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.

(Access to our Entire 1/2 acre Property)
Description
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.
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: 37
Status: Voting in progress
(Gross Negligence, Repeated Acts of Gross Negligence, Aiding and Abetting the Practice of Unlicensed Medicine, and Unprofessional Conduct)
Description
The following letter I wrote to Robert Spurrell for a resolution and got no response:

"I am writing to file a formal complaint about hair restoration surgery performed on me at your Beverly Hills center on 8/19/15. Here is a summary of events before, during, and after the surgery:

I paid a $1000 deposit to register for surgery which would take place on 8/19/2015. During the registration, I was advised of the different surgery options and prices. I said that I could afford $10,000.00 for the restoration and was told that, if I paid $5,000.00 up front, Bosley would finance the balance. I had seen many ads for Bosley over the years and believed that I would see significant improvement with minimal pain and scarring by undergoing the surgery.
· On the date of surgery, I was given a pre-surgery photo shoot, briefed on my specific balding pattern, and was offered a discount if I went with 2,800 grafts. I declined the discount.
· I was taken into surgery and was given pain medication and a sedative. Before the sedative kicked in the surgeon, Dr. David P. Deutsch, gave me the financing contract to sign, and summarized what the contract said. I handed over the remaining $4,000.00, signed the contract, and fell asleep.
· During the procedure, I awoke in pain as Dr. Deutsch was slicing my head and a nurse was counting the slices. Her count was way off as he proceeded, but I was under too much medication to say anything.
· I had been told during my phone consultation that a trained surgeon would be placing all the grafts, that there would be very little pain and very little recovery time afterward. This was a lie. As I remained in my half awake/half sedated state, several different attendants – not the surgeon - placed the grafts in my head. I could feel the pain as the surgery proceeded but, again, I was too sedated to say anything. After surgery, still, in pain, I was sent on my way to drive myself home.
· The next day, I was scheduled to come back for a hair wash but I was in too much pain and could not see as my face was swollen up due to the procedure.
· I called Bosley several times over the next few days to express concerns about the pain which did not seem to be diminishing. I was told that this was normal, and was denied pain relief by the doctor who told me the pain would go away soon.
· For the next two weeks, I continued to bleed from the donor area and was so swollen that my family could not recognize me.
· Almost four months after the surgery, I am still in pain, I am unable to sleep well, and I do not see a noticeable difference from the pre-surgery pictures.
: This is an unacceptable result for the $5,000+ that I have spent so far on this surgery.
Why was I not told before the surgery that it would take up to nine months to see results?
Why was I not forewarned of the amount of post-operation pain on both the donor area and the head, and scarring on the head?
I feel that Bosley has misrepresented itself to me and many others as I have learned from reading dozens of customers’ complaints on the Internet. I am demanding a full and immediate refund of all costs and cancellation of the financing contract. While this will not lessen the physical pain and scarring, it will mitigate the financial loss I have suffered due to this botched surgery.
Failing your agreement to this, I am prepared to file formal complaints with the Medical Board of California and the California Attorney General. I also am not ruling out contacting a medical malpractice attorney. Based on the number of complaints I have seen so far, and I am sure there are many more, a class action suit against Bosley is not out of the question."

When I got no response I filed a complaint with the California Medical Board and this is what they are charging the doctor with:

"FIRST CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE
(Gross Negligence) Respondent David Paul Deutsch, M.D. is subject to disciplinary action under
8.
Business and Professions Code section 2234, subdivision (b), in that he committed gross.
negligence during the care, treatment and management of one patient, as follows:
A. On or about August 19, 2015, Patient 1, then 41 years old, underwent a hair
transplant procedure at the Bosley Medical Group's Beverly Hills office. B. Patient 1 was aware of the Bosley Medical Group due to the number of
advertisements and promotions he had seen over the years. C. On or about August 10, 2015, Patient 1 contacted Respondent about having hair
restoration surgery. Patient 1 scheduled an appointment for August 15, 2015, at
Respondent's Fresno location.
