# Practitioner knowledge — Legal Counsel

> **Source & license:** Curated from the Stack Exchange data dump
> `stackexchange_20260331` (community mirror on archive.org). Original questions and
> answers are © their authors, licensed **CC-BY-SA 4.0**; per-entry
> attribution below links each original post and names its author. Summaries
> are SkillFactor's own wording; this compilation is share-alike
> (CC-BY-SA 4.0). Compiled 2026-07-11.


150 curated Q&A insights, grouped by theme, highest community score first.


## Legal

**A junior programmer in Slovakia completed a feature taking twice the estimated time and their employer is refusing payment, citing the overestimation as justification despite being aware of the slower pace throughout development.**

In EU countries like Slovakia, employers must pay for work performed by an employee regardless of whether initial estimates are met. Focusing on the fact that employment occurred – and therefore compensation is due – is more effective than debating the reasons for time spent. This situation also suggests a potentially hostile work environment and highlights the importance of understanding labor laws to protect oneself.

*Source: [Employer doesn't want to pay me because I took longer than estimated to finish t](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/q/91400) — answer by gnasher729, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**The freelancer is being asked by a client to participate in an illegal scam, and the client is threatening to withhold payment for completed work if they refuse. They are concerned about both losing money *and* enabling harm to potential victims.**

Prioritize ethical conduct and personal/legal protection above recovering potentially lost funds. Thoroughly document all evidence of the planned scam as it can be used both to prevent the crime and support a claim for payment. Seeking legal counsel is crucial to navigate this situation safely and effectively, ensuring you are shielded from potential repercussions while pursuing rightful compensation.

*Source: [Client wants me to do something explicitly illegal](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/q/148483) — answer by Sourav Ghosh, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**The user rediscovered a significant amount of Bitcoin purchased years ago with no record of the original transaction, and is concerned about the legal and tax implications of selling it.**

When dealing with previously acquired assets lacking documentation, report the full current value as capital gains with a zero cost basis. Spreading out sales over multiple tax years and consulting a qualified tax professional can mitigate audit risk. While large, unexpected income may attract scrutiny, simply realizing a profit from an asset's appreciation is not illegal.

*Source: [Found a heap of BTC but have no documentation. What do I do?](https://money.stackexchange.com/q/81518) — answer by quid, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**An employee received a strange contract from a recruiter *after* starting a new job, demanding updates on technical work and claiming partial ownership of created software – conflicting with their employment agreement.**

Trust your instincts when something feels wrong with a contract, especially after the initial hiring process is complete. Immediately involve your manager or HR to handle unusual requests from external parties; they are best equipped to protect company interests and address potential conflicts. This situation highlights the importance of clear boundaries between recruitment agencies and the companies they serve, particularly regarding intellectual property.

*Source: [Recruiter demanding I sign dodgy paperwork after joining job](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/q/87695) — answer by SliderBlackrose, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**The questioner received an NDA for a potential project that includes a clause potentially requiring them to pay legal fees even if found not in violation, and is unsure whether to push back on this unfavorable term.**

Don't hesitate to directly address concerning contract terms with the other party; clearly state your concerns and unwillingness to sign as-is. Unreasonable clauses often indicate an unprofessional or overly aggressive approach from the company’s legal counsel. Prioritize protecting yourself by refusing to accept terms that place undue risk on you, regardless of verbal assurances.

*Source: [Should I sign a NDA that holds me liable for legal fees even if I am in the righ](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/q/150087) — answer by gnasher729, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**A tenant in Quebec had their rent cheque stolen from their landlord while en route to the bank and is unsure if they are still responsible for paying, despite not being at fault.**

Legal obligations regarding payment remain even when issues arise during the transfer of funds. While the loss wasn't the tenant’s responsibility, the rental agreement requires rent payment; therefore, a new cheque is necessary. It *is* reasonable to negotiate reimbursement for any fees incurred due to mitigating the situation (like stop-payment fees) from the landlord.

*Source: [Rent cheque was stolen from landlord - am I obligated to pay again?](https://money.stackexchange.com/q/95596) — answer by TTT, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**The user's friend frequently asks them to receive money transfers (Western Union/Moneygram) on their behalf and pass the cash along, raising concerns about potential legal issues.**

This situation strongly suggests involvement in illicit activity, potentially using the user as an unknowing participant – a 'money mule'. Accepting funds from unknown sources and transferring them to another party creates significant personal risk. It's crucial to establish firm boundaries with friends regarding financial transactions, even if no wrongdoing is immediately apparent, and prioritize protecting oneself legally.

*Source: [A friend asks me all the time to pick up money for her (Western Union, Moneygram](https://money.stackexchange.com/q/94785) — answer by Ben Miller, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**The questioner was a passenger in a car driven by a coworker who was arrested for DUI after a company-affiliated softball game, and now faces a meeting with HR because the coworker disclosed the incident to the company.**

While there wasn't an initial obligation to report this off-duty incident, proactively volunteering information beyond what is asked can be perceived negatively in a professional setting. It’s generally best to answer questions truthfully but avoid offering unsolicited details that could create unnecessary concern or imply poor judgment. Focus on being responsive rather than preemptively disclosing potentially damaging information.

*Source: [Coworker, driving drunk, was arrested; I was his passenger. Do I tell employer?](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/q/91603) — answer by Leon, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**The questioner needs to take time off work to testify as a crucial witness in a US criminal trial related to a crime they were also a victim of, but their manager is hesitant due to workload and staffing constraints.**

When facing resistance to fulfilling a civic duty like legal testimony, leverage the formal legal process by requesting a subpoena. This shifts the responsibility from personal request to legal obligation, protecting both your job and your ability to participate in justice. While potentially creating friction, it establishes clear grounds for protected leave and recourse if adverse employment actions are taken.

*Source: [How can I convince my manager to allow me to take leave to be a prosecution witn](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/q/188637) — answer by Joe Strazzere, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**A developer was asked by their boss to violate the terms of service of a paid API by storing data they are not permitted to cache, creating potential legal and financial risks for the company.**

When directed to take unethical or illegal action at work, proactively document the request in writing – ideally with confirmation from the requesting party – and store that documentation securely outside of company systems. This creates a verifiable record protecting you from being falsely blamed if issues arise later. While escalation is an option, understand each path (internal reporting, external authorities, or direct contact with the API provider) carries its own risks and potential consequences.

*Source: [Boss wants me to ignore a software API license](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/q/142049) — answer by 520 says Reinstate Monica, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**An employee accepted a new role with an agreed-upon salary increase, but the company is now attempting to rescind the raise claiming it's a lateral move and therefore undeserved.**

While legal counsel should be consulted regarding potential violations, this situation signals a significant lack of integrity from the employer. Prioritizing self-preservation and career growth means actively seeking alternative employment opportunities despite the inconvenience. Accepting such treatment sets a negative precedent and demonstrates a willingness to tolerate disrespect, potentially impacting future professional experiences.

*Source: [My new job came with a pay raise that is being rescinded](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/q/167666) — answer by Neo, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**The questioner is confused by criticism of the Unlicense, which attempts to dedicate software to the public domain with a fallback permissive license clause. They ask why it's considered problematic compared to more established licenses like MIT/BSD.**

The Unlicense’s primary issue isn’t its brevity, but its lack of international legal robustness. While intending to release code into the public domain, this is not universally legally possible and the license doesn't account for varying national laws. Its broad language and attempt to cover multiple legal bases simultaneously create inconsistencies and unpredictable enforceability, meaning it hasn't been fully 'compiled' for different legal systems.

*Source: [What is wrong with the Unlicense?](https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/q/147111) — answer by blueberryfields, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**An employee discovered coworkers stealing tools from locked lockers using a hidden camera and is unsure whether to report the theft to management or the union, fearing potential repercussions for the thieves.**

Prioritize reporting misconduct to company management despite past missteps in handling the situation; taking matters into one's own hands can damage credibility. While concern for colleagues is understandable, protecting dishonest behavior undermines trust and workplace morale. Acknowledge poor initial judgment when approaching leadership, offering a reasonable explanation for delayed reporting, and allow them to handle internal investigations rather than involving external authorities.

