Describe the roles of distribution centers for fashion brand companies. How is valued added to the merchandise through these distribution centers?
Name and describe three of your favorite retailers. What category does each retailer fit into? What are the characteristics of the categories of retailers you named? How does the retailer engage in multichannel/omnichannel distribution? What are the advantages and disadvantages of these multichannel/omnichannel strategies for these retailers?
Explore websites of three retailers of fashion brands. What are the common features of these sites? What strategies do these retailers use to inform customers about product characteristics? How does each fashion brand use social media in connecting with customers?
Sample Solution
enforcement should not be accepted as a simple solution to a poorly structured or unnecessary regulation. B. Undue Empowerment of Litigants In the United States, standing is a jurisdictional prerequisite, and so a federal court will be quick to dismiss a claim for lack of standing if the plaintiff is unable to show injury from an alleged privacy violation. For a plaintiff to have standing, he or she must show â(1) [he or she has] suffered an âinjury in factâ that is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant; and (3) it is likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.â Privacy plaintiffs often run afoul of the standing test in that without monetary damages arising from their privacy violations, they are unable to demonstrate they have suffered âinjury in factâ that is âconcrete and particularizedâ. Without a statute that provides a private right of action, even when a plaintiff has suffered economic harm as a result of trying to mitigate an anticipated future privacy violation, the Supreme Court has held that such an injury is too speculative for standing. In Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, the Court held that plaintiffs could not âmanufacture standingâ based on their fears of a speculative future harm and the money they spent in order to safeguard against surveillance of their client communications. This strict reading of the imminence requirement for standing further restricts the situations in which a privacy plaintiff may bring a claim absent a showing of an imminent violation. In Europe, the GDPR has enabled litigants with a new set of rights, including the right to complain, select representatives, and receive judicial remedy when firms fail to comply with the GDPR. Just hours after the GDPR came into effect, Austrian activist Max Schremsâ non-profit None of Your Business (NOYB) filed complaints against Google, Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, arguing that they act illegally by forcing users to accept intrusive terms of service or lose access. The complaints demand investigations by the European supervisory authorities, and under Article 83, propose fines of up to four percent of the companiesâ worldwide annual turnover of the preceding yearâthe maximum possible fine under the GDPR. Importantly, claims by advocacy groups, such as NYOB, under the GDPR need not allege injury or harmâwhich would be required for class actions in U.S. federal courtâbut only failure to comply with regulation, even if no harm results. This allows privacy plaintiffs to overcome a difficult hurdle, as there are frequently no concrete harms for courts to latch onto in privacy claims. While class actions can be viewed as a convenient, effective remedy for harm, they also provide the potential for abuse among activists and lawyers attempting to circumvent democratic procedures. Unlike the U.S., which has been at the forefront of collective actions with its far-reaching class action >
enforcement should not be accepted as a simple solution to a poorly structured or unnecessary regulation. B. Undue Empowerment of Litigants In the United States, standing is a jurisdictional prerequisite, and so a federal court will be quick to dismiss a claim for lack of standing if the plaintiff is unable to show injury from an alleged privacy violation. For a plaintiff to have standing, he or she must show â(1) [he or she has] suffered an âinjury in factâ that is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant; and (3) it is likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.â Privacy plaintiffs often run afoul of the standing test in that without monetary damages arising from their privacy violations, they are unable to demonstrate they have suffered âinjury in factâ that is âconcrete and particularizedâ. Without a statute that provides a private right of action, even when a plaintiff has suffered economic harm as a result of trying to mitigate an anticipated future privacy violation, the Supreme Court has held that such an injury is too speculative for standing. In Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, the Court held that plaintiffs could not âmanufacture standingâ based on their fears of a speculative future harm and the money they spent in order to safeguard against surveillance of their client communications. This strict reading of the imminence requirement for standing further restricts the situations in which a privacy plaintiff may bring a claim absent a showing of an imminent violation. In Europe, the GDPR has enabled litigants with a new set of rights, including the right to complain, select representatives, and receive judicial remedy when firms fail to comply with the GDPR. Just hours after the GDPR came into effect, Austrian activist Max Schremsâ non-profit None of Your Business (NOYB) filed complaints against Google, Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, arguing that they act illegally by forcing users to accept intrusive terms of service or lose access. The complaints demand investigations by the European supervisory authorities, and under Article 83, propose fines of up to four percent of the companiesâ worldwide annual turnover of the preceding yearâthe maximum possible fine under the GDPR. Importantly, claims by advocacy groups, such as NYOB, under the GDPR need not allege injury or harmâwhich would be required for class actions in U.S. federal courtâbut only failure to comply with regulation, even if no harm results. This allows privacy plaintiffs to overcome a difficult hurdle, as there are frequently no concrete harms for courts to latch onto in privacy claims. While class actions can be viewed as a convenient, effective remedy for harm, they also provide the potential for abuse among activists and lawyers attempting to circumvent democratic procedures. Unlike the U.S., which has been at the forefront of collective actions with its far-reaching class action >
