BLAW Exam PDF - Constitutional Law & Business Law

​ The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid...

​ The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate ​ The Commerce Clause: Scope and Evolution ○​ The Commerce Clause in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." Over time, this clause has been broadly interpreted to expand federal authority over economic and social policies. ○​ Key Supreme Court Cases 1.​ Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)​ ○​ Established that Congress has the exclusive power to regulate interstate commerce. ○​ Struck down a New York monopoly on steamboat operations, reinforcing federal supremacy over state laws that interfere with interstate trade. 2.​ Wickard v. Filburn (1942)​ ○​ Expanded the Commerce Clause to cover intrastate activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. ○​ Ruled that a farmer growing wheat for personal use could still be regulated because it affected overall market supply and demand. 3.​ Katzenbach v. McClung (1964)​ ○​ Upheld the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by ruling that Congress could prohibit racial discrimination in restaurants under the Commerce Clause. ○​ Reasoned that segregation in public accommodations had a significant impact on interstate commerce.  Significance and Modern Use The Commerce Clause has been a powerful tool for expanding federal regulation in areas like civil rights, labor laws, and environmental protection. However, in recent years, the Supreme Court has imposed limits, notably in United States v. Lopez (1995) and NFIB v. Sebelius (2012), signaling a shift toward restraining federal power under the clause. 3. Necessary and Proper Clause The Necessary and Proper Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 18) allows Congress to pass laws necessary to execute its enumerated powers. This clause, often paired with the Commerce Clause, broadens federal authority. Key Case: McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) ​ Confirmed that Congress could establish a national bank under the Necessary and Proper Clause. ​ Established the doctrine of implied powers, reinforcing federal supremacy over state interference. 4. Supremacy of Federal Law The Supremacy Clause (Article VI) ensures that federal law prevails over conflicting state laws. Key Case: McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) ​ Struck down Maryland’s tax on the national bank, affirming federal laws take precedence over state actions. ​ Reinforced the idea that states cannot hinder constitutional federal operations. 5. Constitutional Limitations on State Powers States are restricted from passing laws that interfere with interstate commerce or violate constitutional protections. Key Cases:  ​ Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona (1945) – Struck down an Arizona law limiting train lengths as an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce under the Dormant Commerce Clause. ​ Wyoming v. Oklahoma (1992) – Invalidated an Oklahoma law requiring power plants to use a percentage of in-state coal, ruling it violated the Commerce Clause by discriminating against out-of-state businesses. 6. Takings Clause (Fifth Amendment) The Takings Clause prohibits the government from taking private property for public use without just compensation. Key Case: Horne v. Department of Agriculture (2015) ​ Ruled that a government-mandated transfer of raisins from farmers constituted a physical taking requiring compensation. ​ Distinguished physical takings (government seizing property) from regulatory takings (laws that diminish property value). 7. First Amendment and Commercial Speech The First Amendment protects commercial speech, but it is subject to greater regulation than political speech. Key Test: Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission (1980) ​ Established a four-part test to determine when restrictions on commercial speech are permissible. 8. Fourth and Fifth Amendment Protections Businesses, particularly in closely regulated industries, have limited Fourth Amendment protections against searches and seizures. Key Case: New York v. Burger (1987) ​ Allowed warrantless inspections of junkyards under a regulatory scheme, ruling that closely regulated industries have reduced privacy expectations. 9. Equal Protection Clause The Equal Protection Clause (Fourteenth Amendment) prohibits states from enacting discriminatory laws. Key Concepts: ​ Strict Scrutiny – Applied to laws affecting suspect classifications (e.g., race). ​ Rational Basis Review – Applied to business regulations unless fundamental rights are involved. 