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.

RHUCoin reward
Vote: 5 RHU
Consensus bonus: 20 RHU
Total RHUCoin pool: 10,000 RHU
Eligibility: People in Miami Florida
Poll opened: 12 Nov 2018
Poll closes: 30 Nov 2018
Current jury pool: 1
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: 152
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: 267
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: 225
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: 166
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: 188
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: 174
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: 292
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: 332
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: 241
Status: Voting in progress
According to the San Francisco Chronicle and other local and national media, San Francisco’s school board elections will be open to non-citizen residents beginning November, 2018. The city joins Chicago and a few Massachusetts and Maryland cities that currently allow non-citizens to register and vote in school or other local elections. Cities enacting these policies are affirming that non-citizen parents of children in the school system are stakeholders and have given them a voice in the electoral process. This Public Fairness Assessment asks to what extent voting rights for non-citizens should be adopted elsewhere.
  • In all elections
  • State or local elections only
  • Never
RHUCoin reward
Vote: 5 RHU
Consensus bonus: 15 RHU
Total RHUCoin pool: 50,000 RHU
Eligibility: Democrat | Independent | Non-US citizen | Prefer not to say | Republican
Poll opened: 24 Jul 2018
Poll closes: 31 Aug 2018
Current jury pool: 270
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: 350
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: 308
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: 315
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: 4069
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
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.