Join a jury and vote.

Earn from home, earn from phone.

It's easy. Pick a case. Vote for the solution you think is best. Earn RHUCoin.

Consensus voters share bonus pool. Suggest a new solution—earn bonus RHUCoin.

Vote in any of these simple 1-question surveys to voice your opinion and earn RHUCoin rewards. It’s easy: click the green start button for case description and ballot, examine the choices, and vote for the option you think is the best solution.

Public Fairness Assessment
(Purchased rebuilt engine with 12 month/12,000 mile warranty. Less than 2,500 miles and 3 months later engine is defective.. Warranty is useless.)
Purchased rebuilt engine from Mabbco on 8/17/2018. Mabbco states 12 month/12,000 mile warranty. Engine was installed by Stanford Motors, Vernon, AL.

Less than 2,500 miles and 3 months later engine is defective. Local Chrysler dealership says camshaft is worn away. Engine is not road worthy. Top speed about 35 MPH.

Made multiple attempts to reconcile with Mabbco for repair. Mr. Byron Moore, President, says they cannot pay for repair unless at their shop. This makes the warranty useless. Also he makes disclaimer of camshaft warranty, along with any other parts, including the engine itself.

Basically, engine is sold "as is", even though a 12 month/ 12,000 mile warranty is stated both as advertising and sales incentive.

Mabbco now blocks my emails.

While at first I was satisfied with just repair of the camshaft, now I want nothing to do with Mabbco. Require my full payment of $2,045 back plus expenses to ship engine back and my costs of dealing with this unprofessional, fraudulent company.

Also, I would be interested in others who have had similar problems with Mabbco contacting me.

Unfair practice - Believe that Mabbco's disclaimer of implied warranties and disclaimer of warranty of mechantability is both unethical and illegal. Also believe Mabbcos statement of 12 month/ 12,000 mile warranty is misrepresentation and fraudulent advertising.

Warranty problem - Engine does not work. Stanford Motors and I followed installation and break in procedures to the letter.
  • Refund cost of engine plus cost of installation and removal, diagnosis, repairs, shipping, fees, my time - total $6,890.96
  • Offer repair ex gratia to accept responsibility.
  • MABBCO should pay for repair of the defective engine in Alabama by a reputable mechanic. MABBCO states on its website that it ships "coast to coast." Given that its customary business is long distance, it is in my opinion deceptive at best to offer a warranty that would require the engine to be removed, re-shipped both ways, and re-installed. Such a warranty is useless, as it would be cost-prohibitive to actually use it. I sympathize with the claimant's feelings, but I think repair near the claimant's home is a more reasonable solution.
RHUCoin reward
Vote: 5 RHU
Consensus bonus: 20 RHU
Total RHUCoin pool: 2,500 RHU
Eligibility: Member of the public | ADR Professional (Alternative Dispute Resolution) | Arbitrator | Law student / intern | Lawyer / Attorney | Mediator | Auto Mechanic / Service Technician | Automotive blogger /journalist
Poll opened: 27 Jan 2019
Poll closes: 29 Jan 2019
Current jury pool: 62
Status: Voting in progress
Public Fairness Assessment
(National Health Agents violated FTC and FCC rules about telemarketing, Do Not Call lists, and robocalling)
I received a call I believed to be from a local business. It turned out to be a robocalling company using a 'spoofed' number to try to sell me a health insurance policy. I pressed the appropriate buttons to agree that no, I was not on Medicare, and yes, I needed health insurance, so that I could get through to a live agent.

The person I eventually spoke to, George, was not a scammer from a different country (like a "Microsoft Tech" scammer) or one of those creepy robotic voices in local accents that are generated by people pushing buttons to get you to make "charitable donations.".

George is a clearly educated American, pitching real insurance policies. He readily told me which company he works for (National Health Agents) and where to find their website and phone number.

Both the US Federal Trade Commission and the US Federal Communications Commission forbid National Health Agents from calling me.

a) Sales calls made via robocalling are subject to penalties of $1500 (soon to be more) and
b) calling someone on the FTC Do Not Call list is subject to penalties of up to $40,000 per violation.

The FCC and the FTC try hard to fight this hydra-headed monster, but their process is slow. Our phone companies could help, but don't. No-one dares answer their own phones any more because illegal sales calls and scam calls are so prevalent. I'm now getting angry voice messages and texts from people who think *I* am calling them - my own number is being spoofed by these creeps.

