Is GameStop ripping off it's Customers? (2010)

By Alexis Javier-Gomera

Controversy

Power to the Player

           GameStop might seem like the kind of store that all players would love. Has the newest game, pre-order bonuses, is always well informed so it can answer any questions you might have, as all the accessories when it comes to games. Publishing a magazine by the name of Game Informer. Everything that they did was for the customers and the player, proof of their slogan 'Power to the Player'. But does that mean that they care for their customers? Do they really care about them in the first place? While GameStop does have genuine care for their customers and the employees themselves doesn't try to cheat out the customers. There is no denying the fact that there are some "deals" that GameStop has that would be better if they didn't exist at all. Some of the few example would be the trade deal, where you would bring in any number of games and/or console and can trade it for real cash or store credit. With this you can trade in your old games that you either don't want or got bored of it, even those games that you bought by mistake, and get back money from it. It can sound good on paper but that only last until you trade. For one, you get little amount of money back. You could have bought a new console that just came out recently (like the Nintendo Switch) to trade and you get back only 20-30% of the total price that you paid for it. So far nothing has been done about this and in fact seem like GameStop knows what it's doing.
Stakeholders
           Stakeholders are the party that are involved in the transaction. In this case, it would be the customers, which are the gamers or family members of said gamers, and the employees. None of the party are at fault about this. The employees are just doing their job, they have no say on how the deals goes and only says what they were told to say. The customers, however, are obviously not happy in the less bit about almost getting cheated on by the company that they believe tried to satisfy them to the fullest. Or at least that would be the case if the customers noticed how they are getting ripped off. As it stands, they don't know that they are selling their game, console, or accessories at a lower price than what they should rightfully get if their items are in mint condition.

Individualism
           Individualism is the habit or principle of being independent and self-reliant as well as the profit that is made in the process. This was not in favor of the consumers and were instead in favor of GameStop. GameStop gained more money by giving away as little as possible back to the customers. Because they were getting the games and consoles back, they could easily refurbish it and getting it working as good as new. Sell it for a lower, but still high, price for the next person to buy it. Rinse, repeat and the executives of GameStop find themselves making more money than ever. In a way, it can almost be argued that GameStop did the trade deal so that they can get the game back and sell it again without having to buy the same copy too many times, and when a game becomes broken beyond repair then they throw it out and buy a new one to replace it.

Utilitarianism
          Utilitarianism is the doctrine where any action is made to make the majority happy. And it does do that but only when it doesn't come down to any return deals that they make. Selling games and console, telling about the latest release and information, and being nice in general is the right way on doing things, which was what brought satisfaction to the customers. The trading, however, doesn't help the company when it does get noticed by the customers. Customers can easily get angry when it comes to them buying stuff as well as making deals with the employee and it doesn’t go their way. If they don't believe they are getting the best, like any other customers everywhere else, they'll end up complaining and the employee will get exasperated and no one would win.

Kantianism
          Kantianism states that if something is harming someone or something then it is unethical and not rational in the least. This doesn't exactly harm anyone physically. In the end, you do get money back from a game and/or console that you didn't want anymore and wanted to get rid of it. It's mostly the principal of things. Given the game cost a good amount of money but then you soon found out that you didn't like it so you're returning it, only to find that you don't even get half of your money back for it. For games that you had for years is understandable since you had it for a long time and it got old as well, but for a game that you only had for a week or so and had more than enough? That’s the sort of thing that is not rational as the company is ripping people with the deal that sounds good in general when it actuality it can be in a way, robbery.

So sad even the Xbox is crying

Virtue Theory
           Virtue Theory is where if something is functioning the way it should, then it is happy. GameStop was technically being honest about their deals and about the trade function. That doesn't mean that everyone that walked out of the store were happy. GameStop managers gains more by the deal than the customers and that's very unethical. The employees don’t have any say in how much they can give back to the customers as everything is done by the computer. It can't be considered ethical of the employees since they let it happen for who knows how long. So, in all this, it can be considered unethical since the manager doesn't change how the trade system works. The same couldn’t be said about the employees since they don’t like the trade one bit.

Justification Ethics Evaluation
          The actions of both the manager of GameStop and the employees aren't that justified as neither tried to work in a way that can leave the customers satisfied. While this is a small thing compared to everything else that GameStop does for the gamers. You would think that a company that has the slogan 'Power to the player' would do everything they can to give the best of the best for the customers, and that includes the trade system. The fact that this has been going for a long as anyone can remember, there's no way the manager hasn't noticed the unfairness that this was doing. Especially with how the customers has social media to recount their tales about GameStop. The words would have gone to the manager eventually, so the fact that nothing is changing just shows how little he cares.

References

Does GameStop try to rip you off? (n.d.). Retrieved from GameSpot: https://www.gamespot.com/forums/offtopic-discussion-314159273/does-gamestop-try-to-rip-you-off-26792485/

Gaudiosi, J. (2012 , April 16). An Employee Believes GameStop's Used Game Racket Would Be Illegal If Government-Regulated. Retrieved from Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/johngaudiosi/2012/04/16/an-employee-believes-gamestops-used-game-racket-would-be-illegal-if-government-regulated/#51d6a1d64e2c

Mueller, J. (2014, August 6). Gamestop ripping customers off now more than ever. Retrieved from TechnologyTell: http://www.technologytell.com/gaming/133161/gamestop-ripping-customers-now-ever/

St. Louis Cardinals: Hacking of the Houston Astros Database (2013)

The Case

     The St. Louis Cardinals are a Major League Baseball team that play in the National League.  The team has a long and successful history stretching back to the 19th century with a total of 13 division titles, 19 National League pennants, and 11 World Series titles.  The Houston Astros are also a Major League Baseball team that plays in the American League.  A relatively new team to the MLB, they have six division titles and one National League pennant.  For most of their tenure in the MLB, they played in the National League along with the Cardinals but have just recently moved to the American League in 2013.  Right around this time, in June of 2014, the Houston Astros reported a data breach of servers which resulted in a leak of months of internal trade talks.  The leak was first reported by the Astros' General Manager Jeff Luhnow, a former Cardinal's employee.  Luhnow started in St. Louis as the vice president of baseball development and had worked his way up to the head of scouting and player development for the Cardinals organization.  Luhnow was critical in getting players that helped win the Cardinals a World Series in 2011 and after that season the Astros wanted him for their GM position taking several Cardinals employees with him.  An official F.B.I investigation was started in wake of the 2014 breach.  By 2015 it was announced that the Cardinals were being looked into.  The F.B.I was investigating the St. Louis Cardinals organization to see if current employees were involved the hack.  What they found was that Cardinals officials hacked the database housing all the player information for the Houston Astros.  Cardinals chairman Bill

