What ** ** *** **** **** ** ****?
*** ****** *** **** *** ** a ****-*/** **** *** ********** *** for ******** ****-****** *** ******** ********** would ******** ******* **** ** **********. Basically, *** ********** **** *** **** companies *** *********** ************ *** **** up **** ********, ********** *** ********* to *** ******** *** *********** **** lives ******* **** *** ****** ** being **** ** ***** ********** ** ********* to **** ** *** **** ** a ********* ***.

***** ***** ** ** *** ** become ****** *** *********, ** ******** submitting ** *********** (*** **** *****), ***** ******** *** ******** *** information **** *** ****** ** ****** *** Implementation (****) *** ******* ********* ******** *** the ****-********* ********** (****** ******* ** the **** ** ****** ** ********* was *** ****** ** *** *****).
How ** *** ****** ** ************* ******?

***** ******** ********* ******** ******* *** *** ****** ***, from ******* ** ******, ***, **** and *****:
- *** ** *** ********* ************. *** provides *** **** ********** ** ********* but **** ****** *** ****** *** everyone in *** ****** ***** ** *** ********* technology **** ** ******* ************* ********** *******. **** ***** **** ** **** ** the ******** ********* *** ***** ** the government **** *** ********** ****'* ***** **, *** the ****** ***, **** *** ****** ***'* ** sued.
- **** ** *** ********** ******. **** is *** ***** **** **** ******* on * ************ ********* ********** *** same ****** ** ********* **** *** Green **&* ***** *******. * ******* looking ** ** ****** *** *** first **** **** ******* *********** ****** before ******** *********.
- ***** ********* ************* *** ******* ********** Designation. ** ** * *********** *** a ********** **** ** *** ************ available ***, *** ***** *******. ** may ** ******** ** **** ******* to ** ****** *** **** ************ used ****** * ********* *****. *** DT&E *********** ****** ********* ** **** which ** ***** ** *** ********* the ********** ****** ** ******** ** DHS ** *****.
********* ** *** ******** *** ***********, ***** ** ********** **** ******* or *** **** ********** ******* *** be ******** ** ***-********, ***-************ *****.
What Security Industry ********* *** ******?

*** ***** **** ** *** ******** handed *** ***** *,***** ****** *** *******. The****** *** ******** ************ ************* *** ** ******. *******, *** confirmed ** **** **** **** ********* who *** ******** ****** ** *** display ***** ****** ********.
********* *** **** ** *** ********-********-******* listings **** *****:
- ****
- *****, ***.
- ********
- ***** *******, ***.
- ******* ***.
- ********* ************* (******* ********)
- ***** ******* ***.
- ****** *****, ***.
- ******* ********** *********, ***
- ***** ******* *************, ***.
- ****
- ******** *******, ***.
- ****é*** ***. *** ******** ***
- ******** ********** ********
- ****** *********, ***.
- **** ********** ******** *** *** **** Integrated **** & ******** ******, ***.
- ****** (****** ****** *** ******* ********* to *** ****** *** *******).
- *** **** ****...
*** ******** *** *** **** *** * ******** hard **********, *** ************* **** *** methods ** ********, ********* ********* ********, ********** for ********** ******** ******, ***. *** example:

*** ********** ** *** ****** *** *******:

Should ****** **** ** ****** *** ******* ** * **************?
******** ** ********* **** **** ** **** ** safe *** ********** ********* ** ******** and ******* ********* **** **** ***** without *** ****** ** **********. ** solution ********* *** ********* ***** *** likelihood ** * ********* *** ********* within *** ** ***** *********, **** pursuing *********** *** **** ************* *** make *****. *** ********* ********** ******* to ******** ** *** ****** ***** of *** ****** **********.
*** *** **** ** ******* **** to *** ****.
Is *** ***** ** *** *** *******?
***'* **** ******* ** ************ ******** ***********, *** ******* ***** ** ******* security *** *** ***** ** ******* Festival, * ****** ***-********* *******, ****** ******* ** ***** *********:
**** ** ** **** ********* ********** *** ********* ********:

*** ****** ** ***** ***** *** Government ********** *******:

Dispute ************* ** ****** *** ** **** *****
*******,***** ** * ************ ******* *** ********** ********** ******* protection *** ** ******** ** * non-military, ***-************ *******:

***** ** **** **** ******* ********* whether ** *** *** ***** ** Harvest ******** ******** **** ********* *** for ********** ***** *** ****** ***, since,********* ** ***, **** **** *** ******* ******* ** not *** **** ******** *** ** act ** *********:

*******, ** ********* *** ** ***** *********, ***'**** ******** ******* *********** * *** **** ****** ****** doubt **** ***** **** ******** ********* as *********.

******* ***' ********* **********:

*******, ** *** ***** ****, **** if **** **** ******* ** *********, that *** ******** *** **** **** the ******** *** ****** *** *** the ********, ***** **** **** *** MGM ** *** ********* ** *** SAFETY *** ************* ** *** *** was working *** *** ******** *** *** the ******.
Outlook ****** ***
*** ******* ** **** **** ***** have * ******* ****** ** *** the ****** *** *** ** *******. Minimally, ** ** ******* ********* ** a ** ********** ******* **** ***** be ** *** ** **** ******** companies.
Comments (8)
John Bredehoft
07/27/18 04:55pm
Thank you for this analysis. I tend to look at this from a higher level - even if it is LEGALLY responsible for MGM Resorts to launch this lawsuit, it could have wider BUSINESS IMPLICATIONS. (Or it may not; I'm not sure how many Vegas vacationers will use this as a criterion to decide where they will stay.)
Create New Topic
Undisclosed #1
This may be an unpopular tactic, but the lawyers for MGM are doing their jobs - limiting their clients potential exposure to fault using existing statutes that are on the books.
To do anything less could be considered dereliction of duty on their part.
The problem here, as Dan points out in the OP, is that the existing statutes claimed as a defense are pretty ambiguous and completely untested in court.
My personal opinion is that plaintiffs will get next to nothing - even without SAFETY ACT protections.
Create New Topic
Undisclosed #1
I agree, but, as you mentioned, this move is entirely based on potential loss of $$.
While the move could face potential backlash and hurt their brand financially, the exposure risk to thousands of lawsuits from victims appears to have been determined to be an even greater financial risk.
Create New Topic
Jeffrey Hinckley
Great article, Dan.
Create New Topic
Dan Gelinas
Thank you, Jeff!
Create New Topic
Steven Burman
I think the main thrust of folks suing MGM is that they let this guy bring suitcase after suitcase into his room and nobody ever questioned it. I'd bet the plaintiff's lawyers will move to have the SAFETY act defense declared irrelevant.
Create New Topic