It is time for all phone-owners to go after unethical businesses and make it unprofitable for them to break the law by masking their illegal activities. Yes, I want them to pay me for my time and for infringing on my "right to be left alone," and essentially robbing me of the phone service I pay dearly for. Anyone who owns a phone should want the same thing for themselves.

I'm done with advice to never answer my own phone. I'm done with having MY NUMBER used to illegally call other people.
  • $500 in compensation, plus the name of its lead generation company that uses robocalling, if it's an outside company.
  • $1,500 in compensation, plus the name of its lead generation company that uses robocalling, if it's an outside company.
  • $1 million to be paid to the FTC as prize money for its annual competition seeking a solution for this kind of call.
View case on PeopleClaim
RHUCoin reward
Vote: 5 RHU
Consensus bonus: 20 RHU
Eligibility: Member of the public | 500 Lawyers member | ADR Professional (Alternative Dispute Resolution) | Law student / intern | 500 Tech Leaders member | Blogger | News Reporter | Insurance agent
Poll opened: 01 Jan 2019
Current jury pool: 132
Status: Voting in progress
Public Fairness Assessment
The dispute is I telephone Title Max on Saturday 12/15/18, informed the REP that I would be in on Wed. 12-19-18, after I left my Dr.'s Office from the Follow-Up visit, pertaining to my surgery that I had on 12-12-18. No Problem per the REP., I would be in to pay the bill. The weather turned bad RAINING, I was not going to chance my health with a relapse, so I called to inform the REP (Angie) that I would go online and make the payment, she gave me the website, made the payment on my cell phone and got a confirmation #. The next day when I check my bank account, I notice a negative, along with a duplicate payment for Title Max. I had to file a complaint with the bank to dispute the issues, it took about 3 days or more to be credited back to my account. The real issue is someone or the computer should have notice two duplicate payments repeated one Wed 12/19/18 and the next payment 12/20/18. No one would make that BIG mistake
  • TitleMax should credit you with the bank overdraft charges and check its system. I'm not clear as to how the duplicate payment was made - did the representative make it online for you, as well as you making it? A title loan company needs to be particularly careful about duplicate payments since its customers are likely short of cash, and any duplicate payment will probably create a shortfall in the customer's bank account, potentially leading to other payments bouncing. While the company wouldn't want to stop someone from making extra payments, an extra payment should trigger a notice: "You have already made a payment for this period. Are you sure you want to make another?"
  • If the double payment was a website or agent error and not due to an error by the customer, Title Max should reimburse its customer for all overdraft or bounced check fees plus pay $100 to the claimant for the aggravation.
  • I guess this issue must have happened because of an error while doing an online transfer or bad internet which might have caused the transaction page to refresh and repeat the transaction. Solution: A third party software with blockchain technology could be implemented in bank wherein the customers can pay the bills in a stable coin crypto and duplicate transactions could be avoided and a very fast transaction can be made within seconds to bank.
Want to be an advocate in this case?
Apply
RHUCoin reward
Vote: 5 RHU
Consensus bonus: 20 RHU
Total RHUCoin pool: 1,500 RHU
Eligibility: Member of the public
Poll opened: 29 Dec 2018
Poll closes: 19 Jan 2019
Current jury pool: 70
Status: Voting in progress
Public Fairness Assessment
(Access to our Entire 1/2 acre Property)
We purchased a property in February 2018. We contracted with First American Title Insurance Company to insure access to all of our property (as per their contract). However, after purchasing the property we learned that we do not have access to all of our 1/2 acre property. We have a large 40 foot bus and a large 24 foot trailer and a large 10 foot box truck that we could not get into or out of our back yard - due to a legal issue that we were not made aware of by First American Title Insurance Company (FATIC). After filing a claim with FATIC, they informed us that they knew about a License Agreement that was in place with previous owners. We received notice from Habitat for Humanity that this License Agreement was cancelled just months after we purchased the property. We had no access to our 1/2 acre property until we did some major remodeling to our property, at a substantial cost of close to $50,000. I hired and attorney who filed complaints and responses to First American Title Company - and they denied the claim. They need to reimburse me for the access amount of $50,000, or they need to reimburse me for the entire property $329,000. I have several photos, I have several documents to validate my claim.
  • The sellers and the title company (FATIC) both failed to disclose a known problem. They should agree to split the cost of remedying the problem and reimburse the buyer.
  • If at the conclusion of the contract you knew about the restrictions, then you will not pay anything. If facts are hidden from you, then you are entitled to a compensation of $ 50,000.
Want to be an advocate in this case?
Apply
View case on PeopleClaim
RHUCoin reward
Vote: 5 RHU
Consensus bonus: 20 RHU
Total RHUCoin pool: 2,500 RHU
Eligibility: 500 Lawyers member | ADR Professional (Alternative Dispute Resolution) | Arbitrator | Judge | Jury Expert | Law Professors | Law student / intern
Poll opened: 13 Dec 2018
Current jury pool: 68
Status: Voting in progress
Public Fairness Assessment
Who would purchase a product or service & not know the cost? That's exactly what Home Advisor wants me to do. Home Advisor offers what they refer to as opportunity leads, we have a option to to accept or decline a lead. Previously they would post the price of the lead before we would accept a lead. Presently we must accept the lead without knowing the cost.
Just a little background on Home Advisor they are currently being sued in a class action law suit for fraud by Chimicles & Tikellis attorneys at law. Phone # 1-866-399-2487
AR James Contracting
Sussex NJ. 07461
  • $500.00 Refund
  • No award / compensation to counterparty.
Want to be an advocate in this case?
Apply
View case on PeopleClaim
RHUCoin reward
Vote: 5 RHU
Consensus bonus: 20 RHU
Total RHUCoin pool: 2,500 RHU
Eligibility: Member of the public | Legal Professional | Home Owner | Real Estate Agent | Consumer / citizen | Home Improvement Contractor
Poll opened: 06 Dec 2018
Current jury pool: 124
Status: Voting in progress
Public Fairness Assessment
A proposed New York State Legislature bill (S9191) would require people seeking or renewing handgun licenses to submit to police review of their search engine history and social media accounts. Applicants would have to hand over all account login credentials.
  • For any activity that is a privilege rather than a right.
  • For gun ownership, because the public risks are high.
  • Only non-citizens should be subject to such searches.
  • Only convicted felons should be subject to such searches.
  • Only convicted felons and people with a history of mental illness or domestic violence should be subject to such searches.
  • Only anyone with a diagnosis of mental illnessor a confirmed history of drug abuse should be subject to such searches.
  • None. It violates privacy rights and constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.
  • By Court order only, with Probable cause.
Want to be an advocate in this case?
Apply
RHUCoin reward
Vote: 5 RHU
Consensus bonus: 20 RHU
Total RHUCoin pool: 5,000 RHU
Eligibility: Member of the public | 500 Lawyers member | ADR Professional (Alternative Dispute Resolution) | Law student / intern | Lawyer / Attorney | Privacy advocates
Poll opened: 25 Nov 2018
Poll closes: 21 Jan 2019
Current jury pool: 170
Status: Voting in progress
Public Fairness Assessment
(Toyota Of Longview did not negotiate fairly)
Deceptive sales practices that are against Toyota Of Longview's advertised addemdum of quick, fair, and transparent pricing.