10. State Taxation and Interstate Commerce States cannot impose taxes that unduly burden interstate commerce. Key Principles: ​ Nexus Requirement – A business must have a substantial connection to the state to be taxed. ​ Apportionment – Taxes must be fairly distributed to avoid multiple taxation. Key Case: Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady (1977) ​ Upheld a Mississippi tax on interstate trucking but established a four-part test ensuring taxes do not discriminate against or unduly burden interstate commerce. Criminal Law Overview 1. Felonies vs. Misdemeanors ​ Felonies: Serious crimes (e.g., murder, robbery) punishable by more than one year in prison or death. ​ Misdemeanors: Less severe offenses (e.g., petty theft, simple assault) with penalties of up to one year in jail or fines. ​ Impact on Legal Proceedings: Felonies require grand jury indictments in federal cases and often involve lengthier trials and appeals. Misdemeanors are typically handled in lower courts with simpler procedures. 2. Mens Rea (Intent) and Actus Reus (Action)  ​ Mens Rea: The guilty mind, or criminal intent (e.g., purposefully, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently committing a crime). ​ Actus Reus: The guilty act, meaning the defendant engaged in conduct prohibited by law. ​ Example: In murder, intent (mens rea) distinguishes first-degree murder (premeditation) from manslaughter (recklessness or negligence). 3. Criminal Procedure: Miranda Rights and Exclusionary Rule ​ Miranda Rights: Based on Miranda v. Arizona (1966), law enforcement must inform suspects of their right to remain silent and to an attorney before interrogation. ​ Exclusionary Rule: Established in Mapp v. Ohio (1961), this prevents evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment from being used in court. 4. Probable Cause and Warrants ​ Probable Cause: A reasonable belief that a crime has occurred, required for arrests and searches under the Fourth Amendment. ​ Warrants: Must be issued by a judge based on sworn affidavits demonstrating probable cause. ​ Exceptions: Exigent circumstances, plain view, consent searches, and automobile searches may allow warrantless actions. 5. Bribery and Economic Crimes ​ Bribery: The act of offering, giving, or receiving something of value to influence a public official’s actions. ​ White-Collar Crimes: Include fraud, embezzlement, and insider trading, often prosecuted under federal laws like the Securities Exchange Act. 6. RICO and White-Collar Crime ​ Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO): Enacted to combat organized crime, but now used against corporate fraud, political corruption, and financial crimes. ​ Expanded Use: Prosecutors apply RICO against corporations, gangs, and corrupt officials, requiring proof of a pattern of racketeering activity (e.g., fraud, bribery, money laundering). Tort Law Overview 1. Negligence: Duty, Breach, Causation, and Damages Negligence occurs when someone fails to take reasonable care to avoid harm to others. To prove negligence, the plaintiff must establish the following: ​ Duty of Care: The defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff (e.g., a driver owes a duty to others on the road). ​ Breach: The defendant violated that duty (e.g., running a red light). ​ Causation: The defendant’s actions directly caused the plaintiff’s injury, both actual cause (cause in fact) and proximate cause (foreseeable result). ​ Damages: The plaintiff suffered actual harm or injury (e.g., medical bills, lost wages).​ The reasonable person standard is used to evaluate whether the defendant’s actions were negligent. 2. Strict Liability Strict liability holds defendants liable regardless of fault or intent, typically in cases involving inherently dangerous activities or defective products. Common situations include: ​ Hazardous Activities: Like explosives or nuclear waste disposal. ​ Product Liability: Where manufacturers can be held liable for defects that cause harm, even without negligence or intent to harm. 3. Res Ipsa Loquitur and Assumption of Risk ​ Res Ipsa Loquitur: "The thing speaks for itself." This doctrine allows a presumption of negligence when the nature of the accident suggests that it would not have happened without someone's negligence (e.g., a surgical instrument left inside a patient). ​ Assumption of Risk: A defense in which the defendant argues that the plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily accepted the risks associated with an activity (e.g., a spectator at a baseball game assumes the risk of being hit by a foul ball). 4. Comparative Fault and Damages ​ Comparative Fault: In cases where both parties share fault, the plaintiff’s recovery may be reduced based on their percentage of fault.  ○​ Pure Comparative Fault: The plaintiff can recover even if they are more at fault than the defendant (e.g., a 90% responsible plaintiff can still recover 10% of damages). ○​ Modified Comparative Fault: Recovery is only allowed if the plaintiff is less than 50% or 51% at fault. ​ Damages: ○​ Compensatory Damages: Cover actual losses (e.g., medical expenses, pain and suffering). ○​ Punitive Damages: Awarded in cases of egregious misconduct (e.g., gross negligence or intentional harm), designed to punish the defendant and deter future misconduct. Business Tort Law Overview 1. Fraud and Misrepresentation ​ Fraud: Occurs when one party intentionally deceives another to gain a benefit or cause harm. It requires the defendant to have scienter (intent to deceive), the plaintiff’s reliance on the false information, and resulting damages. ​ Negligent Misrepresentation: Unlike fraud, negligent misrepresentation occurs when a party makes a false statement without due care, but the intent to deceive is absent. Even without intent, the plaintiff can still recover damages if reliance and harm are proven. 2. Interference with Contractual Relations This tort arises when a third party intentionally disrupts or induces a party to breach an existing contract. ​ Key Elements: The plaintiff must prove the existence of a valid contract, that the defendant knew about the contract, and that the defendant acted with malice (intent to harm the contractual relationship). ​ Defense: Justifiable interference, such as an economic interest or privilege, may serve as a defense if the defendant had a valid reason for the disruption. 3. Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage This tort involves interference with a party’s future business opportunities or prospective contracts, rather than a current, valid contract.  ​ Key Elements: The plaintiff must prove that the defendant intentionally interfered with an anticipated business relationship or economic opportunity, and that this interference caused harm. ​ Challenges: Proving lost profits or demonstrating a specific lost opportunity can be more difficult compared to other torts. 4. Slander of Title and Business Defamation ​ Slander of Title: Occurs when someone makes false statements about the ownership of property, potentially harming the property's value or title (e.g., falsely claiming someone does not own a business asset). ​ Business Defamation: Involves false statements about a business or its products that damage its reputation or goodwill. ○​ Defamation Defenses: Truth and privilege (e.g., statements made during official proceedings) can be used as defenses in defamation cases. 5. Privacy Torts in Business Privacy torts involve the unauthorized disclosure of private information. In a business context, these include: ​ Public Disclosure of Private Facts: When a business discloses private facts about an individual or another business without consent and the disclosure would be highly offensive. ​ Intrusion upon Seclusion: Involves a business unlawfully intruding into someone’s private affairs (e.g., unauthorized surveillance). ​ Technological Challenges: With the rise of data collection, online privacy, and digital marketing, privacy torts are increasingly important as businesses handle vast amounts of personal data. These cases offer a broad view of various legal principles across multiple fields, from arbitration to contract disputes and jurisdictional issues. Let's break down the key takeaways from each case: 1. Weisgram v. Marley Co. (2000) ​ Core Issue: Whether unreliable expert testimony invalidates a jury's verdict and whether an appellate court can enter judgment as a matter of law.  ​ Takeaway: The U.S. Supreme Court confirmed that when expert testimony is found unreliable, it can lead to the reversal of a jury verdict, even if the losing party has not had a chance for a new trial. The ruling emphasizes the significance of scientific reliability in supporting claims. 2. Naples v. Keystone Building (2010) ​ Core Issue: Can a trial judge reduce damages supported by expert testimony? ​ Takeaway: The Connecticut Supreme Court reinforced that trial judges must fully consider expert testimony in assessing damages, especially in construction disputes. The court remanded the case to properly assess the full extent of repair costs and upheld the narrow criteria for CUTPA violations and piercing the corporate veil. 3. Southland Corp. v. Keating (1984) ​ Core Issue: Does federal law under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) override state laws restricting arbitration? ​ Takeaway: The U.S. Supreme Court held that federal law preempts state laws, making arbitration clauses enforceable even if state law seeks to invalidate them. This decision shaped the future of arbitration, emphasizing its nationwide enforceability. 4. National Labor Relations Board v. Joseph Macaluso, Inc. (1980) ​ Core Issue: Can mediators be compelled to testify in labor disputes? ​ Takeaway: The court recognized the importance of mediator confidentiality and ruled that it outweighed the need for testimony, setting a precedent for the protection of mediator neutrality in labor disputes. 