D.
Patient 1 then scheduled hair restoration surgery with Respondent for August 19, 2015. Using a credit card, Patient 1 prepaid Respondent $1,000 to reserve a
E.
surgical suite for August 19, 2015. On the date of the scheduled surgery:
1) 8:00 a.m.: Patient 1 arrived at the Bosley's Beverly Hills office. 2) 8:04 a.m.: Patient 1 was seen by a sales consultant who was not a
licensed physician and surgeon or other licensed healthcare provider. The sales consultant discussed Patient l's medical history which was significant for asthma and depression. Patient 1 reported that he took Prozac and aspirin daily. Patient 1 further reported that he rarely used
Albuterol for his asthma. The sales consultant then discussed the
extent of the patient's hair loss and the benefits of hair transplants with
Patient 1. The sales consultant then had Patient 1 sign a document
In order to protect the privacy rights of the patient, the patient is referred to as Patient 1. The true name of the Patient is known to Respondent and will be provided upon his timely request for discovery.
4 Patient 1 kept the appointment; however, neither Respondent nor anyone from his office -attended.
(DAVID PAUL DEUTSCH, M.D.) ACCUSATION NO. 800-2015-018559
entitled: "Bosley-The World's Most Experienced Hair Restoration Expert-Important Information from Bosley-Please read care fully[.]"
3) Both Patient 1 and the sales consultant signed the document.
4) Paragraph 7 of the document reads, “All aspects of the medical and
surgical care you receive at Bosley are directed by and controlled by your Bosley Physician who has board-certification or equivalent
credentials in a surgical specialty such as general, plastic, dermatologic
or ear, nose, & throat surgery." . 5) Respondent is an independent contractor for the Bosley Medical
Group. 6) Respondent was not board certified at the time of the scheduled
surgery. 6
7) In California, a physician and surgeon cannot claim or advertise board
certification in hair restoration surgery.
8) After the sales consultant and Patient 1 executed the “important
.
information” document, Respondent entered the room. This was the first time that Patient 1 met Respondent or any licensed medical
professional regarding his anticipated hair restoration surgery.
9) Respondent looked at Patient 1 and determined that Patient 1 had
Androgenetic Alopecia Type 5 and found that Patient 1.has a "good
supply of donor hair.” Respondent recommended "restoring the.
hairline” and “add density.” He also recommended the possibility that
two or more procedures may be desired. Respondent further discussed
the use of Propecia. 10) Respondent recommended "1800-2800 grafts- max 2800[.]"
S All physicians at the Bosley Medical Group are independent contractors.
Respondent, at one time, was board certified in thoracic and general surgery. During his meeting with representatives of the Medical Board of California, Respondent stated that he was board certified by the American Board of Hair Restoration Surgeons.
• (DAVID PAUL DEUTSCH, M.D.) ACCUSATION NO. 800-2015-018559
11) Respondent's preoperative report contains the following notations:
not on medications currently? and 2) patient is not driving.
12) 8:18 AM- Patient 1 is brought into the procedure room.
13) 8:23 AM – Patient 1 executed a medical consent form. 8
14) 8:24 AM- the medical consent was witnessed by a Bosley Medical
Group employee.
15) 8:42 AM- Respondent initialed orders to give 1) Valium 2.5 mg
orally, 2) Keflex or Erythromycin orally, 3) Lidocaine local, 4) Marcaine locally and to dispense Vicodin, ibuprofen, Ambien, &
Medrol.
16) 8:43 AM- Photos of Patient 1 completed. 17) 9:08 AM- Patient 1 executed an invoice in the operating room for a
total financial obligation of $13,550. Patient l's invoice included
another $400 for an additional 100 grafts, 100 grafts over the
maximum number that Respondent recommended. Patient 1 was now obligated to pay for 2,900 grafts even though Respondent
recommended a maximum of 2,800 grafts. 18) 9:10 AM Financial Collection completed-- Patient 1 paid a Bosley
Medical Group employee $4,000, in cash, and executed a financial
· obligation contract of $8,550 through Healthcare Finance Direct, LLC. 19) 9:20 AM- Keflex 500 mg, prednisone 15 mg, and 2.5 mg valium
·
given orally.