They changed the starting MSRP of a vehicle in negotiation without my knowledge or consent to said change in order to offset giving me a higher trade allowance.
  • This is a common sales tactic designed to make you think you’re getting a better deal than you are. It sounds to me as if the claimant didn’t take the deal but is furious about the deception. Good for him (or her). I suggest that the claimant docoments the problem to the FTC and the state board regulating dealerships (often the DMV). As a constructive solution, I suggest that Toyota of Longview pays the claimant for time wasted at the dealership - probably 5-6 hours - at $50/ hour.
  • Was the Claimant content to pay the net price, the discounted price, for the vehicle he bought. Trade-in is merely a justification for a discount. The interesting thing is what you pay for what you want. Toyota should offer an ex-gratia payment for their mishandling - and an apology.
RHUCoin reward
Vote: 5 RHU
Consensus bonus: 20 RHU
Total RHUCoin pool: 2,500 RHU
Eligibility: Law student / intern | Legal bloggers and media | Automotive blogger /journalist
Poll opened: 20 Nov 2018
Current jury pool: 90
Status: Voting in progress
Public Fairness Assessment
(Michael J. Mondin has not paid the rent, utilities and other costs he has acknowledged he owes me.)
Claimant says she added Michael J Mondin to her lease in Colorado while she was working overseas. Mr. Mondin agreed to pay the full rent and utilities for six months, plus the cost of a parking space added to the lease for his sole convenience. Mr. Mondin vacated the apartment without notice, disclosure, or communication, and owing substantial rent, utility and parking costs. Claimant incurred further losses by having to vacate her overseas rental early and fly home to investigate the situation. She filed a PeopleClaim on November 21, 2017.