5. Buckeye Check Cashing v. Cardegna (2006) ​ Core Issue: Should challenges to a contract’s validity be resolved in court or through arbitration? ​ Takeaway: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that disputes over contract validity (even if the contract is allegedly void) must be handled by the arbitrator unless the arbitration clause itself is contested. This ruling reinforces the broad enforcement of arbitration clauses under the FAA. 6. Paranzino v. Barnett Bank (1997)  ​ Core Issue: What are the remedies for violating a mediation confidentiality agreement? ​ Takeaway: The Florida court upheld sanctions for breaching a confidentiality agreement in mediation, reinforcing the ethical and legal obligations of parties to uphold confidentiality in dispute resolution. 7. Zamora v. Lewis (2019) ​ Core Issue: Does Illinois have personal jurisdiction over defendants from Maine in a wrongful death case? ​ Takeaway: The court will focus on whether the defendants’ actions have a sufficient connection to Illinois to justify jurisdiction, highlighting the importance of establishing minimum contacts in personal jurisdiction cases. 8. Charlotte Chambers v. Dakotah Charter (1992) ​ Core Issue: Which state law applies in a multi-state injury scenario? ​ Takeaway: The court considers where the injury occurred and where the contract was made to determine applicable law, emphasizing the connection between the parties and the state. 9. Edwards v. Direct Access (2005) ​ Core Issue: Can state courts hear cases involving the Federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA)? ​ Takeaway: The Supreme Court affirmed that state courts can hear TCPA cases, even when federal law is involved, showcasing the concurrent jurisdiction of state and federal courts in certain areas. 10. Oldfield v. Pueblo de Bahia Lora (2009) ​ Core Issue: Does a U.S. court have jurisdiction over a foreign resort after an injury in Costa Rica? ​ Takeaway: The court determined that sufficient U.S. contacts must exist for jurisdiction, focusing on the nature of the business’s operations (such as a U.S.-targeted website) to justify the case being heard in a U.S. court. 11. Ex parte Kia Motors America (2003)  ​ Core Issue: Should the case be moved to Florida under forum non conveniens? ​ Takeaway: Courts balance the convenience of witnesses and evidence when deciding whether to move a case, emphasizing the importance of justice and convenience in legal proceedings. 12. Price v. Calder (2015) ​ Core Issue: Can an attorney claim judicial immunity for actions taken on behalf of the court? ​ Takeaway: The court upheld judicial immunity for court-appointed individuals, underscoring the protection of judicial functions from personal liability when acting within the scope of their official duties. These cases demonstrate key principles of contract law, arbitration, mediation confidentiality, and jurisdictional issues, offering insights into the practical application of these doctrines. Each case explores the balance between individual rights, judicial procedures, and fairness, reflecting the complexity of modern legal practice. These themes and concepts in constitutional law are fundamental in shaping the relationships between the federal government, state governments, and individuals, particularly in the context of business and commerce. Here's a breakdown of the focus points: Amendments to the U.S. Constitution ​ Difficulty of the Amendment Process: The framers intentionally made amending the Constitution a rigorous process to protect its integrity, ensuring that only significant, broadly supported changes are adopted. This reflects federalism, balancing state and federal powers and preventing hasty alterations. Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8) ​ Expansion of Federal Regulatory Power: Cases like Wickard v. Filburn and Katzenbach v. McClung demonstrate the expansive reach of Congress to regulate activities that affect interstate commerce, even if those activities  are local. This evolution highlights the growing power of the federal government in regulating commerce under the Commerce Clause. Necessary and Proper Clause ​ Implied Powers of Congress: The McCulloch v. Maryland case is key in understanding how Congress can exercise powers not explicitly listed in the Constitution if they are necessary to implement its enumerated powers. This gives Congress flexibility in enacting laws and establishing institutions that facilitate its constitutional responsibilities. Supremacy of Federal Law ​ Federal Law Prevails Over State Law: The McCulloch v. Maryland ruling reinforced the Supremacy Clause, ensuring that when state laws conflict with federal laws, the latter prevails. This is particularly important in matters such as commerce, taxation, and regulatory power, where uniformity is essential. Constitutional Limitations on State Powers ​ Dormant Commerce Clause: This principle prevents states from enacting laws that unjustly burden or discriminate against