20) 9:50 AM- Local anesthesia completed- lidocaine and Marcaine were
given.
21) 10:10 AM-Donor tissue (strip) removed and sutured. 22) 10:10-10:35 AM-Recipient Site incisions started & completed.
Patient 1 told the sales consultant that he, Patient 1, was taking Prozac and aspirin, daily. 8 The medical consent was executed 10 minutes after Patient 1 met Respondent. 92300 surgical incisions were performed in 25 minutes.
6 (DAVID PAUL DEUTSCH, M.D.) ACCUSATION NO. 800-2015-018559
23) 11:00 AM-Graft placement by medical technicians was begun. 24) 1:30 PM- Local Anesthesia (Marcaine) is applied to recipient site. 25) 1:35-1:53 PM-Extra recipient site incisions started and completed. 10 26) 2:30 PM-Local anesthesia (Marcaine) applied to donor site. 27) 4:26 PM- Graft placement is completed by medical technicians. 28) 4:40 PM- Keflex 250 mg and prednisone 15 mg given orally.
29) 4:45 PM- Patient released from procedure room.
30) Respondent's operative report contains the following entries: hair
transplant to front, top, back; patient satisfied; and, donor tissue removed. Report contained the additional information that "Patient tolerated the procedure well without distress. Patient verbalized his understanding of all meds and post-op instruction. Stable for
discharge per [Respondent].”
F. Post-Operative Time Line:
1) August 19, 2015, at 9:00 PM- Respondent documented that he called
patient and patient reported "no problems." Patient 1, however, reported that he was experiencing pain and had only received 3 or 4 ..
pain pills.11 2) August 21, 2015, Patient 1 did not present for "hair wash.” 3) August 21, 2015-Patient called Respondent, complaining of pain and
swelling. 4) September 22, 2015- A Bosley Medical Group employee telephoned
Patient 1. Patient 1 did not answer. A message was left but Patient 1
did not return call. 5) September 27, 2015—Patient 1 emailed Respondent, complaining of
pain, numbness, and no growth. 6) November 12, 2015-Respondent advised by his attorney that Patient 1
10 640 surgical excisions were performed in 18 minutes.
11 Respondent's records indicate that Patient 1 received 12 Vicodin tablets and three. Ambien tablets..
(DAVID PAUL DEUTSCH, M.D.) ACCUSATION NO. 800-2015-018559
failed to make timely payments to the financing company. 7) November 12, 2015-Respondent's attorney was contacted by Patient 1
with complaints of pain. Patient 1 advised to see Respondent. 8) December 9 through 17, 2015-several failed attempts by Patient 1 to
see Respondent. On December 14, Respondent left a voicemail message for Patient 1. On December 15, 2015, Respondent spoke to Patient 1 by telephone. Respondent reassured Patient 1 that his issues
would resolve. G. The following acts and omissions, considered individually and collectively,
constitute extreme departures from the standard of care.
2)
Allowing Patient 1 only 10 minutes to give his informed consent. Not having Patient 1 execute the financial agreements prior to surgery and outside the waiting room. Performing 2,900 grafts after advising Patient 1 that the maximum number of grafts would be 2,800. Having non-medical personnel, consultants and technicians diagnosing hair loss and recommending hair restoration surgery. Having non-medical personnel insert hair follicles. Performing surgery without performing a physical examination.
5)
6)
SECOND CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE
(Repeated Negligent Acts) 9. Respondent David Paul Deutsch, M.D. is subject to disciplinary action under Business and Professions Code section 2234, subdivision (c), in that he committed repeated negligent acts during the care, treatment and management of patients, as follows:
A. Complainant refers to and, by this reference, incorporates herein paragraph 8,
above, as though fully set forth.
S
.
