In this Note from Issue 2, Vol. 59 Notes Editor Anna Gowen examines judicial treatment of joint and several liability in criminal asset forfeiture, arguing that such liability is inappropriate and unsupported in the criminal context.

In this Article from Issue 2, Leigh Osofsky explores problems with tax law's medical care subsidy and proposes a progressive wellness credit to better account for how consumption may classify as medical care under tax law.

The symposium will take place in person on Friday, March 20, 2026, and will include panels and a keynote address. We hope you will join us in Athens next spring, and we look forward to hearing from interested participants and authors! (4/4).

the arms race among the states to enforce policy preferences through private rights of action; the ramifications for our union of these competing and polarizing uses of courts; and other similar topics. (3/4).

This year’s symposium will focus on the increasing use of private rights of action to perform enforcement traditionally done by state actors; (2/4).

The Executive Symposium Editors for Volume 60 of Georgia Law Review are pleased to announce our annual symposium for Spring 2026: Polarized Courts: The New Private Enforcement. (1/4)

In this Note from Issue 2, Vol. 59 Executive Notes Editor Jack Cofer highlights grey markets in e-commerce and argues for legislative refinements to existing regulations to better protect consumers shopping online.

In this Comment published with Georgia Law Review Online, UGA School of Law Clinical Associate Professor Elizabeth M. Grant and student Gordon Wayne, '26, discuss ambiguities in Georgia's Safe At Home Act and ways tenants may need to protect themselves.

In this Note from Issue 2, Vol. 59 Executive Notes Editor Tanner Samples looks at the woodworking industry and advocates for a burden-shifting scheme in design defect cases. Doing so would incentivize safety and limit the impact of bad manufacturers.

In this Article from Issue 2, Mark A. Lemley analyzes interpolation credits in songwriting and argues that such artists are not and cannot be authors under copyright law. Contrary to what the music industry believes, dead men write no songs.

In this Comment published with Georgia Law Review Online, recent graduate Mona Abboud analyzes the implications of OnlyFans and argues for an updated Georgia-wide legal approach to the online platform.

You can find all this and more at (4/4).

Four student Notes were also published on topics including a new burden-shifting scheme in design defect cases, statutory refinements to online consumer protections, a bar on joint and several liability in criminal asset forfeiture, and a stronger Georgia disability code. (3/4).

to what extent tax law should recognize medical expenses; how surveillance impacts a retaliatory adverse employment action; and in what way a public-solicited training model can help AI legitimacy. (2/4).

Georgia Law Review is pleased to announce the publication of Issue 2 of its 59th Volume. This issue features four Articles that cover unique questions. These include whether interpolated artists should count as songwriters under copyright law; (1/4).

In this Article from Issue 1, Christine Davik tangles with the legal framework surrounding NFTs and calls for increased transparency to ensure consumers can identify what rights they may have in the underlying artwork. Check it out!.

We are also grateful for all the attendees and volunteers who helped make this event a success. We look forward to sharing these thoughtful pieces in Issue 4 later this summer! (2/2).

We had a great time last week engaging with incredible speakers and moderators at our annual Symposium! It was an honor to have leading scholars in state constitutional rights discussing their research and participating in panels. (1/2)

builds a framework for determining liability and nondischargability in bankruptcy cases. (2/2).

In this Article from Issue 1, Theresa J. Pulley Radwan discusses Bartenwerfer v. Buckley and other cases dealing with the U.S. Bankruptcy Code's treatment of the discharging of liability imputed upon a debtor for another person's fraudulent conduct and (1/2).