The 2019 college admissions bribery scandal revealed uncomfortable truths about elite higher education and its conspicuous consumption. In this chapter, I explore the legal implications of treating higher education as a luxury good reflecting wealth and status. Like luxury goods companies, elite universities are regarded as owners of luxury brands. Just as companies such as Louis Vuitton, Ferrari, and Hermès own brands that enjoy a high level of exclusivity and serve conspicuous consumption, so too do elite universities. In the minds of many, Harvard, Stanford, and Yale are analogous to Louis Vuitton, Ferrari, and Hermès. This “luxurification” of higher education, however, perpetuates class division and violates the right to education.

In March 2020, even after the World Health Organization (WHO) declared COVID-19 a pandemic, Labrador Diagnostics attempted through “the most tone-deaf IP suit in history”1 to block testing for coronavirus that used its patents. In June 2020, Gilead Sciences shocked the international community by pricing its patented medicine remdesivir at $3,120 per course of treatment for COVID-19 patients with private insurance in the United States. Thereafter, the company was vehemently accused of overcharging in “an offensive display of hubris and disregard for the public,”2 which also led to serious concerns that global efforts to contain the pandemic were effectively at the mercy of medical patent owners.3 Since December 2020 when the first COVID-19 vaccine was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, vaccine inequity has ravaged the globe. As of September 2021, a mere 3 percent of people in low-income countries had been vaccinated with at least one dose, in stark contrast to high-income countries’ 60 percent.

In July 2019, I presented a paper on the right to technology at an international conference that I hosted at the University of Hong Kong. The conference attracted an audience of around 120 attorneys and law students with an interest in technology law. Before I started, I asked the attendees whether they knew of the existence of a right to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications, a human right that is protected by both the Universal Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). Much to my surprise, none of them raised their hand in affirmation. Their universal silence means that this human right, which we can also call the right to technology, is unknown to those with a demonstrable interest in the subject area. This example is by no means an isolated case.

Alfred Nobel, the inventor of dynamite and other explosives, suffered from severe depression following a French newspaper’s erroneous publication of his obituary in 1888. The obituary condemned him as a “merchant of death” who had become wealthy by inventing new technologies designed to “kill more people faster than ever before.”1 Many other newspapers worldwide followed the obituary’s lead in celebrating Nobel’s supposed demise, which later proved to be what we would today call “fake news.” Devastated by the international media’s accusations, Nobel began to reevaluate his fame and fortune, both of which derived from his invention and patenting of deadly technologies, although those technologies had also facilitated construction work ranging from rock blasting to the building of canals. This reevaluation led him to denounce the widespread use of weapons in wars as “the horror of all horrors and the greatest of all crimes”2 and to dedicate most of his wealth to funding the establishment of Nobel prizes in a variety of fields, earning him a posthumous reputation for promoting peace and knowledge growth.

In the wake of the Cambridge Analytica data scandal discussed in Chapter 4, Facebook and other major technology companies were accused of being even more irresponsible than the financial institutions that caused the 2008 financial crisis.1 The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) responded to the scandal by imposing a fine of roughly $5 billion on Facebook in July 2019 for mishandling private data, the largest fine ever issued by the FTC.2 However, the FTC’s response triggered heated debate over whether a fine was an effective deterrent. Facebook’s stock price actually surged following the FTC’s decision, which led to claims that the decision had served to increase Mark Zuckerberg’s net worth.3 Legislators proclaimed that the FTC had “failed miserably” with this “inadequate” and “historically hollow” decision.

The responsibilities that technology companies have assumed are completely inadequate compared to the power they have gained. Facebook is a textbook example. It achieved unparalleled success among technology companies, attracting 2.3 billion users in just fifteen years following its inception in 2004.1 It has also abused the trust of those users,2 secretly selling private user data to Cambridge Analytica in the biggest privacy scandal in social network history, and allowing its platform to become a vehicle for the fake news that likely swayed the 2016 presidential election in the United States. A judge has even gone so far as to describe Facebook as “a tool for evil” in a judicial ruling.3 Whistleblowers and journalistic investigation support this allegation, providing hard evidence that Facebook has prioritized profit over the well-being of its users and society.

The multiple rounds of COVID-19-related lockdowns in 2020 and beyond have required around 50 million American students to rely on the Internet to receive their education.1 However, 9.7 million of them have no reliable internet access in their homes.2 Some schools have resorted to installing Wi-Fi networks in school parking lots that are accessible to students, despite the health risks of people gathering.3 Moreover, the impact on their schooling is not the only impact exerted on young people by a lack of reliable internet access. It has also meant a lack of access to Netflix, TikTok, YouTube, and other forms of social media entertainment that have become important outlets for coping with boredom, loneliness, and even despair during the pandemic. Worse still, because virtually all health information about COVID-19 is online, a lack of internet access can be a matter of life or death.

Technology has the amazing power to change lives. Many years ago, I came across the exciting news that laser technology was being adopted in eye surgery to cure near-sightedness. As I was quite troubled by near-sightedness in my left eye, I enthusiastically consulted an eye doctor in my city to see whether such surgery could effect a major change in my life. She was a famous doctor who had received post-doctoral training in eye surgery at Harvard Medical School. After examining my eyes, she encouraged me to have laser surgery and not to worry about the potential side effects. I can still vividly recall her quick response to my concerns: “You don’t need to worry about side effects. Technology always advances. It will cure side effects in the future.” This response did not assuage my concerns. Instead, I asked a follow-up question: what if technological advancement was unable to eliminate side effects? The doctor immediately responded: “Please believe in technology!”