Cases

A fantasy football league constitution gives the commissioner authority to review all trades. In week 6, the last-place manager trades a star running back to a contender for a bench player and a future pick. The commissioner vetoes it, citing competitive balance: the deal would lock the contender into the playoffs and gut the struggling manager roster. Neither manager is colluding; the last-place owner genuinely believes the pick has value and wants to reshuffle. There is no cheating, no side deal, no collusion. The only question is whether the veto was legitimate enforcement of league integrity or an overreach that broke a deal two consenting managers had made. What should the ruling be?

A consumer buys a new refrigerator on Saturday. By Tuesday it has stopped cooling. The store refuses a refund, pointing to an obscure warranty clause that excludes coverage for 'improper voltage usage' - even though the unit was plugged into a standard household outlet. The warranty was printed, signed, and handed over at sale; the consumer read the bold headings and skimmed the rest. In many jurisdictions, statutes like the Consumer Act of the Philippines and the implied warranty of merchantability say goods must be fit for ordinary use no matter what a written form says. This trial asks who bears the risk when a product fails almost immediately after purchase: the seller who drafted and printed the exclusion, or the buyer who accepted a contract they could not realistically negotiate? The debate is about whether the literal text of a warranty always binds, or whether an implied guarantee of a working product should prevail when the text defeats the very purpose of the sale.

Mental health platforms increasingly use AI to triage patients — assessing urgency, recommending care pathways, and sometimes flagging crisis risk. Unlike a physical exam where a doctor explains their reasoning, these tools output recommendations without communicating uncertainty. A low-confidence assessment of a high-risk patient could delay care; a high-confidence false positive could overwhelm crisis services. The question: should these systems be legally required to display their confidence interval or uncertainty metric to the patient before the patient acts on the recommendation?

Many consumers buying a used car across EU borders assume the remaining manufacturer warranty transfers with the vehicle. In practice, most automotive OEMs restrict warranty coverage to the country of first registration, and cross-border private sales void the warranty entirely. Yet platforms like mobile.de, AutoScout24, and Marktplaats do not flag this in their listings. A buyer in Amsterdam purchasing a 2023 Volkswagen from a Munich-based private seller has no way to know that the 2-year manufacturer warranty is already void until they file a claim. This case asks: should platforms be required to disclose warranty status and cross-border limitations at the point of listing?