The CIPPIC Summer Program offers outstanding law students an unequalled opportunity to work on cutting edge research and advocacy issues related to law and technology. CIPPIC advocacy typically involves submission of briefs to government and other policy-makers, intervention in precedent-setting cases before judicial and quasi-judicial tribunals, provision of public legal education resources, publication of reports, participation in multi-stakeholder policy-making forums, provision of expert testimony before parliamentary committees, and advising under-represented organizations and individuals on relevant public interest issues.

Working closely with CIPPIC lawyers, summer associates learn how to be effective researchers, policy analysts, and advocates while contributing to public interest policy and law reform in such areas as copyright law, privacy, consumer protection, telecommunications regulation, net neutrality, smart cities, artificial intelligence, digital governance, free speech and civil liberties on the Internet. Summer associates may additionally have opportunities to attend conferences and workshops such as the CIPPIC summer speaker series and to participate in other aspects of the Centre for Law, Society, & Technology.

The appeal of Cooperstock v United Airlines, Inc., scheduled to be heard Tuesday, December 10, has been discontinued as the parties have reached a settlement.

While undoubtedly a positive development for the parties - who bear the cost and stress of the litigation - the development leaves intact the troubling lower court decision in United Airlines, Inc. v. Cooperstock, 2017 FC 616 (CanLII).  Mr. Cooperstock operated Untied.com, a consumer criticism site targeting the plaintiff, United Airlines.  United, after years of tolerating Mr. Cooperstock's stings, in 2012 concluded that it could take no more and filed a statement of claim alleging copyright infringement and a number of violations of its rights under the Trademarks Act.  The lower court agreed sided with United in a controversial opinion. Mr. Cooperstock appealed.