*Source: [Should I report this workplace thievery?](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/q/64375) — answer by Lilienthal, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**A web developer received an employment contract with a five-year non-compete clause that severely restricts future job opportunities within his field, potentially limiting his career options even after leaving the company.**

Always carefully review and understand all terms of an employment contract before signing. If unacceptable clauses exist, attempt to negotiate their removal or modification; be prepared for the possibility of losing the offer if your changes are not accepted. Document any agreed-upon alterations with initials and retain a copy of the final agreement for personal records.

*Source: [How to handle a "non-compete clause" on the employment contract?](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/q/126200) — answer by Joe Strazzere, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**The asker's partner worked for four weeks at a corner store with a verbal promise of weekly pay at living wage, but has not received any payment and never received a written contract despite repeated requests.**

Even without a formal signed agreement, an implied contract exists simply through the exchange of labor for expected compensation. The priority should be pursuing legal action via small claims court to recover earned wages. Additionally, reporting the situation to the tax authority (HMRC) can create further pressure on the employer and potentially uncover other issues.

*Source: [Not paid for work, contract promised but not given](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/q/114229) — answer by gnasher729, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**An employee is being asked by their company to submit pre-employment research for review and control media interactions, going beyond what was outlined in the initial employment agreement. This includes demands not found in any documented policy.**

Companies prioritize protecting their reputation, and anything associated with an employee – even work done before hiring – can reflect on them publicly. While it's frustrating when expectations shift, understanding the PR department’s risk mitigation perspective is crucial; they need to ensure published material doesn't damage the company brand.  Negotiation should focus on acknowledging this concern while pushing back on overly restrictive or undocumented demands, but complete refusal may be perceived as a lack of willingness to protect shared interests.

*Source: [Company requiring me to let them review research from before I was hired](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/q/140900) — answer by Philip Kendall, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**The asker received an offer to photograph and verify the functionality of Bitcoin ATMs, raising concerns about the legality of such work.**

While technically legal aspects are uncertain, this task is almost certainly connected to illicit activity like ATM skimming. Legitimate businesses already possess this information through established channels; requesting a third party to collect it is a major red flag. Prioritize avoiding ambiguous job offers with vague explanations and be wary of tasks that seem overly secretive or unusual.

*Source: [Is it legal to photograph and test ATMs?](https://money.stackexchange.com/q/120257) — answer by linksassin, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**A junior developer in Germany received a departure checklist from their employer that included a clause allowing continued, unrestricted access to their work email account after leaving, raising concerns about legality and GDPR implications.**

Company-owned communication channels like email are considered business property, not private correspondence, so employers have a legitimate need to maintain access post-employment for essential information retrieval. Signing the agreement simply formalizes the transfer of ownership and prevents potential issues with ongoing business communications or impersonation. While it's wise to review such clauses carefully, refusing reasonable access to company resources is generally not advisable during offboarding.

*Source: [Employer wants to use my work email account after I quit, is this legal under Ge](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/q/138765) — answer by Pudora, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**An interviewer was offered code samples from a candidate’s current employer and questioned whether accepting them was ethical or advisable, considering potential intellectual property issues.**

The core advice is to immediately disqualify the candidate offering proprietary code without clear justification. This behavior demonstrates a lack of professional judgment regarding intellectual property rights and raises serious concerns about how they would handle confidential information if hired. Prioritizing strong ethics and respect for IP is crucial when evaluating potential employees, especially in software development.

*Source: [Interviewee offered code samples from current employer -- should I accept?](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/q/78288) — answer by enderland, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**A company fears negative repercussions from being publicly associated with a controversial individual who wants to invest heavily in their stock. They want to know if they can legally prevent this person from buying shares.**

Publicly traded companies generally cannot block individuals from purchasing stock on the open market, as ownership resides with existing shareholders. While large purchases trigger SEC reporting requirements and potential scrutiny regarding intent (investment vs. control), these regulations don't grant a company veto power over who buys their shares. The company can only advise its current shareholders against selling to the unwanted investor, but cannot enforce such a restriction.

*Source: [Can a company block a specific person from buying its stock?](https://money.stackexchange.com/q/75514) — answer by zeta-band, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**An information security professional was asked by management to conduct potentially illegal and unethical data gathering on individuals who publicly criticized their company, creating a conflict between job security and personal/legal integrity.**

Requests that venture into legally sensitive areas like data collection require careful scrutiny beyond simply following orders. Prioritize understanding the legal implications of any task, especially when it involves personal information, and seek guidance from qualified legal counsel before proceeding. Documenting concerns and obtaining a formal opinion can provide crucial protection and justification for refusing unethical or unlawful requests.

*Source: [Should I do something unethical/possibly illegal if asked by management?](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/q/141964) — answer by Gregory Currie, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**A software engineer discovered confidential pricing information about their company and a client publicly available on the client’s website through a simple web search.**

When encountering potentially sensitive issues outside of your direct responsibilities – especially those involving clients or legal matters – escalate them to management immediately. Avoid direct communication with external parties, as you may not understand all relevant relationships or potential consequences. Your role is to identify and report the issue, allowing those with appropriate authority and context to handle it effectively.

*Source: [I stumbled across a confidential company document on a client's public website. ](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/q/65380) — answer by Lilienthal, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**The questioner discovered their consulting company is misrepresenting its security practices to clients, creating a significant discrepancy between advertised policies and actual operations, and they fear potential repercussions.**

This situation represents a serious ethical and legal risk due to the false claims being made. The core issue isn't just poor security, but active misrepresentation which could lead to legal action like subpoenas if discovered by clients. Proactively seeking independent legal advice is crucial to understand personal liability and navigate this potentially damaging scenario.

*Source: [Company doesn't follow security policies advertised to clients](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/q/105378) — answer by BirdLawExpert, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**A junior programmer in Slovakia completed a feature taking twice the estimated time and their employer is refusing payment, citing the overestimation as justification despite being aware of the slower pace throughout development.**

In EU countries like Slovakia, employers must pay for work performed by an employee regardless of whether initial estimates are met. Focusing on the fact that employment occurred – and therefore compensation is due – is more effective than debating the reasons for time spent. This situation also suggests a potentially hostile work environment and highlights the importance of understanding labor laws to protect oneself.

*Source: [Employer doesn't want to pay me because I took longer than estimated to finish t](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/q/91400) — answer by luk32, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**An employee resigning from a job is being told their final paycheck (including earned vacation time) will be withheld until they sign additional paperwork, likely an NDA, despite having no prior discussion about this during employment.**

When facing unreasonable demands for signing agreements as a condition of receiving legally owed wages, calmly and professionally assert your rights. Clearly state the legal requirement to receive outstanding pay within the mandated timeframe while reassuring them you have no intention of misusing confidential information. Prioritize direct communication (though documentation is helpful) to gauge their reaction and potentially negotiate, but be prepared to escalate to a labor claim if necessary without incurring significant legal costs.

*Source: [Employer demanding I sign additional paperwork before final pay check](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/q/87567) — answer by Lilienthal, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**An employee resigned from their job after experiencing abusive management and is now being asked to repay approximately $66,000 due to an alleged pay error three years prior – a significantly higher salary than originally intended that they were never corrected on.**

When an employer avoids formal written communication regarding financial demands, it's often a red flag indicating potentially unlawful or questionable practices. Holding final pay and vacation time as leverage for repayment can be considered wage theft, which carries serious legal consequences for companies and even individual directors. It’s crucial to seek legal counsel before agreeing to any payment plan, as prolonged overpayment may not be legally recoverable, and asserting your rights could prevent further escalation.