Chris Correa:  Former Scouting Director for the Cardinals

DeWitt issued a statement saying the Cardinals had nothing to do with the breach and it was carried out by a group of rogue individuals.  In the end, only one employee was found at fault, Chris Correa, the the scouting director for the Cardinals.
     Correa was able to get into the database by guessing a similar password that was used by a former Cardinals employee that now works for the Astros.  It is still unclear at this time who's password Correa used but he may have had access to the database after the 2011 season, when Luhnow left for the Astros job.  Correa had access to their passwords because when these employees left they had to turn in their team-issued laptops.  These laptops were returned at the time to Correa who was in charge of wiping them for re-purposing.  The former employees had to leave their passwords so Correa could get in.  Correa was promptly fired and soon after placed in custody.  Authorities say Correa, "hacked the email system and was able to view 118 pages of confidential information, including notes of trade discussions, player evaluations and a 2014 team draft board that had not yet been completed." (ESPN, 2016)  Correa accessed the Astros database five times from 2013 to 2014 and improperly downloaded several files but may have accessed the database more than five times.  In January of 2016 Correa plead guilty to five counts of unauthorized access of a protected computer.  In July of 2016 he was sentenced to 46 months in prison and fined $280,000.  He had originally faced five years for each individual charge and began serving his time 6 weeks from sentencing.  Once the trial had concluded, Rob Manfred, commissioner of Major League Baseball, handed down a punishment.  The Cardinals would be fined 2 million dollars, the maximum penalty, and would lose their top two draft picks in the next draft.  Luck for the Cardinals their first round pick had been forfeited when they signed free agent Dexter Fowler so the Astros are left with two picks from the Cardinals outside of the first round of the MLB draft.
Stakeholders
     Stakeholders are individuals that have an interest or concern in this case.  These individuals may be stakeholders as they are a part of a group that has in interest in the case.  The stakeholders in this case are the front offices of both baseball organizations, baseball fans, sports reporters covering the scandal, Chris Correa, Jeff Luhnow and other former Cardinals now Astros staff, Bill DeWitt, and Jim Crane, owner of the Astros.  Both front offices are going to be affected by this scandal as it was committed by someone in the front office of the Cardinals.  Policy may change in order to prevent this sort of thing from happening again.  The Astros front office may increase security while the Cardinals may monitor their employees better.  Fans of baseball in general and fans of both teams are going to be effected because the integrity of player acquisition has now been questioned.  Who's to say this hasn't happened before?  It is important for the baseball fan to pay attention to this kind of scandal as it creates healthy skepticism in the practices their own team implements in keeping player data secure and how their own team finds out information on potential players.  Reporters have a stake in this case because it is a part of their job to break sports news to the public.  A scandal like this deserves to be shown to the public in fair, unbiased news articles so fans can formulate opinions on what happened.  It is important these reporters take an interest in this case so they can do their jobs properly and inform sports fans of what is going on.  Chris Correa has a stake in the case because he is the one who committed the crime of hacking.  He is the reason this paper can be written because he brought the Cardinals ethics into question.  Jeff Luhnow would have a stake because he is at the

Jeff Luhnow: General Manager of the Astros

center of this case.  Although according to the findings, Luhnow had nothing to do with the hacking, the databases were his creation.  He should be interested in their security and their accessibility.  He should also look into possibly changing his passwords.  Bill DeWitt has a stake as he owns the Cardinals and is responsible for how his employees conduct themselves at work.  The reputation of the Cardinals organization was tarnished by Correa so DeWitt has a stake in this case because it effects how his organization is seen.  Jim Crane is a stakeholder because his team had valuable player data stolen that resulted in missed opportunities to acquire players because the Cardinals beat them to it,  This cost his team money and success so following this case would be important for finding out how much this actually cost his team.
Individualism
     Friedman's individualism, which focuses more on business, describes individualism as profit being the only goal of a business.  This means that employees of a business are obligated to do whatever they can to help the business maximize profit within the parameters of the law.  From the individualist point of view, Correa was doing whatever he could to make the Cardinals better.  The Cardinals baseball team is technically a business that profits from the game of baseball.  Correa stole player information from the Astros in order to gain a competitive edge.  During the court hearing, federal prosecutors said, "the hacking cost the Astros about $1.7 million, taking into account how Correa used the Astros' data to draft players." (ESPN, 2016)  The Astros lost out on making 1.7 million from players the Cardinals took which means Chris Correa helped the Cardinals make 1.7 million dollars.  He helped the Cardinals profit in a big way and the players he drafted will continue to have an impact in the organization long after Correa gets out of prison.  Some individualist may say that what he did was ethical based on individualism.  The only problem is though, he acquired the data illegally.  He may have done whatever he could to help the company profit but he did so by stealing information.  What he did was most certainly helpful to the Cardinals but it was clearly illegal as he was fined 280,000 dollars and sentenced to 46 months in prison.  On top of this punishment, Major League Baseball fined the Cardinals 2 million dollars which essentially nullifies any monetary gains Correa helped them get as a result of his hacking.  From an individualist perspective, what Correa did is unethical because he may have helped the Cardinals maximize profit, he did so by illegal means.
Utilitarianism
From a utilitarian perspective, happiness and or pleasure are the only things that an individual values intrinsically.  Individuals should also spread happiness or pleasure wherever they can and do so impartially.  If happiness is to be valued, then there should be no difference between the happiness of one person and the happiness of another person from a moral perspective.  In terms of the case, Correa only tried to maximize his own happiness.  He did end up spreading happiness to the Cardinals organization because he “found” good players but that happiness was quickly negated after it came to light how he found those players.  He also impartially spread this happiness as he knew that when he did this, the Astros would be an afterthought to Correa.  He made himself happy because he was making the Cardinals happy but never took into account the happiness of the Astros.  Even the happiness he provided the Cardinals was short lived because after he got caught, the commissioner of the MLB fined the Cardinals 2 million dollars.  Correa spread happiness in a partial manner which violates a principle of utilitarianism.  He essentially weighted his happiness and the happiness of the Cardinals over everyone else’s because he worked for them and wanted to see them do well while also making himself seem like he was excelling at his job.  Based on the values of utilitarianism, what Correa did would be considered unethical.  He failed to maximize the happiness of more than just himself and when he did increase the happiness of the others, the Cardinals, he did so partially as he stole data and stealing is not known to make people or companies happy.