B. The following acts and omissions constitute departures from the standard of care.
2)
Allowing Patient 1 only 10 minutes to give his informed consent. Not having Patient 1 execute the financial agreements prior to surgery and outside the waiting room.
(DAVID PAUL DEUTSCH, M.D.) ACCUSATION NO. 800-2015-018559
3)
4) ·
01
Performing 2,900 grafts after advising Patient 1 that the maximum number of grafts would be 2,800. Having non-medical personnel, consultants and technicians, diagnosing hair loss and recommending hair restoration surgery. Having non-medical personnel insert hair follicles. Performing surgery without performing a physical examination.
5) 6)
THIRD CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE
(Aiding and Abetting the Unlicensed Practice of Medicine) 10. Respondent David Paul Deutsch, M.D. is subject to disciplinary action under
Business and Professions Code section 2264, in that he aided and abetted unlicensed individuals
to engage in the practice of medicine, as follows:
A. Complainant refers to and, by this reference, incorporates herein paragraph 8,
above, as though fully set forth.
FOURTH CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE
(Unprofessional Conduct)
11. Respondent David Paul Deutsch, M.D. is subject to disciplinary action under Business and Professions Code section 2234, generally, in that he committed unprofessional conduct during the care, treatment and management of Patient 1, as follows: .
A. Complainant refers to and, by this reference, incorporates herein paragraph 8,
above, as though fully set forth.
//
(DAVID PAUL DEUTSCH, M.D.) ACCUSATION NO. 800-2015-018559
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, Complainant requests that a hearing be held on the matters herein alleged, and that following the hearing, the Medical Board of California issue a decision:
1. Revoking or suspending Physician's and Surgeon's Certificate Number G 83289, || issued to David Paul Deutsch, M.D.; 61 2. Revoking, suspending or denying approval of David Paul Deutsch, M.D.'s authority
| to supervise physician assistants and advanced practice nurses; 8 3. Ordering David Paul Deutsch, M.D., if placed on probation, to pay the Board the
costs of probation monitoring; and, 10 | . 4. Taking such other and further action as deemed necessary and proper.
DATED: August 8, 2018
KIMBERLY KIRCHMEY Executive Director Medical Board of California Department of Consumer Affairs State of California
Complainant
LA2018501481 52960574.docx
10
(DAVID PAUL DEUTSCH, M.D.) ACCUSATION NO. 800-2015-018559


3 years have passed and I have been unable to get the resolution I need from these acts of malice against me. My wife has left me due to not being attracted to me anymore and I blame Bosley for this. Yes, I was starting to bald, but I was not looking like Frankenstein like I am now. I have a massive scar across the back of my head, from ear to ear. My hairline looks like a dolls hairline and I constantly wear a hat. I do not attend church anymore due to the looks I would get from wearing a hat while in service.
Since my surgery, my life has been upside down and I am asking your help to alleviate my suffering. The only way I can see to fix this is to have Bosley pay for me to get another surgery from another doctor as well as pay some punitive damages. Thank you for considering my request for relief.
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 | Consumer / citizen | Members of the public, age 18 + | PeopleClaim online mediators | Balding Men
Poll opened: 09 Dec 2018
Current jury pool: 53
Status: Voting in progress
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: 92
Status: Voting in progress
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: 148
Status: Voting in progress
(Toyota Of Longview did not negotiate fairly)
Description
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.
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: 81
Status: Voting in progress
(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: 136
Status: Voting in progress
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: 147
Status: Voting in progress
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: 196
Status: Voting in progress
(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: 322
Status: Voting in progress
(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: 258
Status: Voting in progress
(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: 194
Status: Voting in progress
(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: 212
Status: Voting in progress
(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: 197
Status: Voting in progress
(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: 316
Status: Voting in progress
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: 353
Status: Voting in progress
(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: 257
Status: Voting in progress
(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: 367
Status: Voting in progress
(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: 328
Status: Voting in progress
(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: 340
Status: Voting in progress
(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: 4117
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.