Michael J. Mondin disputed some items on the PeopleClaim – internet and parking charges – but offered to settle the claim for $3,348 less a $700 security deposit = $2,648, with payment to be made in full by Feb. 1, 2018. The claimant agreed to that offer. However, the agreed settlement has never been paid, according to the claimant, and she believes it was made in bad faith. Michael J. Mondin left his job in Colorado and has not responded to mail sent to his family home in Orange, Connecticut. Original claim and response posted at http://www.peopleclaim.com/complaint-details/michael-j-mondin-boulder-co-5308256.

The claimant has since incurred a further $500 in credit card interest on Michael J. Mondin's unpaid debt.
  • Michael J. Mondin should pay claimant settlement of $2,648 that he offered in February, plus $500 in interest charges incurred. Total settlement $3,148.
  • Claimant should add 30% in fees to agreed settlement and turn Michael J. Mondin's debt over to a collection agency.
  • Michael J. Mondin should pay unpaid rent, utilities and landlord's travel in the amount of 3,355.99 as originally requested.
RHUCoin reward
Vote: 5 RHU
Consensus bonus: 20 RHU
Total RHUCoin pool: 2,500 RHU
Eligibility: Member of the public | 500 Lawyers member | ADR Professional (Alternative Dispute Resolution) | Arbitrator | Judge | Landlord
Poll opened: 20 Nov 2018
Poll closes: 28 Dec 2018
Current jury pool: 150
Status: Voting in progress
Public Consensus Opinion
Voting options
  • House of Food Porn
  • Joe's Stone Crab
  • Truluck's
  • Zuma
RHUCoin reward
Vote: 5 RHU
Consensus bonus: 20 RHU
Total RHUCoin pool: 10,000 RHU
Eligibility: Resident of Miami | Visitor to Miami | Chef | Food Critic | Blogger
Poll opened: 12 Nov 2018
Poll closes: 30 Nov 2018
Current jury pool: 159
Status: Voting in progress
Public Consensus Opinion
Thankfully no one was hurt in email bomb incident, Im interested in the legal question of sending something that looks like a bomb but isn't.
  • Yes, it's a crime to send something threatening regardless of the intent
  • It would depend upon the intent of the sender
  • It's not a crime if it's an expression of free speech as long as it doesnt threaten or terrorize
  • It depends upon who the recepient is. If its a polical figure, its a crime. If it's your freind and its a joke, it's not a crime
  • If it would reasonably be viewed as a threat by the recepient it' a crime regardless of the intent of the sender
Want to be an advocate in this case?
Apply
RHUCoin reward
Vote: 5 RHU
Consensus bonus: 20 RHU
Total RHUCoin pool: 2,500 RHU
Eligibility: Member of the public | ADR Professional (Alternative Dispute Resolution) | Arbitrator | Judge | Jury Expert | Law student / intern | Lawyer / Attorney | Blogger | The 500 Lawyers Group
Poll opened: 29 Oct 2018
Current jury pool: 212
Status: Voting in progress
Public Consensus Prediction
(Guess which crypto has the highest percent return for 2019, Jan 1 - Dec 31.)
Voting options
  • Bitcoin (BTC)
  • Ethereum (ETH)
  • Ripple (XRP)
  • Bitcoin Cash (BCH)
  • EOS (EOS)
  • Stellar (XLM)
  • Litecoin (LTC)
  • Monero (XMR)
  • IOTA (MIOTA)
  • NEO (NEO)
  • RHUCoin (RHU)
RHUCoin reward
Vote: 5 RHU
Consensus bonus: 25 RHU
Total RHUCoin pool: 50,000 RHU
Eligibility: Blockchain Developer | Blockchain/Crypto Blogger / Publisher | Blockchain/Crypto Consultant | Cryptocurrency Investor | Lawyer / Attorney | 500 Tech Leaders member
Poll opened: 05 Sep 2018
Poll closes: 30 Sep 2018
Current jury pool: 333
Status: Voting in progress
Public Fairness Assessment
(Equal access to store amenities for paying and non-paying users alike)
In April, 2018, Starbucks was hit with a wave of protests over its “loitering” policy. Two young black men were denied the use of a restroom and arrested in a Philadelphia Starbucks. They were waiting for a business associate, had not purchased anything, had declined to do so when informed by the manager that the store allowed restroom use to paying customers only, and did not leave the store when asked. Protesters accused Starbucks of bias towards people “Sitting While Black.”
 