Kantianism

There are four basic principles of Kantianism.  The first, an individual must act rationally.  They
need to act consistently and not consider themselves exempt from the rules.  The second is an individual should be helping people make rational decisions.  The third is to respect people and their autonomy along with their needs and differences.  The fourth is that the individual should be motivated by Good Will.  They should want to do what is right just because it is the right thing to do.  A Kantian also believes that being rational is doing the right thing so there for being right is also rational.  In the case of Correa, he did not meet these requirements.  Correa considered himself exempt from the rules when he hacked the Astros database.  Perhaps he felt he would not be caught and it is clear he did not feel bound by laws against hacking as he accessed the database at least five times over a span of years.  He did not help anyone make a rational decision during this time.  The data he stole was used by the Cardinals to acquire players in order to better their team and although

the Cardinals did not know about it, Correa was still not in the right to share this information.  Therefore, he did not help the Cardinals make a rational decision as he did not specify where he got this information from.  The former Cardinals employees turned Astros employees trusted Correa with their work laptops and passwords when they left the Cardinals organization.  A password keeps your personal information safe from people you do not wish to view it.  Correa did not respect these employees or their privacy when he memorized one of the passwords and guessed the correct new one in order to gain access to the database that the Astros have.  Lastly, Correa was not motivated by Good Will when he made the decision to hack into that database.  He was motivated by the thought of a possible pay raise and prestige bump when he showed his bosses all this player information he “worked so hard to get.”  Correa did not want to do what was right and actually obtain player data the legal way by collecting it himself, he instead decided to steal it.  What he did was not right and is therefore irrational.  Based on Kantian ideals, this would make what Correa did unethical.

Virtue Theory

A virtue is a characteristic that allows for things to work properly.  In business, there are four major virtues.  These virtues are courage, honesty, temperance, and justice.  Courage is the risks an individual takes and their willingness to stand up for what is right.  Correa took a huge risk by hacking into the Astro’s database and stealing their information.  Although this does not mean he had courage.  Based on the doctrine of mean, Correa’s decision to do this was very far away from the mean of courage and was somewhere closer to one of the extremes.  It could be argued that Correa’s was rash as he really didn’t look at the big picture of what he was doing.  IT could also be considered cowardice because instead of doing what was right and difficult, he chose to steal player information and not work for it.  This ties into his lack of willingness to stand up for what is right.  What Correa did was not right and it can be clearly shown it wasn’t right as he is spending 46 months in prison.  Correa was clearly not willing to do what was right and chose rather to take an easier route in order to get player data.  This inevitably cost him his freedom.  Honesty is how truthful you are when talking to coworkers, customers, and other companies.  Correa was not honest with anyone.  Nobody really knew in the Cardinals organization where Correa was getting his player information from, they just knew he had it.  It took a federal investigation of his company in order for Correa to come clean and admit what he did.  He may have even continued on with the lie had he not done such a bad job trying to cover his tracks.  Temperance is having reasonable expectations and desires.  Correa never expected to be caught for what he was doing which can be clearly seen because of how frequently he viewed the Astro’s database.  It is unreasonable to expect that he would not get caught especially after it was announced that the database was breached and he still kept accessing it.  His desire to help the Cardinals succeed was also unreasonable because he was willing to do illegal things in order to help them.  This desire is too extreme if he is willing to break the law in order to help his company win more baseball games.  Lastly, justice is the hard work, good ideas, and fair practices of an employee.  Correa did not exhibit any kind of justice.  He cut corners by stealing player data from the Astros because he just so happened to guess a correct password.  This means he did not need to put in any hard work in order to get this information.  He did not abide by the law or the rules of baseball when he hacked into this database which means he did not show fair practices in his business.  By illegally requiring player information, he unfairly helped the Cardinals have a competitive advantage over other teams.  Based on virtue theory what Chris Correa did was unethical.

Justified Ethics Evaluation
     From my own ethical perspective, what Chris Correa did was unethical.  You don't even need the ethical theories to see that because what he did put himself in prison.  I find that Correa's lack of foresight to be especially unethical.  At some point when he was trying to guess the password for the Astro's database he had to have known what he was doing was wrong.  But he kept going until he eventually got in and continued to access the database.  He ended up tarnishing the reputation of the Cardinals by cheating and stealing which caused the Cardinals to receive penalties because of his wrongdoings.  Although the Cardinals are not totally spotless in this case.  They never thought to look into how Correa received his player data and how it specifically related to the Astros apparently never raised any red flags to them.  Seems kind of suspicious to me.  I believe that what Correa did was grossly unethical and I also believe that the lack of questioning by the Cardinals makes their handling of this situation unethical as well.

Sources 

Daniels, Tim. "St. Louis Cardinals Under FBI Investigation For Alleged Hack Of Astros System". Bleacher Report. N.p., 2015. Web. 31 Jan. 2017.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2497669-st-louis-cardinals-under-fbi-investigation-for-alleged-hack-of-astros-system 

Kepner, Tyler. "Cardinals To Suffer, But Former Executive Bears Brunt In Hacking Case". Nytimes.com. N.p., 2017. Web. 31 Jan. 2017.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/sports/mlb-st-louis-cardinals-hack-houston-astros.html 

Press, Associated. "Ex-Cards Exec Gets Prison Time For Astros Hack". ESPN.com. N.p., 2016. Web. 31 Jan. 2017.

http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/17101079/chris-correa-former-st-louis-cardinals-scouting-director-sentenced-jail-hacking-houston-astros 

Reiter, Ben. "Worse Than Deflategate: Why Cardinals' Hacking Is So Problematic". SI.com. N.p., 2015. Web. 31 Jan. 2017.

http://www.si.com/mlb/2015/06/16/astros-cardinals-fbi-hacking-ground-control 

Saxon, Mark. "Cardinals Get Off Light With Hacking Scandal Penalties". ESPN.com. N.p., 2017. Web. 31 Jan. 2017.

http://www.espn.com/blog/st-louis-cardinals/post/_/id/2828/cardinals-get-off-light-with-hacking-scandal-penalties 

     

         

Nissan: Innovation That Kills (2014)

