MJH Life Sciences puts profit ahead of people and the environment

Earn 5 RHU points per vote and 20 RHU points bonus for consensus voters

Current jury size: 04|02 voting options

Join the Case

Advocating this case

For Claimant: Shridansh Tripathi, Destiny Evbaguehita Ehigiator
For Offender: fateme sarkheil

Choose one or more:

I’m a:

Directory Great. Go to the case and vote

Advocate Opening Statements:

Opening Statement from Shridansh Tripathi advocating "Claimant"

Thank you. Before I even get into the facts of this case, I want you to just picture it for a second.

Imagine getting a letter in the mail, not once, not twice, but every single month, for three years......that you never asked for. Now imagine you've tried to stop it. You call the number on the letter....... it's dead. You email them... silence. You email them again... nothing. And then, one day, you finally get a reply, 'Yes, we've removed your address, you might get one more issue.' Relief, right? Finally. No.....except it doesn't stop. It just keeps coming.

And then, this is the part that really gets me.......this isn't just any magazine. It's a magazine about cancer. And it shows up at my client's door, right after they lost a family member to cancer. After they had already written to this company, begging them to stop, explaining exactly why it hurt. And they were ignored. Again.

Now, I want you to sit with that for a second because that's not bad luck. That's not a coincidence. That is what happens when a company simply......stops caring whether you exist as a person, and only cares whether you exist as a number on a circulation report they sell to advertisers.

Here's what makes this case simple, logically speaking: my client did everything right. They called. They emailed. They followed up. They even got a written promise. Three years of good faith, met with silence, broken promises, and more mail. At what point does 'oops, our mistake' stop being an excuse? I'd argue that point came a long time ago, somewhere around year two, or maybe when they promised removal in writing and broke that promise too.

This case isn't about punishing a company for making a mistake. Everyone makes mistakes. This is about a company that had every opportunity, dozens of them, over three years, to simply listen, and chose not to. My client isn't asking for damages. They're not asking for a payout. All they've ever asked for, from the very beginning, is to be heard, and to be left alone.

That's not a big ask. That's the bare minimum. So I'll leave you with just one question. Somewhere out there, someone else is opening their mailbox right now, staring at a magazine they never asked for, dialing a number that doesn't work, sending an email into the void, wondering if anyone on the other side is even listening. Today, you get to answer that question for them. Not just for my client. For every single person MJH has ignored, and every person they will ignore, unless someone finally says enough.

Upvote (1) Downvote (0) Report abuse

Opening Statement from fateme sarkheil advocating "Offender"

MJH has made significant efforts to raise public awareness about one of the most critical public health issues: cancer. It provides this information to the public free of charge, and the Claimant has never paid any subscription fee for receiving the magazine.

Although MJH should have handled the request to remove the Claimant from its mailing list more effectively, I do not believe it is fair to impose a fine for this procedural failure, especially when there was no intention to cause harm and the magazine’s purpose is to inform and educate the public.

However, I fully understand the emotional pain caused by receiving the magazine after the loss of a family member to cancer. As a meaningful response, MJH could dedicate an editorial to honoring the deceased person and celebrating their life, while sincerely apologizing for the distress caused.

This would acknowledge the Claimant’s feelings while providing a fair and proportionate resolution.

Upvote (0) Downvote (0) Report abuse

View all opening statements

Deliberation

Comments (2) Solutions (2) All (4)

Sort by

Comment:

Submit

Comment: A Serine, 08-11-2026

The Claimant repeatedly asked MJH Life Sciences to stop sending the magazine, but the company failed to resolve the issue. This caused unnecessary inconvenience and costs. We believe the company should stop the mailings, apologize, and prevent this from happening again

Reply Upvote (0)Downvote (0)Report abuse

Proposed solution: Destiny Evbaguehita Ehigiator, Advocating for Claimant, 08-11-2026

The claimant should be compensated for the inconvenience suffered and actually stop sending the magazine to the Claimant

Reply Upvote (1)Downvote (0)Report abuse

Proposed solution: Fateme sarkheil, Advocating for Offender, 08-11-2026

Reply Upvote (0)Downvote (0)Report abuse

Reply: Maeve Green, 08-18-2026

The magazine is not a charity. It's a money-making venture and it would make less money if its circulation figures were lower. I appreciate your compassion but unfortunately I can't agree that this is a benign company.

Reply Upvote (0)Downvote (0)Report abuse

Comment: Tia Se, 08-05-2026

The respondent does not dispute that the claimant found the continued delivery of the magazine frustrating and, in light of their personal circumstances, distressing. However, the issue before this Tribunal is not whether the outcome was unfortunate, but whether the respondent's conduct was legally or morally blameworthy.

The evidence does not establish that the respondent acted in bad faith, deliberately ignored the claimant's requests, or intended to cause distress. It establishes, at most, that an administrative failure persisted. The Tribunal is therefore invited to ask: Is there evidence of deliberate disregard, or only of an error? Has the claimant proved misconduct, or merely an unfortunate outcome? And should liability be imposed in the absence of evidence of intentional or reckless conduct?

The respondent respectfully submits that fairness requires those questions to be answered before any finding of liability is made.

Reply Upvote (0)Downvote (0)Report abuse

Reply: Maeve Green, 08-18-2026

When an administrative failure is repeated, in my opinion it is a strategy.

Reply Upvote (0)Downvote (0)Report abuse

Submit vote Vote on more cases

MJH Life Sciences puts profit ahead of people and the environment

Advocating this case

Deliberation

MJH Life Sciences puts profit ahead of people and the environment

Want to be an advocate in this case?