*Source: [Employer demanding money back when I resigned because of "accidental pay raise"](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/q/147132) — answer by Matthew Gaiser, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**The lead instructor is concerned about insufficient break times for their team at a high ropes course, balancing legal requirements and safety needs with limited staffing and management constraints.**

Prioritizing employee wellbeing through adequate breaks isn't just legally sound, it’s crucial for maintaining focus and preventing accidents in a safety-critical role. The solution likely requires investment – either temporarily pausing operations to allow simultaneous breaks or increasing staff numbers to cover the time lost when individuals are on break. Framing this as an insurance cost against potential incidents or legal issues can help justify the expense to management.

*Source: [How can I solve our insufficient breaks without negatively impacting availabilit](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/q/102904) — answer by Dan Pichelman, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**A new manager is facing disruptive behavior from an employee who claims her religious beliefs are the reason she refuses to collaborate respectfully with a coworker and now actively insults him.**

An individual’s religious beliefs do not excuse unprofessional or harassing behavior in the workplace. While employees are entitled to their personal beliefs, they must adhere to established standards of conduct when interacting with colleagues; simply put, freedom of belief does not equate to freedom from accountability for harmful actions. Managers should address unacceptable behavior directly and, if uncomfortable doing so themselves, involve HR to reinforce professional expectations.

*Source: [Conflict between one employee's claim of religious freedom and another's sexual ](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/q/94610) — answer by Joe Strazzere, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**The user closed their bank account over a month ago and has not received the promised check for the remaining balance, despite repeated attempts to resolve the issue with the bank's customer service and branch management.**

When standard customer service fails to address a financial error, escalating the issue to the bank’s regulatory body is often the most effective solution. Banks prioritize avoiding scrutiny from regulators, making this approach a powerful way to gain attention and prompt action. Knowing your rights and being prepared to formally dispute the matter demonstrates seriousness and can expedite resolution.

*Source: [Closed account, haven't received payment. When has the bank "stolen" my money?](https://money.stackexchange.com/q/62886) — answer by JohnFx, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**The user is asked to create a safety poster with images their boss found online, but they are concerned about copyright infringement. Their initial concerns were dismissed by the manager.**

When raising difficult issues with superiors after being initially ignored, frame your concern as offering a solution rather than simply pointing out a problem. Taking ownership of finding an alternative demonstrates initiative and makes it easier for the manager to accept the validity of your point. Ultimately, you must weigh the potential consequences against your ethical concerns if the issue persists.

*Source: [How do I approach my boss about licensing concerns he has already dismissed once](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/q/73937) — answer by gvo, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**The asker's friend is using a complex system of transfers via Venmo/Paypal and checks between himself and his girlfriend to make minimum payments on high-balance credit cards, essentially borrowing from one card to pay another.**

While technically not always illegal, this 'debt shifting' tactic is ultimately costly due to fees and accruing interest; it addresses the symptom of cash flow but not the underlying debt problem. A more effective strategy involves securing stable income, consolidating debts at a lower rate, and establishing a clear repayment plan focused on reducing the principal balance. Avoiding deceptive intent is key, as banks could pursue legal action if they suspect fraudulent activity.

*Source: [Is it legal to use cash pulled from a credit card to pay the monthly payment on ](https://money.stackexchange.com/q/111852) — answer by Rocky, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**The user is concerned their employer's work laptop is monitoring activity on their personal devices while working from home, triggered by alerts when using translation websites.**

While outright hacking would be illegal under EU law, the issue likely stems from a misconfigured or interconnected home network setup rather than malicious employer surveillance. Shared accounts and VPN connections can create data synchronization between devices, appearing as monitoring when it's simply information sharing. Thoroughly reviewing personal device settings and network configurations is crucial to understand how data flows and protect privacy.

*Source: [Can my employer legally monitor my personal network activity when I'm working fr](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/q/179703) — answer by nvoigt, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**This person is being asked to falsify data using SQL to hide a regulatory violation from authorities, despite knowing it could lead to significant fines for the company. They fear repercussions if they object or comply.**

When faced with unethical and illegal requests at work, prioritizing personal legal protection is crucial. Document everything, seek immediate counsel from an attorney *before* taking any action (or inaction), and understand that refusing participation may result in job loss – a preferable outcome to potential criminal liability. Proactive legal defense is essential when an employer disregards ethical boundaries.

*Source: [What to do if you're asked to break industry regulations?](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/q/46923) — answer by IDrinkandIKnowThings, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**The questioner’s client (a network of colleges) is requesting a method for legally proving consent to receive promotional materials beyond standard database storage, specifically asking about taking screenshots of submitted forms.**

Relying on screenshots as proof of user action is unreliable and introduces more potential for manipulation than simply securing the database. Screenshots can be easily faked or altered, and reconstructing a form's appearance server-side doesn’t guarantee authenticity. The focus should be on robust data storage practices and audit trails within the database itself to demonstrate consent.

*Source: [Form screenshot for legal proof of clicking one of the checkboxes?](https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/q/126513) — answer by Mike Nakis, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**An employee accepted a new role with an agreed-upon salary increase, but the company is now attempting to rescind the raise claiming it's a lateral move and therefore undeserved.**

While legal counsel should be consulted regarding potential violations, this situation signals a significant lack of integrity from the employer. Prioritizing self-preservation and career growth means actively seeking alternative employment opportunities despite the inconvenience. Accepting such treatment sets a negative precedent and demonstrates a willingness to tolerate disrespect, potentially impacting future professional experiences.

*Source: [My new job came with a pay raise that is being rescinded](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/q/167666) — answer by Damila, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**The questioner is confused about how the MIT license's requirement to include copyright and permission notices applies when their open-source library is incorporated into a closed-source, commercial product. They worry this might inadvertently re-license the entire commercial product under the MIT terms.**

The MIT license condition requires attribution – specifically including the original copyright and permissions notice – but *only* for the portion of code covered by the MIT license itself. This doesn't extend the open-source licensing to the larger, closed-source project; it simply clarifies the terms under which the incorporated library can be used. The commercial entity acknowledges the origin of that specific component while maintaining its own proprietary license for the rest of its software.

*Source: [What exactly does the condition in the MIT license imply?](https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/q/178486) — answer by Fenton, CC-BY-SA 4.0*


## Contracts

**The asker is being asked by a former employer to fix a bug in code written during an internship, over a year after the contract ended, while now employed full-time elsewhere.**

Once employment ends, responsibility for maintaining or fixing past work shifts to the employer. While it's commendable to want to help, offering free assistance can devalue your professional skills and potentially create conflicts with your current job. It’s acceptable to politely decline or propose a paid contract, but always prioritize transparency with your present employer before taking on additional work.

*Source: [My previous employer has asked me to fix a bug in code that I wrote for them](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/q/120952) — answer by MikeQ, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**An intern declined a full-time job offer after completing their internship, choosing instead to pursue further education and prioritize personal well-being. Their boss is now attempting to guilt-trip them into staying on longer than their contract requires to help with the transition.**

Prioritize your own needs and commitments, even when facing pressure from others. It's acceptable to firmly but politely push back against manipulative tactics that attempt to create obligation beyond what’s agreed upon. Remember you fulfilled your contractual obligations and are not responsible for managing their staffing issues; redirecting responsibility is a valid response. Ultimately, making difficult decisions aligned with long-term goals is sometimes necessary despite potential disappointment from others.

*Source: [Boss making me feel guilty for leaving the company at the end of my internship](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/q/138285) — answer by Keith, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**A consultant in Italy is facing a pay reduction because their company is refunding a client for the poor work of a previous consultant, and management intends to cover the cost by deducting it from the current consultant's salary.**

Employers cannot unilaterally reduce an employee’s agreed-upon compensation, even to recoup losses from another party. While highlighting issues with prior work is necessary, focusing on problems rather than assigning blame can improve internal communication and avoid escalating conflict. It's crucial to address illegal pay deductions through internal channels (manager, HR) but be prepared to seek legal counsel if the issue isn’t resolved.