Controversy

Nissan logo

Nissan's newly released model, the Datsun Go, was under fire from the New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) in early November 2014. The NCAP conducted a study on the Datsun Go, and found that it could not achieve a mere one star rating in the most basic safety tests.
Max Mosley, head of the NCAP, asked Nissan’s chairman and CEO Carlos Ghosn personally to, “…remove the car from sale and ratify massive design changes before the car could go on sale again, as in its current state it’s entirely unsafe for sale.” The Datsun Go has such terrible structural integrity, that any form of head on collision is likely to cause the death of all passengers.
In response to the NCAP, Nissan made a statement that said, "Datsun Go meets minimum required local vehicle regulations in India and was developed with a strong intention to deliver the best adapted solutions to the local conditions, from best in class braking and good visibility to durability, seat comfort and reduced motion sickness- all being taken as a package aim to decrease potential risk of road accidents."
In an attempt to save money, Nissan has built vehicles to sell specifically in developing nations that have obvious flaws in an effort to make a loftier profit. Yet, car companies often exaggerate the cost of outfitting a vehicle with a harder shell and two airbags; it would cost Nissan a mere $200 per Datsun Go.
NCAP published a major report in early March, calling for urgent action on vehicle safety. In said report, NCAP urged governments and insurance companies to provide fiscal incentives and discounts to car buyers who opt for safer models.
After feeling business threatened, Nissan agreed to strengthen the bodyshell and fit airbags on the Datsun Go.

StakeholdersThe main stakeholders involved are the citizens of India and all developing countries. These innocent people are being sold hazardous vehicles that could cause their death should they get into a car accident. Other stakeholders include NCAP's Max Mosley, as he runs the New Car Assessment Program and is held responsible for testing vehicles and determining whether or not they are suited for the public. Carlos Ghosn also has a large stake in the controversy because he is Nissan's CEO and is held accountable to all decision making when it comes to spending on vehicle safety.

Individualism

Nissan "Datsun Go 2014 model

Individualism, also known as the economic theory, focuses on rights. It decides if there are any rights involved and if there are, what are the rights, and whose rights they are. Based on the individualistic outlook, the citizens of India have the basic right to be sold a vehicle that is safe. Given its zero star rating, in any other country, the Datsun Go wouldn't sell because of how precarious it is.Utilitarianism focuses on outcomes; short-term and long-term. It also focuses heavily on happiness and suggests that we ought to bring about happiness and pleasure in all beings capable of feeling it. In this scandal, Nissan was focused on their short-term outcome; putting the Datsun Go on the market and selling it to consumers to make a quick buck. This would have been a successful short-term plan, had it not been a plan that deceived the public. Nissan had the opportunity to sell a safe car which would make consumers happy, and did not. They had the chance to immediately apologize to the public and remove the vehicle, and did not.

Kantianism
Immanuel Kant created four basic principals of Kantianism: act rationally, allow and help people to make rational decisions, respect people, and be motivated by good will. Kant's theory also includes several ways to determine whether or not an action is coming from good will. Nissan had in mind a way to quickly make a profit for the company, which benefits the company itself and all of its employees. However, that doesn't mean that the were rational in doing so. Their motivation was blurred by greed, causing them to put the company's needs before the need of their patrons. Nissan did not help people to make rational decisions; they helped people purchase unsafe vehicles. The company also didn't respect India's people and their need for a reasonably priced vehicle that was also safe.

Virtue Theory

Carlos Ghosn, CEO of Nissan

There are four main virtues of character including courage, honesty, temperance, and justice. Nissan was certainly courageous; but not in a good way. They took the risk ofbeing caught, and are now suffering the consequences. Honesty is the best policy, and when the iron fist came down on Nissan, the company came up with a statement that neither confirmed nor denied the accusation of knowingly selling the sub-par Datsun Go. Nissan could have been honest and apologized to their consumers. Temperance is usually referred to as some form of practice in which an action, thought, or feeling is held back. By letting gluttony get in the way, Nissan did not hold back the pressure to make money in light of greater societal good. Justice is based on hard work, quality products, good ideas, and fair practices. While the company may have worked hard to produce a large amount of vehicles to sell, the quality of the product was deficient. This is not a fair practice, and fortunately Nissan was caught.

Ethics Evaluation
As a consumer, I look up to companies that value their customers. A company that doesn't look at their clients as a business transaction, but as a relationship and trust building experience is one that I want to be involved with. By selling the destructive Datsun Go, fully aware of its lack of safety features and claiming that it was okay to sell the car in such a disparaging condition because there were not laws against it, proves that Nissan is not a company that cares about their customers in a respectful manner.While Nissan Motors Co., ranks second highest in the world for vehicle sales, the company's greatest downfall was when they attempted to sell a visibly sub-standard vehicle in India, the Datsun Go. Nissan failed to follow the Individualism, Utilitarian, Kantian, and Virtue theories; they didn't respect the consumer's rights, focused only on their short-term outcome of profits, didn't act rationally or respect their customer's safety, and violated all four main virtues of character. The company has a long haul to get back onto the good side of it's consumers, or else the company's slogan could change from, "Nissan: Innovation that Excites" to "Nissan: Innovation that Kills." 


References

Confino, Jo. "Nissan Backs Down Over Car Safety Controversy in India." The Guardian, 25 Mar. 2015. Web. 19 Oct. 2015.

Confino, Jo. "Nissan Called on to Withdraw Dangerous Car Model from Indian Market. "The Guardian, 6 Nov. 2014. Web. 16 Oct. 2015.

"Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations." U.S. Department of Transportation, 1 Mar. 1999. Web. 16 Oct. 2015.

Martindale, Jon. "Nissan Asked to Recall Dangerous Datsun Go." Telematics, 6 Nov. 2014. Web. 16 Oct. 2015.

"Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. - Company Profile, Information, Business Description, History, Background Information on Nissan Motor Co., Ltd." Reference for Business, 2015. Web. 18 Oct. 2015.

Nobile, Phil. "Consumer Reports Best and Worst Car Brands of 2015." Newsday, 11 Oct. 2015.Web. 18 Oct. 2015.