Starbucks’ response was to formalize a “Third Place Policy,” stating that “any person who enters our spaces, including patios, cafes and restrooms, regardless of whether they make a purchase, is considered a customer.” Separate company procedures would cover anyone acting in a disruptive or unsafe manner.
  • This just puts it in writing – most Starbucks stores have never had a policy of ejecting people who just want to use the restroom or sit for a while. Starbucks is a highly-profitable and valuable company. They should give back to the communities they serve by allowing access to all.
  • The Third Place Policy should be scrapped. It encourages homeless people and drug users to congregate in Starbucks, crowding out paying customers.
  • Starbucks seating areas, amenities, and restrooms should be for paying customers only.
  • Starbucks should address the problem through its rewards program: anyone who has previously made at least ten purchases can use seating areas and restrooms without buying anything.
Want to be an advocate in this case?
Apply
RHUCoin reward
Vote: 5 RHU
Consensus bonus: 15 RHU
Total RHUCoin pool: 5,000 RHU
Eligibility: Member of the public | Starbucks customer | Starbucks employee | Law enforcement officer | Lawyer / Attorney
Poll opened: 04 Sep 2018
Poll closes: 30 Sep 2018
Current jury pool: 268
Status: Voting in progress
Public Consensus Prediction
(Guess the final award: 10,000 RHUCoin bonus)

A San Francisco County jury recently found chemical producer Monsanto guilty of knowingly marketing a toxic product and concealing its danger to users and the public—and awarded a $289 million verdict to Dewayne Johnson, a terminally-ill blood cancer patient. Punitive damages amounted to $250 million; compensatory damages, $39 million. The product, Roundup, is a glyphosate compound used as a weed-killer. Hundreds of similar lawsuits have been filed in U.S. federal courts; thousands more in other jurisdictions. Monsanto, which claims Roundup does not cause cancer, will appeal the decision.

Special crypto bonus award: Given the likelihood of appeal and award reduction, what do you think the final award will be? Add your guess in the “I have a better answer” option below, and the closest match to the actual judgment or settlement will win 10,000 RHUCoin when the award is announced.

