Cases

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?

A growing number of climate fiction grants, residencies, and publication contracts flow through institutions that also hold fossil fuel investments. Universities with petroleum-endowed chairs sponsor climate literature prizes. Media conglomerates that own both publishing imprints and oil leases promote cli-fi lists. Individual authors may receive speaking fees from energy conferences, or their publishers may have parent companies with extraction portfolios. This case asks: when a writer engages directly with the climate crisis, does the reader have a right to know about material ties to the fossil fuel economy? Or would mandatory disclosure create a chilling effect, punishing authors who work within imperfect institutions while letting the real structural problem remain unaddressed? Side 1 — Yes, full disclosure required: Readers deserve to know when a climate story is produced within a funding ecosystem tied to the very industry driving the crisis. Transparency is a baseline condition for narrative integrity and epistemic trust. Side 2 — No, disclosure is performative: Individual disclosures do nothing to change institutional funding structures. They burden authors — especially emerging ones with fewer platform options — while leaving the real sources of extraction unexamined. Focus on structural reform, not author-level transparency. Side 3 — Tiered disclosure: Require disclosure of direct fossil fuel industry funding to the author (speaking fees, prizes, sponsorships). Require only a generic institutional affiliation statement for university or press-level ties. Let a funder or publisher review panel adjudicate edge cases.