Ford: Unintended Acceleration Lawsuit (2013)

Controversy

Ford Motor Company logo

The Ford Motor Company was founded by Henry Ford in 1903. It produces automobiles and is located in Dearborn Michigan. As of May 2014 the Ford Motor Company is worth $64.51 billion (forbes.com). In the last couple years there has been a problem with some of the models Ford produces. This problem has led to a class action lawsuit against Ford. The lawsuit was filed on March 28th, 2013. This lawsuit was filed in Huntington West Virginia’s district court. The lawsuit has plaintiffs from 14 different states. From bloomberg.com it says “the lawsuit claims that Ford’s electronic throttle system can take control of the accelerator and leave drivers unable to stop the vehicle.” Ford has been adding a brake override system to its models since 2010, but the company has not added a brake override system to models that are older than that. The claim involves 32 different models of Ford, Lincoln, and Mercury vehicles that were made before 2010. This includes many of the company’s top models including the Ford F-Series, which is the second best-selling vehicle of all time according to the wallstcheatsheet.com.
The result of the flaw has caused numerous accidents, injuries, and even deaths. One of the lawyers for the plaintiffs stated "Ford's unfortunate history of unintended acceleration problems has been detailed at length in the public record. While our clients seek recovery for the lost value of their cars, they also want Ford to fix the problem so that no more people are injured and no more lives are at risk because of the documented accelerator problems with Ford's vehicles." Adam Levitt, a director with Grant & Eisenhofer, said in a statement. (usatoday.com) On June 12, 2013 the case was filed in West Virginia federal court. This increased the magnitude of the lawsuit. As a result of Ford’s failure to fix the problem, the models that are affected by the unintended acceleration are still on the roads today. This has caused the number of plaintiffs to grow and as of February 8th 2014 plaintiffs from over 30 states have joined in on the lawsuit. They believe that people from almost all the 50 states will be involved in the lawsuit by the time it goes to trial.

Stakeholders

Alan Mulally, CEO of Ford Motor Company

The stakeholders, or the persons who are directly affected by the business and its actions, are numerous. The first and most important stakeholder are the customers of Ford, specifically those who owned or previously owned one of the affected models. These are the stakeholders that are the most affected by the faulty electronic throttle system and the failure of Ford to add a brake override system. Next are the executives of Ford, these are the ones who are making the decisions and running the business. The third stakeholder are the people that are put in harm of the possibility of this unintended acceleration. This can be anybody on the road or near the road because most of the vehicles that have the problem have not been fixed and are still being driven today. The last stakeholder are Ford’s stockholders. In the event of a recall, lawsuit, or some kind of settlement, Ford’s stock will experience periods of decline, and little stability. The stockholders will suffer as a result of Ford’s inability to fix the problem of the unintended acceleration.

Individualism
The individualism theory which was introduced by Milton Friedman is about how a person is best suited to pursue their own desires without consideration for others. With a business perspective this means that a business’s only goal is to maximize profits for its stockholders. Not only is this their goal but it’s also their responsibility. As a result of this, Ford is acting ethically with respects to individualism. This is because they are not fixing the problem of the unintended acceleration which in turn is not costing them any money at the moment. This can change though, if the current case against Ford ends up going against them this could cost the business a large sum of money. Not only will they have to pay for damages and losses but also the cost of fixing the affected vehicles. This will also affect their reliability in a negative way and may result in losses of future customers. This would cause them to not be making as much profits as possible and directly go against the theory of individualism.

Utilitarianism

Ford's faulty electronic throttle system

Utilitarianism is the theory that supports the goal is to maximize happiness for the majority of people. Happiness or pleasure are the only things of intrinsic value. It is important to remember though that the end does not justify the means. In a business perspective this means that maintaining success should not come at the expense of others. Ford is directly going against this. They are maintain success at the expense other. Ford cares more about making a profit than the safety of their customers. After numerous injuries and even deaths Ford continues to allow the problem continue causing unhappiness for many people. This is unethical under the utilitarian view because they are not maximizing happiness for the greatest number of people.

Kantianism
The Kantian theory comes from Immanuel Kant who also explains how one should not lie, cheat, manipulate, or harm others regardless of the positive outcomes that come from these. There are four principles that Kantianism follow first is to act rationally, don’t act inconsistently in your own actions or consider yourself exempt from rules. Second is to allow and help people to make rational decisions. Third is to respect people, their autonomy, and individual needs and differences. Last is to be motivated by good will, seeking to do what is right because it is right. Kantianism is more focused on the consequences rather than the actions. The formula of humanity explains how the use of people to get what you want is wrong. According to the Kantian views, Ford was unethical because they are harming others as a result of their actions. Their actions of not fixing the affected vehicles unintended acceleration flaws are causing harm to others. They are putting the profits they are making over the harm that is being caused as a result of their failure to fix the problem. They are not acting rationally as other car companies who have had problems with their vehicles have recalled them and fixed the problems. This directly goes against the Kantian theory.

Virtue Theory
The virtue theory, which is made popular by Aristotle, is about how you must act rationally in order to live a good life. There are four important virtues for the virtue theory and these are courage, honesty, temperance, and justice. With these virtues in mind, Ford has not shown any of them expect for temperance. Ford did not have courage, as they did not stand up for what was right. This would have been to fix the problem with the affected vehicles and pay for damages occurred. They do not show honesty because Ford has not owned up to the situation at hand and have not takin responsibility for the problem. Last they have not been shown justice as they have not faced punishments for their actions. Based on these virtues of the virtue theory one can conclude that Ford is acting unethical.

Works Cited

2006 Ford F-150. Digital image. Salem News. N.p., 27 Aug. 2011. Web. 21 Nov. 2014.

Digital image. Automobiles World. N.p., 17 Oct. 2013. Web. 21 Nov. 2014.

Esterdahl, Tim. Ford Truck. Digital image. Tundra Headquarters. N.p., 29 Mar. 2013. Web. 21 Nov. 2014.

Ford Go Further. Digital image. FMA Entertainment. N.p., 12 Aug. 213. Web. 21 Nov. 2014.

"Ford Motor." Forbes. Forbes Magazine, n.d. Web. 17 Oct. 2014.

"Ford Sued in Class Action Claiming Sudden Acceleration." Bloomberg.com. Bloomberg, n.d. Web. 18 Oct. 2014.

"Get Free View Image Updates from the Cheat Sheet." View Image. N.p., n.d. Web. 04 Oct. 2014.

"New Ford Unintended Acceleration Class Action Lawsuit Filed." Top Class Actions. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Oct. 2014.

Press, Alisa Priddle Detroit Free. "Ford Sued over Problems with Vehicle Acceleration." USA Today. Gannett, 29 Mar. 2013. Web. 04 Oct. 2014.

Rising, James. Roadside Memorial. Digital image. James Rising. N.p., 7 Nov. 2010. Web. 21 Nov. 2014.

Senior Management Team. Digital image. Corporate Ford. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Nov. 2014. 

