldquo\;materiality&rdquo\; criterion: Was the information about adverse 
 reports the company withheld material&rdquo\; to a potential investor?\nMa
 ny nations have laws protecting the trademarks of well-known products from
  infringement and from competitors from advertising that misleads potentia
 l consumers. Such ads might make some consumers believe the product was ma
 de by the competitor instead of the or that the competitor&rsquo\;s produc
 t is superior. Consumers are also protected against misleading advertiseme
 nts that induce them to purchase items that are inferior to what is advert
 ised. Properly conducted surveys can show that a reasonable fraction of co
 nsumers is misled by the ads. The use of a survey in the case against Trum
 p University which concerned the issue of whether the misleading advertise
 ment\, vastly exaggerating Mr. Trump&rsquo\;s involvement with the Univers
 ity\, material to a potential student&rsquo\;s decision to enroll. Survey 
 evidence was used to demonstrate that a reasonable fraction of potential s
 tudents was misled. The decision to accept the survey noted the difference
  between surveys designed to satisfy the but for criteria. The case was se
 ttled for $25 million in 2016.\nA current case concerns the casual assumpt
 ion of independence in a recent Federal Appeals court decision. The potent
 ial impact may be substantial as it is likely to make it more difficult fo
 r plaintiffs to obtain a preliminary injunction\, to temporarily stop a bu
 siness fraud or scam until the trial is over (which can take several years
  in civil cases.)
LOCATION:Seminar Room 2\, Newton Institute
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR