Jump to content
Main menu
Main menu
move to sidebar
hide
Navigation
Main page
Categories
Random page
Top Contributors
Recent changes
Contribute
Create a page
How to help
Wiki policy
Adapt videos to articles
Articles in need of work
Help
Frequently asked questions
Join the discord!
Help about MediaWiki
Consumer_Action_Taskforce
Search
Search
Appearance
Create account
Log in
Personal tools
Create account
Log in
Pages for logged out editors
learn more
Contributions
Talk
Editing
Talk:Uber EULA precludes jury trial
(section)
Add topic
Page
Discussion
English
Read
Edit source
View history
Tools
Tools
move to sidebar
hide
Actions
Read
Edit source
Add topic
View history
Purge cache
General
What links here
Related changes
Special pages
Page information
Cargo data
Appearance
move to sidebar
hide
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
== Initial Draft == I've created an initial article for this case. A couple of particular points where some input would be valuable: # Citations. The article is entirely based on the appellate court opinion. I tried to be sure to include cites to specific quotes in particular, but I also didn't want to have a reference after every sentence. I haven't found anything on the wiki that indicates how to handle citations (sentence level, paragraph level, etc.). # Broader implications. This case is pretty typical, I think, and was unpublished to boot (meaning this decision itself cannot be used as precedent in other cases). Discussing the broader implications also gets kind of tricky, at least while keeping it within the scope of a single article. For example, this case relied almost entirely on (New Jersey) state law, so a lot more research would be needed before I would be comfortable linking it to any kind of broader legal trend. :Hi there! Thank you for the excellent article. With regards to your first point, I've raised the question in the admin chat and we'll confirm our policy in the coming days. With regards to the question of broader implications, it's not worth going into too much detail, especially if it would involve you doing your own legal analysis/interpretation (which is obviously not appropriate). On the other hand, mentioning those two facts you've said here (that the case was in new Jersey state cours, and that the verdict was unpublished) would be perfectly reasonable, as long as you don't go into too much detail. You can link the word unpublished to the Wikipedia article covering the legal concept to give the reader some context. :(also, I've removed the need for you to fill in captchas! hopefully that should make life easier) [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 21:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Summary:
Please note that all contributions to Consumer_Action_Taskforce are considered to be released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (see
Consumer Action Taskforce:Copyrights
for details). If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource.
Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!
To protect the wiki against automated edit spam, we kindly ask you to solve the following hCaptcha:
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)