Bud Light: Whatever, USA Not As Whatever As You Think

             
 

 Anheuser-Busch, the world’s largest beer selling company in the world controls a staggering 47.6% of the market share globally. The company started with one small brewery in St. Louis in 1860 and has grown into a fortune 500 company. In an attempt to control more of the market, Anheuser-Busch launched a creative, unheard of marketing campaign dubbed Whatever, USA. The event was advertised starting during the 2013 Super Bowl, and was to be held the weekend of September 1, 2014. However, in the weeks leading up to the event, controversy and criticism hit the company. [1]            Whatever, USA was to be a three-day bash held in a secret location of the United States. The company was to purchase part of a town and decorate it from head to toe in Bud Light colors. 1,000 lucky contestant winners were to be flown to the location for the ridiculous party. Leading up to the event, Anheuser-Busch representatives underwent secret negotiations with town officials in Crested Butte, Colorado. When this information leaked to the towns people the town erupted into an irate protest of the event. The townspeople did not believe their public goods and livelihood should be disrupted and bought out for a three-day alcohol fueled bash. The town entered into an 8-hour debate in the town hall over the event. Anheuser-Busch doubled their offer from $250,000 to a mere $500,000. The event went smoothly, however the aftermath did not. The paint used to transform the town was washed all over town in a storm after the event, damaging over $75,000 worth of personal property. In addition, the overload of people overwhelmed transportation companies, where people were stranded for days due to missed flight and security was lowered to try to speed up travel. In addition, the removal of the paint covered the town in a blue dust causing unseen lung damage and health effects form breathing in the paint chips.[2]

             This event did not only affect Anheuser-Busch and the townspeople, but the environment, American people, transportation providers and surrounding communities. TSA agents were told to push the crowd through security in order to speed up the process, threating the American people if anything were to happen. The stripping of the paint sprayed paint chips and fumes into the atmosphere, threatening the health of surrounding communities. As well as the stripping of the paint, the storm days after the event washed paint was spread all over town damaging trees, bushes, and grass.  In order to analyze this case, we must look through the four main ethical theories: Individualism, Utilitarianism, Kantianism and Virtue Theory.

Individualism entails businesses to maximize profits while behaving within the constraints of the law. Milton Friedman first developed the theory and believed that the sole goal of business is to maximize profits and nothing else. However, Machan came around years later and enhanced the theory to state that business should act socially responsible while maximizing profits and acting within the law. Anheuser-Busch did just that, through their marketing campaign, profits were enhanced, and they acted within the boundaries of the law. Utilitarianism deals with the total pleasure of the most beings against the pain experienced by the event.  Developed by Jeremy Bentham, a social activist, he believed that business should act in a way that promotes the most happiness for the most amounts of people. This case provides short-term happiness for 1,000 party

goers, while providing a disruption of peace for an entire town, transportation providers and a threat to the American people. Kantianism, developed by Immanuel Kant, states that one should “Always act in ways that respect and honor individuals and their choices. Don’t lie, cheat, manipulate or harm others to get your way. Rather, use informed and rational consent from all parties.” [3]While looking at the case through this perspective, Anheuser-Busch acted unethically in the respect of being honest, and obtaining consent from all parties. In addition, they manipulated the town by throwing more money at the problem. Virtue theory uses four virtues in order to determine if an action is ethical: Justice, Courage, Temperance and Honesty. In this case, the company showed little courage by throwing money at the problem to get what they want rather than admitting their mistakes and moving forward. Then, continued to show little temperance by expanding their budget and throwing money around just to hold the event. Moreover, they showed little honesty by hiding the event details from the townspeople. Furthermore, they showed no justice or fairness because they provided a threat to the American people, disrupted many peoples peaceful lives, and damaged the environment just to hold a three day alcohol infused bash.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References:

"Crested Butte, Bud Light Controversy Builds as Whatever Rollout Starts." - The Denver Post. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Oct. 2014.
"Crested Butte Residents Unhappy over Blue Paint and a Closed Street." - The Denver Post. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Oct. 2014.
"Bud Light Bumps Into One Big Problem With Its Secret Party Town: The Residents." AdWeek. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Oct. 2014.
Salazar, Heather. Case Manual. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Print

---

[1] "Crested Butte, Bud Light Controversy Builds as Whatever Rollout Starts." - The Denver Post. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Oct. 2014.

[2] "Crested Butte Residents Unhappy over Blue Paint and a Closed Street." - The Denver Post. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Oct. 2014.

 

[3] Salazar, Heather. Case Manual. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Print

Toyota: Class Action Lawsuit (2009-2014)

Toyota Corp. logo

Controversy
The case of Toyota's class action lawsuit placing blame takes place starting in 2009, and ending recently in 2014. Toyota is a major motor corporation, Headquartered in Japan, and is currently recognized as the 14th best brand in the world. Toyota's mission statement claims that "Toyota will lead the way to the future of mobility, enriching lives around the world with the safest and most responsible ways of moving people”. Recently, however, as it is probably fresh in the minds of many, Toyota has fallen under scrutiny from both the NHTSA as well as consumers. Faced with a massive 9 million vehicle recall spanning from 2009-11 over faulty accelerator pedals, among other things, the employer of over 300,000, with 20,000 of those working in the United States, Toyota struggled to maintain a positive image with consumers, and some legal tactics in the handling of the class action lawsuit and subsequent settlement raised even more concern with the ethical state of being within the company.

When Toyota was defending themselves from the 200 plus lawsuits that were filed over the many deaths and countless injuries from the faulty equipment, they used a stance that focused not on the defective pieces, but instead the legal team worked to squarely place blame for the accidents on the drivers of the car. This stance was met with heavy opposition, unsurprisingly, because it was proven that the vehicles had defective hardware, and the pain and suffering already felt by those who lost loved ones was worsened with these false accusations. Once the case was settled in 2013, for a sum of over 1.6 billion paid out to those affected, those who received the money assumed that they were done being harassed by the Toyota legal team. In the settlement however, there was a provision for $100 million in "unclaimed funds", that didn't go to any specific party. Toyota intended this $100 million, or 6% of the settlement, to go towards "driver re-education programs". Toyota again stood behind there defense of its not me, its you, and blamed the injured or dead drivers of the vehicles that were equipped with defective equipment. This eventually was caught by mainstream media, exposing what Toyota had done to their loyal customers.

Accelerator trapped by unsecured floor mat in Toyota vehicles

Stakeholders
The stakeholders, or the persons who are key to the business and its actions, are multi-fold. The first and foremost include the customers of Toyota, specifically those who owned or previously owned a vehicle equipped with the faulty equipment. These are the people most affected by the actions of Toyota, and its stance on the settlement they received. Next in line are the executives of Toyota, the ones who are making the decisions in the legal defense as well as the provisions in the settlement. Thirdly are Toyota's stockholders. In the course of the recall, lawsuit, and subsequent settlement, Toyota stock experienced periods of decline, and little stability. The stockholders suffered as a result of Toyota's mismanagement of the vehicles, legal battle, and payout.