  • $289 million (full amount of verdict)
  • $151-$288 million
  • $101-$150 million
  • $51-$100 million
  • $26-$50 million
  • $11-$25 million
  • $6-$10 million
  • $1- $5 million
  • Less than $1 million
  • No damages will be awarded
RHUCoin reward
Vote: 5 RHU
Consensus bonus: 15 RHU
Total RHUCoin pool: 2,500 RHU
Eligibility: Member of the public | Lawyer / Attorney | Law student / intern | Consumer Advocate | Possible plaintiff | Farmer | Horticulturist | Environmentalist
Poll opened: 16 Aug 2018
Current jury pool: 200
Status: Voting in progress
Public Consensus Prediction
(Will they survive? If so, in what form?)
ICOs are fading in the eyes of investors, and blockchain projects are experimenting with new, more equitable, fundraising models. Some primarily address concerns with potential SEC actions; others are more focused on flexibility for investors. Voting choices below are derived from reporting by Kai Sedgwick in Bitcoin News and Anujit Mukhopadhyay in 101 Blockchains.Voters who predict this accurately will share 20,000 RHU on August 15, 2020.
  • STO (Secure Token Offering). Regulated coin offerings that comply with SEC policies, such as Reg A+, Reg D, and Reg S.
  • IICO (Interactive Initial Coin Offering). First proposed by Ethereum’s Vitalik Buterin, the model lets contributors specify their maximum cap, which if exceeded results in a return of their investment.
  • ISA (Initial Supply Auction). A descending-price auction, with a high opening price that descends in increments to a floor. Investors choose the price at which they’re comfortable and receive their currency as soon as purchased.
  • SAFT (Simple Agreement for Future Tokens). Accredited investors purchase SEC-compliant securities contracts under an agreement that they will receive tokens only when the project is operational and the tokens are useable / tradable.
  • No ICO or funding. The best coins will create their own economics and will grow their own mechanisms and usage organically, without external funding.
  • ICOs will evolve and survive, and still be the dominant funding mechanism in 2020, because they’re both democratic and inclusive.
RHUCoin reward
Vote: 5 RHU
Consensus bonus: 100 RHU
Total RHUCoin pool: 3,000 RHU
Eligibility: ICO advisor | ICO investor | ICO legal professional | Developer / other technologist | Blogger / journalist
Poll opened: 10 Aug 2018
Current jury pool: 221
Status: Voting in progress
Public Fairness Assessment
(Is New York City putting the interests of its taxi drivers ahead of the riding public?)
New York City is imposing a one-year freeze on new licenses for app-based rideshare vehicles, and considering a minimum wage for rideshare drivers. The move is said to be in response to traffic congestion from growing numbers of rideshare vehicles, and reduced driver income for both rideshare and taxi drivers due to increased competition. Opponents argue that Uber has made local transportation cheaper and more available, especially to destinations shunned by taxi drivers. New York is the first U.S. city to limit availability of app-based rideshare vehicles.
  • Yes. The moratorium will prevent further traffic congestion and reduce wage deterioration for rideshare and taxi drivers.
  • No. The city has no business limiting the supply or pricing of ride options for its citizens.
  • NYC is right to seek minimum wage equality between rideshare and taxi drivers, but not to limit the number of new rideshare licenses.
  • NYC should regulate the number of rideshare licenses but not impose a minimum wage for drivers.
  • NYC should require the same training / licensing requirements for app-based ridesharing services as they do for taxis.
Want to be an advocate in this case?
Apply
RHUCoin reward
Vote: 5 RHU
Consensus bonus: 15 RHU
Total RHUCoin pool: 2,500 RHU
Eligibility: New York City resident or commuter | Ridesharing driver (Uber, Lyft, etc.) | Taxi driver | Consumer Advocate | Member of the public
Poll opened: 09 Aug 2018
Current jury pool: 204
Status: Voting in progress
Public Fairness Assessment
(Tim Draper's Cal 3 initiative blocked by state Supreme Court)
Cal 3 / Proposition 9, a proposal to divide California into three new states, will not be on the ballot in November, 2018 due to intervention by the state Supreme Court. The initiative, which had nearly twice the number of signatures required, is a project of Silicon Valley capitalist Tim Draper. The court order denying ballot access said there were questions about Cal 3's validity and that there was more potential harm letting it stay on the November ballot than in delaying it for a future vote. Draper responded via Facebook, saying "Whether you agree of not with this initiative, this is not the way democracies are supposed to work."
  • The court acted in the best interests of Californians because it decided Cal 3's potential for damage outweighed the downside of making an exception to normal democratic process and deferring the people’s vote to a future election.
  • The court's action was justified because Cal 3 as worded made public approval tantamount to legislative approval, circumventing state representatives’ statutory role in the democratic process.
  • The court overreacted in denying the ballot to Cal 3 because a public vote in favor is still subject to the court’s own legal review and final approval by the U.S. Congress.
  • The court was wrong to prefer an unusual and anti-democratic action over popular vote.
Want to be an advocate in this case?
Apply
RHUCoin reward
Vote: 5 RHU
Consensus bonus: 15 RHU
Total RHUCoin pool: 5,000 RHU
Eligibility: Journalist / Blogger | California citizen | Lawyer / Attorney | Member of California State Assembly | Member of California State Senate | Non-California citizen | Law student / intern
Poll opened: 31 Jul 2018
Current jury pool: 322
Status: Voting in progress
Public Consensus Opinion
Iconic American brand Harley-Davidson has announced plans to begin manufacturing and selling its motorcycles in Europe. The decision is in response to a 31% EU tariff recently imposed on motorcycles, and Harley’s decision not to raise EU retail prices to cover the added expense. The plan anticipates European-made bikes being sold outside America, with bikes purchased in America continuing to be made in the U.S.A. The company, whose products were 100% American-made until 2014, currently has manufacturing operations in Brazil, India, and Australia, in addition to its three US facilities.
  • Yes. The company should do whatever is necessary, including offshore manufacturing, to continue to produce the best product at the lowest cost wherever in the world it is sold.
  • Yes—but only for local sale in the EU, not for resale in areas unaffected by high import tariffs on motorcycles.
  • Yes—as long as EU-produced bikes are registered and clearly marked “made in the EU” for consumer awareness.
  • No. Harley-Davidson should be taxed or penalized for moving manufacturing outside the USA.
  • No. To protect the long-term value of this uniquely American brand, Harley-Davidson motorcycles should be 100% made in the USA.
RHUCoin reward
Vote: 5 RHU
Consensus bonus: 15 RHU
Total RHUCoin pool: 5,000 RHU
Eligibility: Harley rider – American | Harley rider – EU | Harley rider – other non-American | Harley dealer | Harley employee/consultant | Motorcycle mechanic / technician | Motorcycle blogger / journalist | Member of public – American | Member of public – not American
Poll opened: 27 Jul 2018
Poll closes: 31 Aug 2018
Current jury pool: 358
Status: Voting in progress
Public Consensus Prediction
(Predicting changing relationships between manufacturers, dealer service, and independents.)
Connecting car and truck computer systems to the internet—predicted to include a fifth of all vehicles globally by 2020—will transfer service monitoring and repair diagnosis to manufacturers. Dealerships with established manufacturer relationships will benefit. At issue is whether independents (currently two thirds of the U.S. parts and service market), will be included or excluded from access to the necessary data and training to service the new vehicles.
  • Manufacturers will support dealer service operations but impose barriers to data access and training by independents.
  • Manufacturers will support independents by allowing access to data and training.
  • Manufacturers will support independents, but associated costs of required systems and training will limit access to larger independents, weeding out owner/operators and other small shops.
  • The independent repair shop, as we know it, will disappear.
RHUCoin reward
Vote: 5 RHU
Consensus bonus: 20 RHU
Total RHUCoin pool: 2,500 RHU
Eligibility: Auto Mechanic / Service Technician | Automotive journalist / blogger
Poll opened: 26 Jul 2018
Poll closes: 17 Aug 2018
Current jury pool: 261
Status: Voting in progress
Public Fairness Assessment
(Rider receiving spam texts from Uber India)