*Source: [How can I handle my company docking my pay due to poor quality of previous consu](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/q/90443) — answer by dirkk, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**The asker received a job offer with a letter of intent but is being asked to give notice *before* receiving a formal contract, and is also pressured to start work early and provide a reference from their current employer before signing anything.**

This situation signals potential issues with the new employer's practices. It’s crucial to prioritize securing a signed contract *before* making any commitments like resigning from your current role or performing work, as this protects your professional standing. A reputable employer will understand reasonable requests for contractual security and won't pressure candidates into unusual arrangements before formalizing employment.

*Source: [I've been offered a job, but my new employer won't give me a contract until afte](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/q/89869) — answer by Jimmy Righter, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**The questioner is concerned about two clauses in their German employment contract: one seemingly requiring unlimited unpaid overtime, and another forbidding discussion of salary with colleagues. They want to know if these are legally enforceable.**

German courts have generally found broad 'unpaid overtime' clauses illegal unless the employee is a high earner (over €76,200 annually) *and* the amount of potential overtime is specifically quantified in the contract. Similarly, employers cannot legally prevent employees from discussing their salaries; pay isn’t considered a trade secret and restricting this conversation places an unfair burden on the worker. While these clauses are common in older German contracts due to lack of legal updates, they aren't binding on the employee.

*Source: [Can a German employer force mandatory overtime and forbid salary discussion?](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/q/149134) — answer by nvoigt, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**The user is being asked to sign a non-compete agreement *after* resigning from a company where they never had a formal employment contract, and is questioning if there's any advantage to doing so.**

Signing a post-employment non-compete in this situation offers the individual no benefit and creates potential career restrictions. Legitimate non-competes are typically established *before* employment begins, making this request appear as an attempt to cover legal bases retroactively. If pressured, it's reasonable to negotiate compensation for limiting future opportunities; otherwise, declining to sign is advisable.

*Source: [What benefits are there in signing a non-compete after resigning, with no formal](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/q/122076) — answer by user1666620, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**An employee relocated internationally based on a promised salary increase after three months, which wasn't included in their contract but was confirmed via email; now the employer is reneging due to budget concerns despite continuing other discretionary spending.**

Verbal agreements and promises outside of a written contract are rarely reliable, especially when an employer demonstrates inflexibility during negotiation. It’s crucial to insist on including all key terms in the final contract before making significant life changes based on those terms; walking away from unfavorable conditions is often the strongest course of action. Proactively questioning the longevity of verbal promises and outlining potential consequences can highlight the risk inherent in relying on unwritten commitments, but ultimately, protecting oneself requires a solid contractual foundation.

*Source: [Employer reneged on negotiated clauses that weren't part of agreed contract, cit](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/q/147156) — answer by Stephan Branczyk, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**This person was verbally informed their position is being eliminated due to cost cutting, but asked to submit a resignation letter instead of receiving a formal redundancy notice. They are concerned about doing so without written confirmation of severance details.**

When facing a layoff situation, prioritize securing *written* documentation of all agreements – including severance pay and benefits – before taking any action that could be interpreted as voluntary termination. Accepting a request to resign under these circumstances relinquishes your rights as an employee being made redundant. A reputable employer will clearly outline terms in writing or provide formal notice; demanding resignation first is a significant red flag.

*Source: [Company is making my position redundant due to cost cutting but asking me to sen](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/q/194297) — answer by gnasher729, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**An unpaid intern is being pressured by their manager to complete additional work beyond the original project scope after their internship ends, with a threat of a poor grade impacting their academic record.**

When facing unfair demands or threats during an internship that impact academic credit, prioritize escalating the issue through your educational institution's advising channels. Document everything – initial agreements, timelines, and any coercive communication – to present a clear case for intervention. Treat this like an academic dispute where expectations have unfairly shifted with negative consequences attached, as the university has a vested interest in protecting its students from exploitative situations.

*Source: [Manager is threatening to grade me poorly if I don't complete the project](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/q/135786) — answer by aaaaa says reinstate Monica, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**The asker accepted a job offer from a US company but was unexpectedly asked to switch to a self-employment/consultancy arrangement on their first day due to 'legal and technical reasons,' jeopardizing personal financial plans dependent on stable employment.**

This situation highlights the importance of recognizing red flags in employer behavior, even *after* accepting an offer. A sudden contract change coupled with a lack of accountability and combative communication suggests potential incompetence or dishonesty within the organization. Prioritizing self-protection—potentially through legal counsel—is crucial when facing such a shift, as it indicates a potentially unreliable work environment regardless of negotiation outcomes.

*Source: [UK based, new US employer changed contract on first day. How to handle professio](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/q/66520) — answer by TA_Bamboo, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**An individual completed an unpaid, short-term internship without a contract and is now being asked to sign an NDA covering potentially broad information, including future business plans. They are unsure if refusing to sign would be problematic.**

NDAs are most effective when agreed upon *before* access to confidential information, making this post-internship request unusual and legally questionable. Because the individual already worked at the company, they may have inadvertently shared covered information without realizing it, creating potential liability if they sign now. It's difficult to definitively prove what was or wasn’t disclosed prior to signing, so agreeing could open them up to unforeseen legal risk.

*Source: [Asked to sign an NDA after a one-month internship](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/q/75060) — answer by Martin Tournoij, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**The questioner is wary of 'unlimited vacation' policies, concerned about hidden limits, potential for underutilization due to peer pressure, and how to gauge a company’s true approach to this benefit during the job application process.**

Companies offering 'unlimited' vacation vary wildly in practice – some genuinely encourage time off while others use it as a tactic to discourage taking much at all. Focus on assessing overall company culture *before* accepting an offer, using resources like Glassdoor and probing for related indicators such as work-life balance expectations and project demands.  Directly asking about average vacation days taken after receiving an offer is the best way to understand how the policy functions in reality.

*Source: [How do unlimited vacation days work?](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/q/79500) — answer by Chris G, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**The asker received a counteroffer from their employer after accepting another job, but doesn’t trust the promises made within it due to past experiences with unreliable management decisions.**

When declining a counteroffer based on lack of guaranteed future action, prioritize brevity and politeness over detailed explanations. It's acceptable to simply state that you've decided another opportunity is a better fit without justifying your decision extensively. Employers often anticipate this outcome and won’t necessarily seek deeper reasoning; focusing on a concise message preserves professional relationships.

*Source: [How can you say you don't trust your current employer's counteroffer?](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/q/158759) — answer by Egor, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**An employee accepted an internal job based on a verbally communicated salary that matched the advertised amount, but received a formal offer letter with a lower pay rate after starting the position. They are now facing financial hardship due to relocation expenses.**

Always secure *written* confirmation of key employment terms – like salary – before making significant life changes based on a job offer. Relying solely on verbal agreements leaves you vulnerable, and this situation highlights a potential character flaw in the manager or company culture. While escalating through HR is an option, be prepared to consider alternative employment if trust is broken, as a lack of documentation severely weakens your position.

*Source: [My employer is refusing to give me the pay that was advertised after an internal](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/q/141289) — answer by Firedragon, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**The asker accepted a job offer from someone they met at a networking event and wants to proactively request a written employment agreement outlining key terms (pay, hours, duration) without appearing distrustful, especially given the remote work arrangement.**

Requesting a contract is standard practice for any employment situation and shouldn't be framed as a question of trust. Instead of asking *if* there will be a contract, inquire about *when* you can expect to receive it – this positions it as a natural next step in the onboarding process. A defensive reaction to this simple request could signal potential issues with transparency from the employer.

*Source: [How to ask for employment terms in writing without coming across as not trusting](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/q/158022) — answer by Tode, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**The asker accepted a job offer with a new company but their current employer, surprised by the notice, is requesting they stay on longer to help with the transition and has offered equivalent pay. They are unsure how to approach delaying their start date with the new employer.**

Maintaining professional boundaries is crucial; fulfilling obligations to a departing employer beyond what's contractually agreed upon isn’t advisable. While helpfulness is commendable, an organization's lack of planning for employee turnover shouldn't become the responsibility of the leaving individual. Extending employment often leads to increased workload and diminished morale, hindering career progression and potentially creating regret.