Individualism
The theory of individualism means that one is best served to pursue their own interests without making choices for others. In a business sense, this theory means that a business' only goal is to profit for its stockholders, and that is its responsibility. Even with that in mind, Toyota was not acting ethically according to individualism, because they allowed the business to become awash with criticism, ultimately hurting their value. Toyota wanted to maximize profit and maintain an image by asserting they were not to blame for the problem vehicles, but in the end this came back to haunt them, by hurting their image even further.

Utilitarianism
In the utilitarian theory, the goal is to maximize happiness for all people, while keeping in mind that the ends do not justify the means. For a business, this means maintaining success, but not at the expense of another. Toyota did the opposite of that, focusing more on an egoist perspective, maximizing their own happiness above all others. They were far more interested in their own image and profits to worry about what they were doing to their customers and eventually stockholders. Alienating those who had invested in them showed that they were unethical according to utilitarianism, because they were uninterested in how those who are so integral to their business felt about their practices and products.

Kantianism

One of many crashes caused by accelerator in Toyota vehicle

The Kantian perspective means that one should act rationally to fulfill a purpose. In simpler terms, to act ethically according to Kant, one must do what is right because it is right, not for any other reasons. Toyota was clearly unethical according to the Kantian perspective, because their actions were carried out because Toyota believed it would give them the best chance at reviving their tarnished image. If they had done the right thing because it was the right thing to do, it would be safe to assume they would not have been in the predicament they are in. Toyota knew exactly what had happened and what went wrong, and knew they were to blame, but made the choices for the wrong reasons, and therefore were acting unethically according to Kantianism.

Virtue Theory
Virtue theory is a theory that is very simple to understand, and contains four key virtues. According to virtue theory, you must act rationally in order to live a good life, and the four main virtues are courage, honesty, temperance, and justice. When Toyota went about their case and settlement, all of the virtues save for temperance were ignored. They showed no courage in hiding behind their legal team while they blamed victims of their own faulty equipment. The lack of honesty is all too obvious, with false statements made about drivers who lost their lives to defective pieces installed by Toyota. And the fact that this went on without question from any authority shows a lack of justice for those affected by Toyota's actions.


References:
Gustafson, Andrew. 2013. "In Defense of a Utilitarian Business Ethic." Business & Society Review (00453609) 118, no. 3: 325-360. Business Source Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed October 19, 2014).

Dierksmeier, Claus. 2013. "Kant on Virtue." Journal Of Business Ethics 113, no. 4: 597-609. Business Source Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed October 19, 2014).

Bright, David, Bradley Winn, and Jason Kanov. "Reconsidering Virtue: Differences of Perspective in Virtue Ethics and the Positive Social Sciences." Journal Of Business Ethics 119, no. 4 (February 8, 2014): 445-460. Business Source Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed October 19, 2014).

Aęcigil, Semra F., and Nace R. Magner. 2013. "Is Individualism a Predictor of Social Capital in Business Incubators?." Journal Of Management Policy & Practice 14, no. 5: 113-119. Business Source Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed October 19, 2014).

Madsen, Peter M., and John B. Bingham. "A Stakeholder-Human Capital Perspective on the Link between Social Performance and Executive Compensation." Business Ethics Quarterly 24, no. 1 (January 2014): 1-30. Business Source Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed October 19, 2014).

Better Business Bureau (BBB). (2004). Toyota Accredidation. Washington: BBB.

Brinkerhoff, N. (2014, January 8). All Gov. Retrieved September 2014, 2014, from Where is the Money Going?: http://www.allgov.com/news/where-is-the-money-going/16-billion-dollar-toyota-sudden-acceleration-class-action-settlement-tried-to-blame-drivers-140108?news=852112

Carty, S. S. (2012, January 13). Huffington Post Business. Retrieved September 30, 2014, from Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/13/toyota-sudden-acceleration_n_1205022.html

Desjardins, J. (2014). An Introduction to Business Ethics. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

Rasmussen Reports. (2010). 59% Still Hold Favorable View of Toyota. Rasmussen Reports.

Toyota Global. (2014, January). Toyota Mission Statement. Retrieved September 30, 2014, from Toyota: http://www.toyota-global.com/company/vision_philosophy/toyota_global_vision_2020.html

Toyota Motor Corp. (2014, January). Toyota Global. Retrieved September 30, 2014, from Annual Report: http://www.toyota-global.com/investors/ir_library/annual/pdf/2014/

Wolfman, B. (2014, January 6). Corporate Crime Reporter. Retrieved September 30, 2014, from http://www.corporatecrimereporter.com/news/200/red-flags-raised-over-toyota-class-action-settlement/

NFL: Concussion Lawsuit (2014)

Controversy

NFL logo

The National Football League (NFL) is arguably the most popular professional sports league in North America. It is the most profitable by far with revenues last year around $9.2 billion. It consists of 32 teams each with 53 players on their active roster and 10 practice squad players. They play the sport of football each Sunday for 17 weeks starting in the fall. A number of former football players have committed suicide in the recent years. All that committed suicide were found to have Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE). Two former players that killed themselves Jovan Belcher and Paul Oliver were both proved to have this disease. It is a degenerative brain disease said to be caused by repeated blows to the head. The brain degeneration is associated with memory loss, confusion, impaired judgment, impulse control problems, aggression, depression, and, eventually, progressive dementia.
Paul Oliver was a defensive back for the San Diego Chargers and before that, he played at the University of Georgia. He was a standout player in both college and the NFL. In 2012, Oliver got into an argument with his wife, Chelsea Oliver, so she took her kids on a walk to let him cool down.
When she returned they continued to argue. That is when he went upstairs and returned with a handgun. Shortly after he returned with the handgun he shot himself in the head. His wife said that he was depressed in the time before the shooting and that they had talked of a divorce. In April of this year, he was diagnosed with CTE. He only played professional football for four years but it had obviously taken its toll on him and his brain.
Jovan Belcher was a linebacker for the Kansas City Chiefs and on December 1, 2012, he killed himself and his girlfriend. It all started at his home where he lived with his girlfriend, Kasandra Perkins, he killed her while his mother was caring for his one-year-old child in a nearby room. He then drove to the Chiefs practice facility and shot himself in front of the current general manger and current head coach of the time. In the past couple of days, it just came out that there were signs consistent with CTE that were found in his brain.
The issue is that for many years is that the NFL hid the effects of head injuries and concussions. They downplayed them and said that they had no real long term affect on players and that they were relatively harmless. Many players suffer from injuries sustained during their playing time. In 2011, a lawsuit was filed by former players suing over concussions. In 2013, the NFL attempted to settle with the players for $675 million. The lawsuit was turned down by the judge as he said it was unfair to the players. In the summer of 2014 they resettled for the same amount but this time there was no cap on what the players could be paid for the injuries they sustained.

Stakeholders
The stakeholders in the NFL are the players, all the employees who work for the NFL, all the fans, the sponsors of the NFL, the TV providers, the TV networks, the communities in the cities around the stadiums, and everyone that plays the games. The producers of all NFL apparel and any equipment the NFL uses are also stakeholder since they have a role in keeping players safe. The key players are Paul Oliver, Jovan Belcher, and other former players that committed suicide and are affected by the lawsuit for injuries sustained playing football.

Individualism

Paul Oliver, former defensive back for the San Diego Chargers

According to Individualism, “Business actions should maximize profits for h owners and stakeholders of the business but do so within the law”. The NFL has grown in revenues from $6.5 billion in 2006 to $9.2 billion last year. They also just negotiated new TV deals for next season in which they will receive about $6.5 billion in TV revenue alone. They are a very profit driven league and always looking for new ways to make money. Two years ago they negotiated a new deal on uniforms with Nike which doubled the amount they would be paid to have their teams wear Nike clothing. They also signed a four-year $720 million deal with Verizon for Verizon to be the official wireless provider of the NFL. The NFL is a profit machine with TV deals worth no less than $622 million a year. In terms of maximizing profits, the NFL does very well and will only continue to keep growing. The NFL does all of this legally and within the restraints of the law. All of the practices in which they gain their money is legal. In the sense of Individualism, the NFL is ethical because it makes all its money in legal ways.

Utilitarianism
According to Utilitarianism, “Business actions should aim to maximize the happiness in the long run for all conscious beings that are affected by the business action.” The NFL does cause happiness for its players as they achieve the level of satisfaction of making it to the highest possible point in the game of football that they can. However, the happiness is usually short lived as the average career of an NFL player is 3.5 which is the lowest of any major sports league in America by almost a year. So although short term happiness is achieved long-term happiness is not, as many players are met with severe injuries after their playing careers are over. The lawsuit which outlines some serious medical issues such as ALS, dementia, and CTE. All serious injuries that affect you greatly. In ALS you are usually dead in between 2-5years and dementia slowly makes you lose your memory. And if you can’t remember all the great times that you played for a can is it worth it and can it still cause you happiness? CTE can cause many problems such as anger and depression. Those prevent happiness. So the NFL might be good at causing you initial happiness it will most likely lead to sadness. In the cases of Paul Oliver and Jovan Belcher, the game that they loved ended up killing them.

Kantianism

Permanent brain trauma on NFL players' brains vs normal brains

Kantianism is “Always act in ways that respect and honor individuals and their choices. Don’t lie, cheat, manipulate or harm others to get our way. Rather, use informed and rational consent from all parties.” The NFL has a history of downplaying concussions and head injuries telling players that they have very little effect on the players in the long term and that serious injury from head injuries was rare. Obviously, this is not the case and the NFL lied and manipulated players for years. Part of the culture is to man up and just play through injuries. So many saw the head injury as an injury that was very playable through so they just played through it thinking they would be fine. Many players were under this false assumption and maybe if they knew what injuries could mean in the long run they could either stop playing or try and get help for their injuries. Paul Oliver was suffering from depression and anger which are symptoms of CTE. Maybe if he knew what the symptoms were he could’ve gotten help. Also, a part of Kantianism is “’the formulation of humanity,’ which states that it is wrong to use people as a mere means to get what you want.” The NFL clearly was wrong in using players to simply make money and not properly warn them about the dangers of the game. They saw players a mean to profit and knew that if one gets hurt they have another player just like him to replace him. The players are basically soldiers and they go out and make the NFL money and if one gets hurt then it is just a casualty of war.

Virtue Theory 
According to Virtue Theory, you should, “Act so as to embody a variety of virtuous or good character traits and so as to avoid vicious or bad characteristics.” The four virtue characteristics are courage, honesty, temperance and justice. Courage is the willingness to take chances and to stand up for what is right. The NFL knew that the head injuries would affect the players in the long term but they hid it for as long as they could until it came out that they are dangerous. They still, however, refuse to say that they are at fault for the injuries. The honesty represents being truthful with the stakeholders of the business. The NFL was not honest with its players about the effects of their head injuries. Temperance represents the ability of the entity to set realistic expectations. The players realistically expect to be told the truth about their injuries and not have them hidden from themselves. Justice represents being fair to all parties. It is not a fair by the NFL to hid or lie about the long term affects of the injuries to their players.

References 

"Autopsy: Former KC Chiefs LB Jovan Belcher Suffered from CTE at Time of 2012 Murder-suicide." FOX Sports. 29 Sept. 2014. Web. 1 Oct. 2014.
"CHRONOLOGY OF PROFESSIONAL FOOTBALL." Web. 1 Oct. 2014. <http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/history/pdfs/History/2013/353-372-Chronology.pdf>.
"What Is CTE? » CTE Center | Boston University." CTE Center RSS. Web. 1 Oct. 2014. <http://www.bu.edu/cte/about/what-is-cte/>.
Almasy, Josh. "Paul Oliver's Suicide Is Latest in a String among Former NFL Players."CNN. Cable News Network, 26 Sept. 2013. Web. 2 Oct. 2014.
Burke, Doris, Brian Hendrickson, and Daniel Roberts."Inside the NFL's $9.3 Billion Money Machine."CNN.CNN.Web. 19 Oct. 2014.
DesJardins, Joseph R..An introduction to business ethics. Fifth ed. New York: McGraw Hill, 2014. Print
Fenno, Nathan. "Lawsuit Claims Concussions Drove Ex-Charger Paul Oliver to Suicide." Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 24 Sept. 2014. Web. 1 Oct. 2014.
Flynn, Daniel. "The NFL Suicide Epidemic Myth." Breitbart News Network. 13 Jan. 2014. Web. 2 Oct. 2014.
Salazar, Heather. "The Case Manual." 25 Aug. 2014. Web. 17 Oct. 2014.
Zurko, Roz. "List of 12 NFL Players Who Committed Suicide." FULL OF KNOWLEDGE. 29 Sept. 2013. Web. 2 Oct. 2014.