interstate commerce. Cases like Southern Railway Co. v. Arizona and Wyoming v. Oklahoma illustrate how state laws can be struck down if they unduly restrict the flow of interstate commerce. Takings Clause (Fifth Amendment) ​ Property Rights and Public Use: The Takings Clause prohibits the government from seizing private property for public use without just compensation. This protection extends to both physical takings and regulatory takings, where government regulations limit the use of property, significantly affecting its value. First Amendment and Commercial Speech ​ Commercial Speech Protections: The First Amendment protects commercial speech, such as advertising and marketing, but with certain limitations. Courts balance the government’s interest in regulating business practices with the protections afforded to commercial expression. Fourth and Fifth Amendment Protections ​ Searches and Seizures in Business: The Fourth Amendment protects businesses from unreasonable searches and seizures, but certain industries that are closely regulated, like junkyards in New York v. Burger, may face different standards. The Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination doesn't apply to corporations, highlighting the distinct treatment of businesses in the legal system. Equal Protection Clause ​ Fair Treatment Under the Law: The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment ensures that businesses and individuals are treated equally. Courts use different levels of scrutiny depending on the nature of the discrimination, with strict scrutiny applied to race or fundamental rights issues, and rational basis review for economic classifications. State Taxation and Interstate Commerce ​ Limits on State Taxation: States cannot impose taxes that discriminate against or place an undue burden on interstate commerce. Courts apply a balancing test to determine whether state taxes interfere with interstate business, and whether such taxes violate the Dormant Commerce Clause. These concepts and cases form the foundation for understanding the evolving relationship between federal powers, state powers, and individual rights, especially as it relates to business and commerce. 1. Criminal Law Foundations Criminal law is the tool for public justice, with the state assuming the exclusive right to prosecute crimes. This role reflects the state’s responsibility to uphold societal norms and maintain public order. Criminal law distinguishes between felonies (more severe crimes) and misdemeanors (lesser offenses), ensuring that punishments are proportional to the societal harm caused by the crime. 2. Elements of a Crime: Actus Reus and Mens Rea Criminal liability hinges on two elements: actus reus (the wrongful act) and mens rea (the guilty mind). The law considers not only the act but also the mindset behind it. Distinctions in mens rea—from intentional acts to reckless or negligent behavior—are critical for assessing blameworthiness. Criminal negligence reflects a failure to meet a basic standard of care, emphasizing that harm can arise not just from malicious intent but from failure to act responsibly. 3. Criminal Procedure: Miranda Rights and the Exclusionary Rule Procedural safeguards like Miranda rights and the exclusionary rule balance law enforcement interests with individual rights. Miranda v. Arizona ensures individuals are aware of their rights, protecting against coercion during police interrogations. The exclusionary rule, which excludes evidence obtained unlawfully, underscores the importance of procedural integrity—evidence gathered through unconstitutional means cannot be used in court, emphasizing the value of protecting individual rights even at the cost of potentially losing valuable evidence. 4. Statute of Limitations: Time and Justice The statute of limitations ensures that criminal prosecution occurs within a reasonable time frame, balancing fairness to the accused with the need for timely justice. The concept of tolling, where the statute of limitations can be paused under certain conditions (e.g., if the accused flees), allows the system flexibility to ensure accountability while respecting the passage of time and potential challenges to evidence gathering. 5. Bribery and Corporate Crime: Ethical Erosion Bribery undermines trust in both public and private institutions. It involves offering or accepting something of value to influence the behavior of a public official or corporate actor. This crime's broader societal harm is profound, leading to the erosion of institutional integrity and fairness. White-collar crimes like bribery require a legal approach that holds both individual wrongdoers and the institutions that facilitate such misconduct accountable. 