*Source: [Renegotiating a start date on request of current employer (after contract signed](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/q/180625) — answer by Stephan Branczyk, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**The user is considering resigning from their job in the UK to start a new position, but hasn't received a formal employment contract despite having an agreed-upon start date and salary information.**

It’s risky to resign before securing a complete written contract. Prioritize protecting your current employment by delaying notice until all terms are confirmed with the new employer. Clearly communicate your existing notice period requirements to ensure any proposed start date is realistic and legally sound.

*Source: [Should I hand in my notice at my current employer without a contract from my new](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/q/183745) — answer by sf02, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**A contractor completed their portion of a multi-company project but is now being asked by a colleague from another company to help fix that colleague's mistakes on weekends, without compensation, and with pressure due to potential overall project delays.**

Protect your time and professional boundaries; don't perform work you aren't paid for. Redirect requests for unpaid assistance back to the proper management channels within the requesting organization – it’s their responsibility to address resource needs formally. Accepting such requests can be detrimental to all parties involved, including both employers, and reinforces unhealthy workplace dynamics. Once a formal request for paid work is denied, firmly decline further involvement.

*Source: [Having failed to meet the timeline, my collaborator asks for my help and covers ](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/q/173808) — answer by mxyzplk, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**A US company is requesting a 'guarantor' from a potential marketing consultant who would be financially liable for any damages resulting from a breach of her employment contract, even if she resigns due to unfavorable work conditions.**

This request for a guarantor is an extremely unusual and risky practice. It places all the financial burden and subjective interpretation of 'damage' on the guarantor with no reciprocal protection or limitations, creating potentially unlimited liability. A legitimate employer wouldn’t demand such a one-sided agreement; seeking legal counsel before proceeding is crucial, but often it's best to avoid engagements with these terms.

*Source: [Employer asks for "guarantor" to compensate damages due to consultant's "breach ](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/q/71505) — answer by Jane S, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**The user is concerned about an employment contract clause requiring assignment of pre-existing intellectual property to the company upon signing, questioning whether this is standard practice.**

This type of broad IP assignment in an employment contract is highly unusual and potentially exploitative. It's crucial to protect your previously created work by explicitly removing or modifying such clauses before accepting the agreement. A refusal to negotiate reasonable changes signals a problematic employer relationship, making it wise to reconsider the opportunity.

*Source: [Is it normal for an employment contract to involve signing over prior intellectu](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/q/178092) — answer by Stephan Branczyk, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**The asker, a software developer frustrated by employers' insistence on using unsuitable tools (like Excel for large data projects), wants to know if it’s professional to include a clause in future contracts prohibiting the use of specific technologies.**

Attempting to dictate tool choices via contract is generally viewed as unprofessional and signals inflexibility. It creates an impression of being difficult to work with, reinforcing negative stereotypes about IT professionals. A better approach is to voice concerns *after* being hired, document them thoroughly, or seek employment where your expertise will be valued without needing contractual restrictions.

*Source: [Is it professional to declare in a contract that I refuse to work with certain w](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/q/164696) — answer by Old_Lamplighter, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**The user describes a pattern of manipulative and potentially illegal behavior from their boss in Germany, ranging from contract discrepancies to personal insults, and is concerned about reporting it due to job security as a foreign worker.**

This situation constitutes abuse, and the boss's attempts to control through guilt or intimidation are likely unfounded. Prioritizing self-protection means documenting everything and simultaneously seeking alternative employment; relying on internal resolution may be risky given the abusive dynamic. While navigating hierarchical structures is important in German workplaces, egregious behavior warrants considering escalation despite potential challenges.

*Source: [How can I stop my boss in Germany from bullying me without worsening my future j](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/q/128858) — answer by Emil Vikström, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**A software engineer received a job offer with restrictive policies regarding cell phone use, privacy on company property, and workplace searches, and is questioning whether these terms are standard practice.**

The restrictions likely stem from the company's retail background and concerns about theft or maintaining customer-facing professionalism, even if they don’t fully apply to an office-based software engineering role. Companies sometimes implement blanket policies across all departments for simplicity, potentially overlooking nuanced needs. It is reasonable to inquire about the rationale behind these rules and assess whether they align with your personal boundaries before accepting them.

*Source: [Received job offer restricting cell phone use, permitting workspace searches -- ](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/q/170881) — answer by Gregory Currie, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**The asker, a web developer returning to the workforce while in college, is significantly underpaid by a non-profit and now being asked to build a complex project for a fixed (and unrealistic) estimate they provided initially. They fear being exploited and potentially liable for work done off the clock.**

This situation highlights the importance of protecting oneself professionally, even when working with organizations that appeal to goodwill. Accepting unfair compensation sets a damaging precedent and can create legal vulnerabilities; accurately tracking time and refusing unpaid labor is crucial. Furthermore, trusting your instincts about contract language and avoiding commitments beyond a comfortable timeframe are vital for safeguarding against future exploitation or disputes.

*Source: [How should I navigate an unfair compensation situation?](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/q/174333) — answer by schizoid04, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**The asker has accepted a job offer at a casual IT company in Germany and is unsure if wearing a suit to sign the final contract – after having worn one during interviews – is appropriate given the company’s relaxed dress code.**

While it's good to be aware of company culture, err on the side of professionalism for key events like contract signing. It's better to appear slightly *over*dressed than underdressed, as you may encounter important figures you haven't met yet. Aim for a polished but less formal look that conveys respect and continued commitment.

*Source: [What should I wear to go and sign an employment contract?](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/q/136692) — answer by Steve-o169, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**The asker is stuck in a job where their intended modernization work has been cancelled, leaving them feeling unfulfilled and considering whether to leave despite concerns about job hopping and the current hiring climate. They are contemplating pursuing personal tech projects during off-hours to maintain skills.**

Your time and energy are commodities exchanged for compensation; once those contracted hours are fulfilled, your remaining time is yours to utilize as you see fit, provided it doesn't impact work performance or involve company resources. Employers may attempt to control all aspects of an employee’s life, but maintaining outside interests can be a safeguard against unfair criticism and demonstrates personal drive. Be mindful that any action or statement could potentially be misinterpreted by your employer.

*Source: [Ethics of spending one's private time to work with unrelated projects](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/q/164783) — answer by L.Dutch, CC-BY-SA 4.0*


## Licensing

**The user wants to understand the implications of using GPL-licensed software (specifically GeSHi) within a commercial PHP framework, focusing on whether their own code needs to be open-sourced based on usage and distribution scenarios.**

Using GPL software creates a 'viral' effect: if you distribute an application that *includes* or links to GPL code – even without modifying it – you are legally obligated to release the source code of your entire application under the GPL as well. Modification doesn’t change this requirement; instead, any modifications must also be released under the GPL. While internal use avoids these obligations, distribution triggers them regardless of whether a fee is charged.

*Source: [Can I use GPL software in a commercial application](https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/q/47032) — answer by quickly_now, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**The asker wants to know if they can legally use code from an open-source project (GPL/LGPL licensed) in their closed-source iPhone app by completely rewriting it in a different language, line by line.**

Intentionally recreating existing code with minor alterations solely to avoid licensing obligations is likely illegal and will be seen as creating a derivative work. While understanding an algorithm isn't restricted, directly translating its implementation – especially when done by the same person – strongly suggests copying. To legitimately adapt open-source software without triggering license requirements, organizations employ 'clean room' development where different teams handle analysis and reimplementation to ensure independence.

