The Legal Brief - 10th May 2023

Ford has recently filed a patent application for a system that will allow a car to repossess itself if the owner fails to make payments on their loan agreement. The patent application, published on the United States Patent and Trademark Office website, outlines a multi-step procedure that a car could take to repossess itself. While Ford insists that it has no plans to deploy this technology, the patent application raises concerns about the future of vehicle ownership and control.

According to the patent application, the car would first attempt to get the owner to pay their overdue payments through a series of badgering messages on their smartphone and inside the car. If the owner still refuses to pay, the vehicle will then initiate a “multi-step repossession procedure”, which includes disabling certain features of the car such as the air conditioning, cruise control, or radio, to make the car less desirable to drive. Notwithstanding this, the car could also be used to “emit an incessant and unpleasant sound every time the owner is present in the vehicle,” to encourage the borrower to make “contact with the lending institution to address the payment delinquency”.

Failing this, the car could make itself unusable by refusing to unlock its doors or starting up. This is where matters become increasingly complex. For instance, where a borrower requires the vehicle to drive to and from work to help pay back their loan. According to the patent, these concerns could be addressed by restricting the vehicle to allow itself to be taken to work or drop the kids off at school. However, this would inevitably restrict the owner's freedom of movement and could impact their ability to earn a living.

The patent application also includes scenarios where the car could be enabled to drive itself to the nearest emergency room in case of a medical emergency, but then go back to locking out its owner. In extreme cases where the owner fails to make payments, the car could receive an over-the-air command to quit its owner, which would allow the car to move itself to a location where it would be easy for a tow truck to retrieve it.

While Ford insists that it has no plans to deploy this technology, the patent application raises concerns about the future of vehicle ownership and control. If the technology were to be implemented, it would mean that car ownership would become more like a rental service, where the owner is essentially leasing the vehicle from the lending institution. The car could be remotely controlled by the lending institution, which could restrict the owner's freedom of movement and even disable the vehicle if they fail to make payments.

The patent application also highlights the potential for abuse of this technology. For example, the lending institution could use the technology to remotely disable the vehicle if the owner is in a dispute with the lending institution or has a disagreement over the terms of the loan. This could be particularly concerning for lower-income or bad-credit buyers, who may be at a higher risk of having their vehicles remotely disabled if they fall behind on payments.

The patent application also raises concerns about the potential for privacy violations. The car would be equipped with sensors and cameras that could be used to monitor the owner's behaviour and location. This could be a violation of privacy, as the lending institution would have access to sensitive information about the owner's personal life.

In conclusion, while Ford has insisted that it has no plans to deploy this remote repossession technology, the patent application raises concerns about the potential for abuse and infringement of consumer rights regarding the future of vehicle ownership and control. While the technology may provide benefits to the lending industry in terms of reducing the cost and risk associated with repossessing vehicles, it also presents serious ethical and legal considerations. The potential for unauthorised access and control of a consumer's vehicle raises privacy and security concerns, while the lack of transparency in the repossession process can limit a consumer's ability to challenge a repossession decision.

If the technology were to be implemented, it would mean that car ownership would become more like a rental service, with the lending institution having more control over the vehicle than the owner. This could restrict the owner's freedom of movement and even violate their privacy. To address these concerns, policymakers and industry stakeholders would have to work together to establish clear guidelines and regulations that prioritise consumer protections and ensure transparency in the repossession process. Additionally, consumers would also have to be made aware of the risks associated with remote repossession technology and provided with adequate information to make informed decisions about their financing options. Ultimately, the responsible use of remote repossession technology requires a delicate balance between the needs of the lending industry and the rights and interests of consumers. However, for now, we must wait and see what the future and impact of such technologies holds for the consumer, automotive and lending industries.

Written by Max Howard

After months of struggling performance, staff unrest, and some pretty dubious business choices, the boss of John Lewis is facing a confidence vote today.

Despite all of the aforementioned reasons for stake holders to be worried, it is another reason entirely which has triggered this vote - Dame Sharon White, Chair of the partnership, has announced that she was considering selling a stake in the retailer. This will have come as a huge shock to many, as it would mean that for, for the first time, John Lewis would not be fully owned by its employees.

The partnership is currently trying to revive growth, after a year which has seen huge losses, and a suspension of staff bonuses. This biannual vote of confidence in leadership, whilst a regular, planned occurrence, could be used this time to try and affect some change, particularly as job losses appear to be on the horizon.

John Lewis staff - also known as partners - have a voice in the way it is run (as well as owning a stake in the business). Part of this arrangement includes electing councillors who, twice a year, meet to scrutinise the firm's performance and pass a vote of confidence in its leadership. This vote is non-binding, but could carry significance in this instance if it is a clear vote of no confidence.

The ballot couldn't come at a worse time for Dame Sharon, who has been chair since 2020, and is still trying to turn the chain's fortunes around. John Lewis has been struggling to compete on the High Street, with competitors Amazon and Primark excelling, and their supermarket chain, Waitrose, has been utterly outperformed by Tesco and Aldi throughout the pandemic. This gap also appears to be widening further during the ongoing cost of living crisis.

John Lewis posted its first ever annual loss in 2020 (£517m) and has since announced a series of store closures. £900m of costs need to be cut by January 2026, according to the firm, and job cuts are one of the likely ways to achieve this. This follows the move in March this year when the firm's 85,000 partners learned that they would have to go without a bonus for the second time in three years, causing further unrest and a staff survey, which found out that out of approximately 1,000 staff surveyed, around 85% said they were not confident in the company's ability to deliver its strategy.

This vote, and the upcoming months, could prove to be vital for the survival of John Lewis in its current guise.