6. Racketeering and Broader Criminal Statutes: RICO’s Expanding Reach The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) was originally aimed at dismantling organized crime but has expanded to cover a wide range of criminal activities, including corporate and white-collar crimes. RICO targets the structures of criminal organizations, acknowledging that such groups perpetuate crime through coordinated efforts. Its application to corporate crime demonstrates the law’s adaptability to address complex networks of criminal behavior, especially when economic power and corruption are involved. 7. Sentencing Guidelines: Fairness and Uniformity Federal Sentencing Guidelines were established to ensure uniformity in sentencing across federal courts. These guidelines promote consistency, ensuring that similar crimes receive similar sentences, fostering public confidence in the fairness of the system. However, they allow for judicial discretion, acknowledging that individual circumstances might warrant deviations from the standard sentencing range. This balance ensures that justice is both consistent and tailored to each unique case. Tort Law Overview Tort law addresses civil wrongs, with the primary goal of compensating victims rather than punishing wrongdoers, unlike criminal law. It encompasses negligence, intentional acts, and strict liability. The aim is to make victims whole, as demonstrated by the eggshell plaintiff rule, which holds a defendant accountable for the full extent of a plaintiff’s injury, even if pre-existing conditions make the injury worse. Negligence Negligence consists of four key elements: duty, breach, causation, and damages. The reasonable person standard determines if the defendant acted as a prudent person would. The "but-for" test in causation asks if the harm would have occurred but for the defendant’s actions. Strict Liability In strict liability, defendants are held accountable for certain activities regardless of fault or negligence. This typically applies to inherently dangerous activities, such as the use of explosives or keeping exotic animals, or in product liability cases, where manufacturers are responsible for harm caused by defective products. Causation Causation, essential in negligence, is analyzed through the "but-for" test to establish if the defendant’s actions directly led to the harm. Special Doctrines: Res Ipsa Loquitur and Assumption of Risk  ​ Res ipsa loquitur allows courts to infer negligence from the incident itself, shifting the burden of proof to the defendant. ​ Assumption of risk occurs when a plaintiff knowingly engages in a risky activity, often eliminating or reducing the defendant's liability, especially in dangerous recreational activities. Damages, Defenses, and Comparative Fault Damages in tort law include compensatory (restoring the plaintiff’s condition) and punitive (punishing egregious conduct) damages. Comparative negligence reduces the plaintiff’s recovery based on their fault, whereas contributory negligence can bar recovery entirely. Intentional Torts Intentional torts (e.g., assault, battery, false imprisonment) require deliberate actions by the defendant. Defamation involves libel (written) or slander (spoken). Public figures in defamation cases must prove actual malice, meaning the defendant either knew the statement was false or acted recklessly regarding the truth. Strict Liability in Products In product liability, strict liability holds manufacturers accountable for defective or dangerous products, irrespective of negligence. This is designed to protect consumers by ensuring manufacturers maintain high standards of care, and courts assess if a product is unreasonably dangerous or lacks proper warnings. Business Torts Business torts involve individual actions or corporate responsibilities. Key issues include the intent behind actions, the nature of contractual obligations, and whether interference or breach was intentional. Fraud and Misrepresentation ​ Fraud involves intentional deception, reliance on false information, and harm caused by the misinformation. ​ Misrepresentation can be negligent (careless false statements) or intentional (deliberate deception). Interference with Contractual Relations and Prospective Advantage ​ Interference with contractual relations disrupts existing contracts, while interference with prospective advantage affects future business opportunities. ​ Proving damages is crucial in interference with prospective advantage, as the harm is often less tangible. Slander of Title and Business Defamation ​ Slander of title involves false statements about property ownership. ​ Business defamation damages a company’s reputation. Both torts can significantly harm businesses, and defenses such as privileged communication may apply. Invasion of Privacy Invasion of privacy torts, like public disclosure of private facts, arise in business contexts, particularly with modern data sharing. Courts balance the individual's privacy rights against public interest, especially when businesses or public figures are involved.