*Source: [Is it possible to rewrite every line of an open source project in a slightly dif](https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/q/86754) — answer by Kilian Foth, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**The user needs to specify a license in their `package.json` file for proprietary software where they retain all rights, but can't find an appropriate SPDX identifier.**

Modern package managers like npm require specific license declarations; 'All Rights Reserved' doesn’t translate directly into an SPDX-compatible acronym. To indicate non-FOSS with no reuse allowed, use `UNLICENSED` or point to a separate `LICENSE` file containing the full copyright and restrictions. Older versions of npm had more flexibility but this is no longer recommended.

*Source: [Which SPDX license is equivalent to 'All Rights Reserved'?](https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/q/285885) — answer by Craig, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**The user is asking about the implications of using an MIT-licensed API in their commercial software project, specifically regarding selling the software and source code distribution.**

The MIT license is very permissive; you can freely use, modify, distribute, and sell software built with it. You are not required to share your own source code, but anyone receiving the original licensed component *can* redistribute it (though not necessarily your compiled application). It's crucial to carefully read and understand any open-source license before incorporating its components into a project.

*Source: [Meaning of MIT license](https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/q/255227) — answer by dwc, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**The user is confused about the implications of using AGPL-licensed libraries in a commercial, closed-source application, specifically regarding modification, distribution requirements, and whether 'wrapping' the library in a separate process avoids licensing obligations.**

AGPL is stricter than GPL; any use of AGPL code – even without modification or through linking – generally requires your entire project to also be licensed under AGPL and made publicly available. While running AGPL software as a completely independent, optional service *might* avoid triggering the license, if your application fundamentally relies on that service to function, it will likely be considered a derivative work subject to AGPL's terms. Simply providing instructions for users to obtain and connect to the AGPL component separately is permissible, but bundling it with your closed-source code isn’t.

*Source: [AGPL - what you can do and what you can't](https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/q/107883) — answer by Mark H, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**The user wants to know if they can legally incorporate plugins licensed under the MIT license into their commercial website, and what steps they need to take.**

MIT licensing is very permissive; it allows for both personal and commercial use of code without restriction on distribution. However, a key requirement is preserving attribution – you must acknowledge the original author's ownership while benefiting from their work. Essentially, the license grants usage rights but disclaims any liability from the original creator regarding your implementation.

*Source: [Can I use MIT licence plugins in my commercial web site?](https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/q/103273) — answer by haylem, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**The asker questions whether it's necessary to include a full license notice at the top of *every* source file for an open-source project, finding it cumbersome and wondering if a central `README` and `@license` tags are sufficient.**

Copyright is automatic upon creation, meaning users need permission (a license) to legally use your code. While licenses require notice be given to downstream users, the location of that notice isn't strictly defined as *every* file; a central `LICENSE` or `README` file fulfills the legal requirement. The practice of verbose in-file notices is largely tradition and doesn’t offer additional legal protection, being more akin to a symbolic gesture than a practical necessity.

*Source: [Do you have to include a license notice with every source file?](https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/q/125836) — answer by Andrew Dalke, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**The questioner is trying to understand the practical implications of Oracle licensing Java components under the GPL with a classpath exception, specifically how it differs from the more established LGPL and what usage scenarios are permitted.**

License clarity is paramount, especially when dealing with languages like Java that don't neatly fit the original intent of licenses designed for C/C++. The GPL with classpath exception provides a definitive 'out,' allowing developers to use the licensed code in projects under any license without being forced to adopt the GPL themselves. This avoids legal ambiguity stemming from interpreting how terms like 'linking' apply to bytecode and runtime environments, offering greater certainty than relying on interpretations of LGPL in these contexts.

*Source: [What does "GPL with classpath exception" mean in practice?](https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/q/119436) — answer by Steve, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**The asker rewrote a GPLv2 program in Python, significantly changing the structure but retaining some translated code, and wondered if they could relicense it or extract the new architecture under a different license.**

Simply rewriting derivative work doesn't negate the obligations of the original license; even substantial changes built upon licensed code remain bound by its terms. While tempting to 'clean slate' a project through extensive modification, true ownership and freedom come from independent creation. Investing in building something entirely new fosters deeper understanding and avoids potential legal issues, ultimately leading to more sustainable and personally rewarding outcomes.

*Source: [Ship of Theseus applied to GPL - Can I relicense my program if I replace all of ](https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/q/260347) — answer by mrjoltcola, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**The user is seeking best practices for managing and including the various license agreements required when using multiple third-party libraries in an open-source project.**

Prioritize both legal compliance *and* demonstrating good faith effort. A clear, centralized approach to licensing documentation—including a primary license file for your own code and a separate file containing all third-party licenses with attribution details—is crucial. Supplement this with explanations in the README and online documentation linking back to full license texts and copyright holders, making it easy for users to understand the licensing landscape of your project.

*Source: [What is the best practice for arranging third-party library licenses "paperwork"](https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/q/234511) — answer by Alexey, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**The questioner is trying to understand the practical benefit of offering software under a dual license (MIT/BSD or MIT/GPL) given that the licenses appear largely compatible and users could theoretically just select the more permissive one. They specifically question if a dual-license offers any real advantage beyond redundancy.**

Dual licensing isn't about giving *users* multiple options for a single use case, but rather allowing the *original developer* to cater to different audiences with differing needs. While MIT/BSD might seem redundant due to compatibility, pairing MIT/GPL provides a crucial distinction: GPL forces open-sourcing of derivatives, while MIT allows for proprietary commercialization. This enables developers to support both community contributions (via GPL) and commercial clients (via MIT), controlling how their code is used in various contexts.

*Source: [MIT vs. BSD vs. Dual License](https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/q/121998) — answer by Dipan Mehta, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**The questioner wonders if GitHub, because it utilizes Git (licensed under GPLv2), is legally obligated to be open source itself.**

Software licensing like the GPL focuses on *distribution* of modified code, not simply *interaction* with licensed software. Using a tool through standard interfaces – like calling Git from the command line – doesn't necessarily create a derivative work requiring source release. Furthermore, a company can avoid GPL requirements by independently re-implementing functionality rather than directly using and modifying the original code.

*Source: [If GitHub interacts with Git, and Git is licensed under GPLv2, shouldn't GitHub ](https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/q/340913) — answer by whatsisname, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**The user wants to release software to early adopters ('alpha' testers) for free, but retain the flexibility to later apply a standard commercial license – and is unsure if this is possible given potential future licensing changes (including switching between open and closed source).**

You generally have full control over how you license code *you* solely created; however, contributions from others introduce complexity. If external developers contribute code, they retain rights to their work under the initial license, requiring their consent for any future change. A contributor agreement is crucial to manage these situations and avoid legal hurdles when switching licenses.

*Source: [Can you change a license once you pick one?](https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/q/55326) — answer by James, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**The question explores what modern laws Jesus would be breaking if he performed his miracle of turning water into wine today, specifically focusing on alcohol regulations.**

Regulations surrounding alcoholic beverages are defined by *how* the alcohol is produced, not simply its existence. The answer demonstrates that even seemingly permissible 'home brewing' exceptions require a fermentation or distillation process; an instantaneously created alcoholic beverage falls outside these allowances and would be considered illegally manufactured liquor. This highlights how legal definitions can be surprisingly specific and dependent on production methods rather than end results.

*Source: [What laws would Jesus be breaking if he were to turn water into wine today?](https://law.stackexchange.com/q/90050) — answer by user71659, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**The user wants to fix and republish outdated code found online, but the original author is unresponsive and hasn’t provided a license for their work.**

Copyright automatically applies to all creative works, meaning you need explicit permission from the author to modify or redistribute them – even if it *seems* open source. Simply intending something to be open isn't enough; a clear license granting rights is essential. While practical enforcement might be unlikely, proceeding without authorization is legally risky and requires contacting the original creator for consent.