Written by Duncan Balcon

Goldman Sachs has been embroiled in a battle in the US, for over a decade, with 2800 female staff who have been claiming sexual discrimination over their pay - which they had claimed was lower than male employees for the same roles.

Goldman has now been ordered to pay out $215m (£170.5m) to settle these claims, on the grounds of both the lower pay offered, and the fewer opportunities that had been afforded to women in the workplace. As part of the settlement deal, the firm will also have to work with third party experts to analyse its pay patterns and methods of promotion, to ensure future fairness and clarity.

Shanna Orlich, one of the women who first filed the legal complaint (in 2010), said, "I have been proud to support this case without hesitation over the last nearly 13 years and believe this settlement will help the women I had in mind when I filed the case,"

The settlement concludes a lengthy, and messy, legal matter that has been hanging over the bank since 2010, when women stepped forward to accuse the Wall Street giant of a "boys club" work culture that negatively impacted their professional progression.

Two of the most shocking claims made were that female vice presidents at the firm were being paid 20% less than their male peers, and that incidents of sexual harassment were being tolerated, or treated with a significant amount of leniency. Both claims, unexpectedly, were leading to women feeling like they didn't fully belong, or fit in, within the workplace culture at the firm. Goldman are trying to improve the former complaint, both with this settlement, and in terms of representation. They aim to have 40% of their VP roles filled by female colleagues by 2025, a huge increase on the 29% that currently fill management, and partner, roles.

Backing up this commitment, Jacqueline Arthur, Goldman Sachs' global head of human capital management, said "After more than a decade of vigorous litigation, both parties have agreed to resolve this matter," going on to say that the firm are committed "to ensuring a diverse and inclusive workplace for all our people".

Going back to the settlement, any female employees from the bank's investment banking, investment management, or securities divisions in the US as far back as 2002 may be eligible to receive some of the money. In an industry that has been rife with claims such as this, many will see this to be a step in the right direction for equality in the workplace. Many other institutions may now be evaluating their own practices, to avoid being caught by the same legal action, which can only be beneficial for women going forwards.

Many commendations must be given to the original complainants here who, over a decade ago, came forward and started this course of legal action, many of them sticking with it to the end, to ensure fairness which, in no uncertain terms, should have been there to begin with.

Written by Duncan Balcon

This week from Legally Speaking Podcast host, Robert Hanna :

🚀🎧 Fasten your seatbelts! We're firing up the engines for our 7th season, taking not just a step, but a colossal leap forward!

🎉 Join us for a major milestone on the Legally Speaking Podcast ™️️, powered by Clio - Cloud-Based Legal Technology. We're rolling out the red carpet for our 200th episode – a living testament to our journey! 🎉

In this landmark episode, we're honoured to feature the exceptional Lubna Shuja. Her story embodies leadership, courage, and resilience. Lubna rewrote history by becoming the first Asian, first Muslim, and seventh female president of The Law Society of England and Wales. Prepare to be captivated as she shares her trailblazing journey and delivers insights into diversity advocacy and legal leadership.

We also take a moment to appreciate our stellar past guests and the ripples they've created in the legal sphere:

📌 Laura Frederick and her fresh-off-the-press podcast, "You Can Contract"

📌 Olga V. Mack will be making waves at #CGI2023

📌 Flo Nicolas, Esq, whose recent Outstanding Women in Business award continues to inspire us

📌 Mitch Jackson, Esq. releases an awesome new book "How To Create AI, Web3 and Metaverse Branding and Licensing Opportunities"

Our partners at Clio have news too!

Named a Gold Standard #BestManaged company for the 6th consecutive year, they're setting the bar high! 🏆

And don't miss Geraldine O'Reilly from Clio's enlightening talk at the British Legal Technology Forum today about "How to be a Tech Changemaker at Your Law Firm"

📢 Here's a hearty shoutout to my dear friend, Scott Simmons and his team! The anticipation for their upcoming Legal Iconoclast Expo#2 on the 16th of May is palpable. This event promises stimulating discussions about the future of the legal profession and is set to shake up the legal industry.

🔍 Ready for a career shift?

KC Partners have a curated list of job vacancies tailored for lawyers. And remember to consult the 2023 salary guide to ensure you're being compensated fairly. 👊

Immerse yourself in the full newsletter, and together, let's keep pushing boundaries in the legal world. 🎙️⚖️

#LegallySpeakingPodcast #DiversityInLaw

Capital Markets Associate  - Global Law Firm  - London

Corporate M&A x 5  - Multinational Law Firm  - London

Corporate Real Estate  - Multinational Law Firm  - London

Corporate Solicitor x 2 - Multinational Law Firm  - London

Data protection Senior Associate/ Director ( x4 ) - Multinational Law Firm  - London

Employee Incentives Associate/Senior Associate - Multinational Law Firm  - London

International Privacy, Security and Information Senior Associate/Director - Global Law Firm  - London

IP Litigation Associate - Global Law Firm  - London

Real Estate Solicitor/Associate - Global Law Firm  - London

Tax Associate  - Multinational Law Firm  - London

Technology Associate/Senior Associate - Multinational Law Firm  - London

For further information, or to get your questions answered, please send a message to Robert Hanna.

If you cannot see a job suitable for you, but are interested to hear about more jobs at KC Partners, please send your CV to info@kcpartners.co.uk to be considered.

At KC Partners we are committed to promoting diversity and equality of opportunities across organisations and we welcome applications from suitable candidates regardless of race or racial group, religion or belief, age, disability, sexual orientation, sex, gender re-assignment and gender identity, marriage and civil partnership, and pregnancy, maternity and paternity.