Claimant' account: Claimant says that after visiting India and using Uber with a temporary SIM card and phone number, Uber continued to forward multiple unsolicited texts from Uber India to her regular phone number. Texts came in at all hours. She was unable to find contact information for Uber, or to resolve the issue via the Uber app. In the US, unsolicited texts carry a fine of up to $1500 each under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Respondent's rebuttal: On receipt of the claim, Uber referred the complaint to the proper department and stopped the texts.

  • $10,000 compensation for texts received in the middle of the night
  • $1500 compensation plus finder’s fee for identifying potential liability
  • $100-$200 per unsolicited text
  • Texts stopped; no compensation
  • Create a complaint channel to deal effectively with all such complaints globally plus $1000 Uber credit for claimant
View case on PeopleClaim
RHUCoin reward
Vote: 5 RHU
Consensus bonus: 20 RHU
Total RHUCoin pool: 2,500 RHU
Eligibility: Uber Driver | Uber Rider | Legal Professional | Regulator / Legislator | Journalist / Blogger | Venture Capitalist (VC) | Member of the public | Lyft Driver
Poll opened: 27 Jun 2018
Poll closes: 31 Jul 2018
Current jury pool: 373
Status: Voting in progress
Public Fairness Assessment
(Guest problems retrieving keys and medication)


Claimant's account:
Claimant says he left a set of keys—including car, office, and apartment keys—plus an attached vial of medication in his hotel room at the Hyatt Place Louisville East. Hyatt found the keys and agreed to return them to him in a different state at his expense. The keys did not arrive. Several days later Hyatt said the keys had been turned over to the police (claimant assumes due to concerns over the medication) and would have to be retrieved from the police.



The police, once reached, said they had immediately cleared the medication, never took possession of the keys, and had instructed Hyatt to return the keys to the claimant. Hyatt did not do this and simply locked them up. After multiple calls from claimant, keys were finally returned to claimant. The vial of medication was missing. Both Hyatt and the police deny having it.


Respondent's rebuttal: Hyatt Place Louisville East advised the claimant that her concerns were very important and would be referred to the executive management of the hotel for review and followup; they requested patience while the matter was being fully investigated. A subsequent message informed the claimant that Hyatt Place Louisville East was unable to honor the request for compensation and referred the claimant to the Jeffersontown Police Department for help recovering the medication.

  • Hyatt should pay $771.97 in actual costs and time costs.
  • Hyatt should pay the claimant $90.
  • Claimant should take Hyatt to court for Fourth Amendment violation.
  • Hyatt should give the claimant 100,000 points.
  • Hyatt should reimburse the claimant for the cost of the medication plus two free nights.
  • Hyatt has returned the claimant's keys; nothing more is called for.
Want to be an advocate in this case?
Apply
View case on PeopleClaim
RHUCoin reward
Vote: 5 RHU
Consensus bonus: 20 RHU
Total RHUCoin pool: 2,000 RHU
Eligibility: Travel industry professional | Legal Professional | Member of the public | Frequent traveler
Poll opened: 21 Jun 2018
Poll closes: 21 Jul 2018
Current jury pool: 335
Status: Voting in progress
Public Fairness Assessment
(Data purchase quality guarantee unmet)

