Talk:Uber EULA precludes jury trial - Revision history

Sojourna: /* Initial Draft */

2026-04-25T00:19:47Z

Initial Draft

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:19, 25 April 2026
Line 7:		Line 7:
	# 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 This case is pretty typical, I think, and was unpublished to boot (meaning this decision itself cannot be used as precedent in other cases).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.		# 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 This case is pretty typical, I think, and was unpublished to boot (meaning this decision itself cannot be used as precedent in other cases).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mentioning those two facts you've said here (that the case was in new Jersey state cours, and that the verdict was unpublished) would be perfectly reasonable, as long as you don't go into too much detail. You can link the word unpublished to the Wikipedia article covering the legal concept to give the reader some context.{{Unsigned\|SirHumphrey}} 20:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)		:Hi there!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mentioning those two facts you've said here (that the case was in new Jersey state cours, and that the verdict was unpublished) would be perfectly reasonable, as long as you don't go into too much detail.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. {{Unsigned\|SirHumphrey\|20:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}}

	:(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)		:(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)

AnotherConsumerRightsPerson at 05:47, 18 October 2025

2025-10-18T05:47:29Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:47, 18 October 2025
Line 7:		Line 7:
	# 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.		# 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.{{Unsigned\|SirHumphrey}} 20:43, 22 January 2025		: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.{{Unsigned\|SirHumphrey}} 20:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

	:(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)		:(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)

AnotherConsumerRightsPerson at 05:47, 18 October 2025

2025-10-18T05:47:14Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:47, 18 October 2025
Line 7:		Line 7:
	# 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.		# 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.		: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.{{Unsigned\|SirHumphrey}} 20:43, 22 January 2025

	:(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)		:(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)

Keith at 21:44, 23 January 2025

2025-01-23T21:44:08Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:44, 23 January 2025
Line 6:		Line 6:

	# 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.		# 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)

Mingyee: Mingyee moved page Talk:Uber EULA Precludes Jury Trial to Talk:Uber EULA precludes jury trial

2025-01-23T13:40:36Z

Mingyee moved page Talk:Uber EULA Precludes Jury Trial to Talk:Uber EULA precludes jury trial

← Older revision	Revision as of 13:40, 23 January 2025
(No difference)

SirHumphrey: Notes to initial draft

2025-01-22T20:43:36Z

Notes to initial draft

New page

== 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.