*Source: [Open source code with no license... can I fork it?](https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/q/148146) — answer by Abhi Beckert, CC-BY-SA 4.0*


## Criminal Law

**A high school chemistry teacher discovered a student intentionally put a pill into their coffee, causing physical symptoms and requiring medical evaluation. The teacher is frustrated that the school resource officer downplayed the incident as not being 'criminal' enough to warrant serious charges.**

Even if a substance isn’t a traditionally ‘controlled’ drug, administering *anything* harmful or unwanted to another person can legally constitute battery – an intentional act of harm. Beyond criminal charges, educators have avenues for pursuing disciplinary action through the school system itself, potentially leading to expulsion. It's crucial to understand that witnessing a crime and failing to intervene is different than actively assisting in its commission, which *is* illegal.

*Source: [A student slipped a drug into my coffee — what are the legal ramifications of th](https://law.stackexchange.com/q/33212) — answer by user6726, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**The question explores whether a bank robbery committed *without* explicit threats should be considered legally distinct from simply asking for money, questioning why it's treated as a serious crime instead of something like soliciting donations.**

Legally differentiating between theft and robbery hinges on the presence of force or implied threat. While a polite request for funds might seem harmless, handing someone a bag *and* requesting they fill it constitutes deceptive action aimed at gaining control of property – this is legally considered 'theft' even without overt threats. The key isn’t necessarily what is said, but the actions taken to induce transfer of ownership and whether those actions involve deception or coercion.

*Source: [Why shouldn't a bank robbery without threats be legal?](https://law.stackexchange.com/q/33592) — answer by user6726, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**The question explores how the act of Gretel pushing a witch into an oven, intending to kill her to save herself and her brother from being eaten, would be legally interpreted under modern U.S. law, specifically regarding self-defense claims.**

Legal defenses like self-defense aren't automatically granted; courts meticulously examine the circumstances surrounding the act. A key consideration is whether a reasonable opportunity to escape existed before resorting to lethal force, and whether the aggressor had any legal justification for their actions. Even if an initial detention seems lawful, prolonged confinement with harmful intent can negate that legality, shifting the focus back to the defender's right to protect themselves.

*Source: [How would the actions of Hänsel and Gretel in the Grimm tale be interpreted in m](https://law.stackexchange.com/q/48441) — answer by hszmv, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**The asker's friend borrowed their guitar which was then stolen by the asker’s ex-partner; they are considering entering the ex-partner’s home with family permission while he is away to retrieve it and want to know if this would be illegal.**

While retrieving personal property isn't inherently illegal, navigating the situation legally involves understanding distinctions like 'civil assist,' repossession (if applicable), and replevin. Obtaining consent to enter a property avoids issues of trespassing, but pursuing legal avenues such as filing charges for theft or a civil claim could provide further recourse. Even if you recover your property, the act of stealing it still constitutes a crime that can be pursued legally.

*Source: [Stealing my own property back?](https://law.stackexchange.com/q/31510) — answer by ohwilleke, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**The questioner observes that stealing from an employer typically leads to criminal charges, while failing to pay an employee often results in civil litigation, and asks for the historical/legal reasoning behind this difference.**

The distinction lies in the legal definition of 'theft,' which requires the permanent deprivation of someone's *possession*. Withholding earned wages isn’t theft because the employee never actually had full possession of the funds – it’s a failure to fulfill a contractual obligation. While historically non-payment of debts could be criminalized, modern legal systems generally treat it as a civil matter, though this is potentially evolving with discussions around 'wage theft' being redefined as a crime.

*Source: [Why is stealing from an employer a criminal act when stealing from an employee i](https://law.stackexchange.com/q/63850) — answer by Dale M, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**A young woman died after unknowingly ingesting a drug slipped into her drink at a party, and the individual suspected of administering it did not seek medical help. The question asks about potential criminal charges.**

Legal analysis requires thorough fact-finding; initial assumptions must be verified before determining appropriate charges. While several statutes *could* apply based on limited information (battery, aggravated battery, tampering, reckless conduct, even sexual assault), the specific charge will depend heavily on establishing intent, the nature of the drug, and whether a sexual offense was involved.  A lack of immediate action to help the victim is relevant but doesn't automatically define the primary crime.

*Source: [Daughter dies at party](https://law.stackexchange.com/q/29069) — answer by bdb484, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**The questioner observes that attempted murder receives lighter sentencing than completed murder and questions the logic, arguing that intent and potential danger to society are equal in both cases.**

Sentencing philosophies differ significantly; some prioritize retribution for the act itself, while others focus on preventing future crime or rehabilitating offenders. The disparity in sentencing stems from a 'harm-based' approach where punishment reflects the actual damage caused, not just intent. Therefore, even with identical intentions, completed crimes are seen as causing greater harm and warrant harsher penalties, though alternative systems prioritizing intent *could* justify equal punishments.

*Source: [Why is murder considered a more serious crime than attempted murder?](https://law.stackexchange.com/q/53481) — answer by bdb484, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**The questioner, a non-lawyer interested in criminal law, asks what a public defender does when a client is undeniably guilty of a crime with no viable defense and the prosecution won't negotiate a plea bargain.**

Even with overwhelming evidence of guilt, a defense attorney’s primary role shifts to mitigating sentencing. Accepting guilt early can prevent further damaging details from being presented in court and preserve resources for impactful advocacy during sentencing. Judges generally impose lighter sentences on those who plead guilty, creating a strong incentive to avoid trial even without a plea deal, as significant discretion exists within the sentencing phase regarding alternatives to incarceration and facility assignment.

*Source: [Course of action in a criminal case when there is no conceivable defense](https://law.stackexchange.com/q/30098) — answer by ohwilleke, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**The question explores whether legal culpability for murder extends to unintended victims when an act intended to kill some results in the deaths of a larger, unforeseen group. It asks if intent needs to align with *who* dies, or just that death occurs as a result of intentional action.**

Legal guilt often hinges on demonstrating intent to commit a crime generally, rather than specifically targeting an individual. The principle of 'transferred intent' means that if someone acts with murderous intent and causes death – even to unintended victims – they can be held accountable for those deaths. This highlights that the focus is on the criminal act itself and the presence of *mens rea* (guilty mind), not necessarily a pre-existing intention towards the specific person harmed.

*Source: [Suppose someone kills more people than they intended. Did they murder the extra ](https://law.stackexchange.com/q/53442) — answer by sharur, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**The questioner observes people publicly admitting to past or even ongoing criminal activity (drug use, piracy) and wonders why they aren't arrested, given that these admissions seem like evidence for prosecution.**

Simply stating a crime occurred, without accompanying proof, isn’t legally sufficient for arrest or conviction. Confessions made outside of legal proceedings (like a trial under oath) are considered hearsay and lack the weight of concrete evidence. Law enforcement needs more than just an admission – they require corroborating evidence like physical items, witness testimony, or direct observation of criminal acts to build a case.

*Source: [How do people publicly admit to criminal activity and not typically get arrested](https://law.stackexchange.com/q/3381) — answer by gracey209, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**The question explores whether a defense based on ambiguous language – claiming no direct order was given despite likely intent – is legally viable, comparing it to how a mafia boss might issue coded instructions.**

U.S. law heavily protects free speech, requiring prosecutors to prove that any potentially inciting words were *deliberately* intended and likely to produce 'imminent lawless action'. Establishing this requires demonstrating the speaker's specific intent (mens rea) and considering the entire context of their statements, not just isolated phrases. Successfully prosecuting such a case is difficult because proving intent and direct causation between speech and illegal acts is a high legal bar.

*Source: [Would Trump's defence work in other courts?](https://law.stackexchange.com/q/61019) — answer by hszmv, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**The question asks whether Joseph Rosenbaum, had he survived his encounter with Kyle Rittenhouse, could have faced criminal charges given his actions leading up to the shooting.**

Legal outcomes hinge on a complete understanding of context and intent. While self-defense claims focus on immediate threat, prior aggressive behavior – like explicit threats of violence and pursuing someone while attempting to disarm them – can constitute separate crimes such as assault or attempted murder. A defendant's history and mental state are also relevant factors in assessing their culpability and potential charges.