Claimant's account: Customer says they had made two satisfactory list purchases of healthcare professionals from Stack Creations, then agreed in 2016 to a $1,500 purchase of company lists in several other industries. After examining a sample of the first data batch (automotive companies), customer found 36% of the sample was non-automotive, and requested a full refund based on the vendor’s 90% accuracy guarantee. Customer also offered to re-purchase cleaned lists from the vendor at the established cost-per-record, payable after inspection and approval of delivered data. Customer says Stack Creations refused to refund the purchase. Four months later the claimant withdrew these settlement terms and demanded damages in the amount of $78,000 for lost business and expected data cleanup costs.

  • Full refund of purchase price, $1,500
  • Refund of purchase price plus damages to database, total $78,000
  • No award / compensation to customer.
View case on PeopleClaim
RHUCoin reward
Vote: 5 RHU
Consensus bonus: 20 RHU
Total RHUCoin pool: 1,000 RHU
Eligibility: Business owner | Marketing list customer | Legal Professional | Member of the public
Poll opened: 14 Jun 2018
Poll closes: 30 Jun 2018
Current jury pool: 349
Status: Voting in progress
Public Fairness Assessment
(Thought leaders weigh in on how to fix Facebook)
Voting options
  • Reduce anonymity. Require real verification with goal of 100% user verification.
  • Open the Facebook platform to independent research of user behavior and use of advertiser tools.
  • Allow users the choice to sort their news feeds chronologically rather than Facebook’s algorithmically-sorted feed.
  • Offer users a paid option in exchange for greater control over data.
  • Require Facebook and other online platforms to be considered “information fiduciaries” with a legal duty to protect their users’ information.
  • Convert Facebook to a blockchain-based liquid democracy where users vote directly or by proxy on all privacy and governance matters. Distribute 10% of revenues to users based on years of active membership.
  • Do nothing; let the market decide.
RHUCoin reward
Vote: 5 RHU
Consensus bonus: 20 RHU
Total RHUCoin pool: 25,000 RHU
Eligibility: Venture Capitalist (VC) | Legal Professional | Journalist / Blogger | Regulator / Legislator | Technologist | Facebook user | 500 Lawyers member | 500 Tech Leaders member
Poll opened: 18 Apr 2018
Poll closes: 05 Jun 2018
Current jury pool: 4129
Status: Voting in progress
Tenant v. The Grand Apts - 5301 Neshaminy Blvd Bensalem, PA, 19020
Voting Results:
Poll opened: 17 Sep 2018
Poll closed on: 24 Sep 2018
Voters: 140
Total RHUCoin awarded: 1,340 RHU
Status: Settled
Should illegal aliens be allowed to vote in U.S. elections?
Voting Results:
Poll opened: 24 Jul 2018
Poll closed on: 30 Nov 2018
Voters: 288
Total RHUCoin awarded: 3,645 RHU
Status: Closed
Claimant vs. Testarossa Motors, League City, Texas
Voting Results:
View case on PeopleClaim
Poll opened: 05 Jun 2018
Poll closed on: 05 Jul 2018
Voters: 352
Total RHUCoin awarded: 3,445 RHU
Status: Closed
Should cryptocurrency be regulated as a security?
Voting Results:
Poll opened: 27 Apr 2018
Poll closed on: 05 Jun 2018
Voters: 1547
Total RHUCoin awarded: 24,515 RHU
Status: Closed

Important – Read before proceeding: Rhubarb provides a user platform for consensus answers / opinion from the public, industry experts, and community on a wide range of topics, including how to resolve disputes and answers to legal, technical, and other questions.

You understand and agree that nothing communicated on the site constitutes legal or professional advice, including all user posting, advocate suggestions, and consensus votes. Posting by legal and industry professionals is not professional advice and does not imply or constitute a legal, professional, or other fiduciary relationship between any of the participating parties.

Rhubarb and its members do not provide legal or professional advice or services. We are not a legal referral service. Rhubarb is not responsible for the accuracy of information posted on its site by members. Users are strongly advised to seek independent professional counsel before making decisions regarding cases or topics posted at Rhubarb.

You further agree to these and all other Terms of Service, and to hold Rhubarb harmless for your use of its services or for any decisions you may make based on its content or any content you post, including voting, suggestions, comments, or other content; and for mechanical or data failures, hacks, or other technical or critical features of the site.