*Source: [What crimes did Rosenbaum commit when he engaged Rittenhouse?](https://law.stackexchange.com/q/74774) — answer by Eugene, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**The questioner observes that drunk driving resulting in an accident, especially with fatalities, receives significantly harsher penalties than simply being caught driving under the influence. They question whether this disparity is fair, suggesting luck plays a large role.**

Legal and moral systems often differentiate punishment based on *outcome* rather than solely on intent or recklessness – a concept known as 'moral luck'. While an individual's culpability (level of blame) might be the same in both scenarios, causing harm introduces consequences that justify increased penalties. This creates a tension between holding people accountable for actions within their control versus factors outside of it, and is a long-standing debate in criminal theory.

*Source: [Why are the penalties for causing an accident while drunk driving much harsher t](https://law.stackexchange.com/q/94665) — answer by Jen, CC-BY-SA 4.0*


## Intellectual Property

**A highly productive engineer is refusing to submit new patent disclosures after the company drastically reduced financial incentives for doing so, and the manager suspects he’s hiding work done outside of regular hours.**

This situation highlights a breakdown in trust stemming from the company devaluing an employee's contributions. When incentives are removed without addressing employee concerns, particularly for high performers, it can lead to disengagement and even deception. Companies should anticipate such reactions when making significant policy changes and consider the long-term cost of losing valuable employees rather than focusing solely on short-term savings.

*Source: [Engineer refusing to file/disclose patents](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/q/132387) — answer by Gregory Currie, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**A mobile developer's employer is refusing to include required copyright attribution within their app due to aesthetic concerns, leaving the developer ethically conflicted and potentially legally exposed.**

Instead of escalating the issue or rewriting code, focus on framing the requirement as a standard industry practice for legal protection. Demonstrate that lengthy legal notices are common in successful apps and can be discreetly placed within settings menus. This approach aims to address the employer's visual concerns while still fulfilling licensing obligations.

*Source: [How to deal with an employer who refuses to allow copyright attribution in softw](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/q/86419) — answer by Wildcard, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**A mobile developer's employer is refusing to include required copyright attribution within their app due to aesthetic concerns, leaving the developer ethically conflicted and potentially legally exposed.**

Instead of escalating the issue or rewriting code, focus on framing the requirement as a standard industry practice for legal protection. Demonstrate that lengthy legal notices are common in successful apps and can be discreetly placed within settings menus. This approach aims to address the employer's visual concerns while still fulfilling licensing obligations.

*Source: [How to deal with an employer who refuses to allow copyright attribution in softw](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/q/86419) — answer by DJClayworth, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**An undergraduate research assistant is asked to write code that would benefit multiple researchers, and worries about being taken advantage of or not receiving credit for their work. They are unsure if it’s appropriate to try and limit access to the code they create.**

In a collaborative research environment, focusing on maximizing impact through shared resources is more valuable than attempting to protect individual contributions. While it's natural to want recognition, restricting access to helpful tools can damage your reputation as a team player. Prioritize contributing positively to the group’s overall success, as this will be far more beneficial for long-term career goals and relationships.

*Source: [How to approach protecting my code as a research assistant? Should I be worried ](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/q/141653) — answer by motosubatsu, CC-BY-SA 4.0*


## Non Disclosure Agreement

**The user resigned from their engineering role after broken promises from management and is now facing pressure to reveal their new employer, coupled with attempts to enforce overly broad non-compete agreements.**

Protect yourself by firmly refusing to share information about your future employment and avoiding any further agreements with the current company. While legal action is threatened, broadly written non-competes are often unenforceable; focus on documenting harassment and consider a cease & desist letter if it escalates. Prioritize maintaining control of your professional online presence without feeling rushed to disclose details, as this situation will likely resolve itself quickly after departure.

*Source: [Soon-to-be-ex-employer trying to force me to disclose name of new employer](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/q/174699) — answer by mxyzplk, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**An employee was asked to sign a non-disclosure agreement for work done over two years ago, but the document was intentionally backdated to the start of that project. They are uncomfortable with signing something retroactively and want to address it without causing conflict.**

Accepting a request to falsify documentation, even seemingly minor, creates unnecessary personal risk with no corresponding benefit. A professional can protect themselves by proposing an alternative solution: sign the agreement *now* with a current date, coupled with an affirmation of good conduct during the relevant period. This demonstrates willingness to comply while upholding ethical standards and protecting oneself from potential future liability.

*Source: [My employer wants me to a sign an NDA that is backdated more than 2 years](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/q/71582) — answer by IDrinkandIKnowThings, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**This chef has a significant employment gap on their resume due to a long-term private chef position covered by a strict NDA preventing disclosure of client identity or details. They are struggling to explain this gap and showcase their experience to potential employers.**

Protecting client confidentiality is paramount in roles like personal cheffing, even beyond formal NDAs; detailing specific clients or health information would be unprofessional and potentially breach privacy. Focus your resume on *what* you did – the skills used and types of meals prepared – rather than *for whom*. When in doubt about what's permissible to share, seeking legal counsel is a wise investment.

*Source: [How to handle a work period where client name and details are under NDA?](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/q/152407) — answer by Aida Paul, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**The questioner is facing interview requests for source code from past projects but lacks access due to legal restrictions or former employer policies.**

Instead of focusing on providing inaccessible prior work, proactively create new coding samples specifically for demonstrating skills during the job search. Interviewers are primarily interested in evaluating a candidate's technical approach and quality of work, not necessarily proprietary code from previous employers. Building personal projects allows you to showcase these abilities without violating confidentiality agreements or relying on access to old systems.

*Source: [Applying for jobs, new company wants to see source code that I don't have access](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/q/57990) — answer by Wesley Long, CC-BY-SA 4.0*


## Rental Property

**A landlord is concerned about the well-being of an elderly tenant who is late on rent and unresponsive, and wants to know if they can legally enter the property without notice to check on her.**

While leases often allow emergency entry, landlords should avoid directly entering a tenant's space due to potential legal liabilities like privacy invasion or evidence tampering. Instead, deferring to trained professionals – specifically requesting a police welfare check – provides necessary assistance while protecting both the tenant and the landlord. This approach minimizes risk by leveraging established protocols for handling sensitive situations and preserving legal defensibility.

*Source: [Can I enter a rental property without giving notice if I'm afraid a tenant may b](https://law.stackexchange.com/q/43435) — answer by ohwilleke, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**A landlord is concerned about new local laws that penalize them for police calls to a rental property, potentially requiring eviction after a certain number of incidents or holding them financially responsible for officer injuries. They're seeking information on the legality and precedent for such regulations.**

These types of 'nuisance ordinances' are likely legally vulnerable due to potential violations of constitutional rights like freedom to petition the government, equal protection, and due process. State laws generally dictate valid eviction grounds and liability rules, often preempting local attempts to create new conditions. Landlords should be aware that some states explicitly prohibit penalizing tenants (or those calling for them) for requesting emergency assistance.

*Source: [Landlord penalty for law enforcement calls](https://law.stackexchange.com/q/67909) — answer by ohwilleke, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**A tenant's landlord proposed switching their standard rental lease to a "land contract" as a way to avoid city inspection fees, leaving the tenant concerned about unexpected financial burdens and loss of tenant protections.**

Land contracts are not rentals; they represent a purchase agreement where the buyer makes installment payments for property ownership. These agreements shift responsibilities like taxes and maintenance to the buyer, but offer significantly fewer legal protections than traditional leases or mortgages, especially in cases of default. While sometimes legitimate, land contracts can be predatory, so it's crucial to understand the risks before considering such an arrangement.

*Source: [Landlord wants to switch my lease to a "Land contract" to "get back at the city"](https://law.stackexchange.com/q/38916) — answer by David Siegel, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**A tenant received a notice to vacate from their rental agency with less than the legally required four months' notice, and believes the landlord provided sufficient notice *to* the agency who failed to pass it on. The tenant wants to know which notice period is valid.**

Legal responsibility for proper notification rests directly with the landlord, not intermediaries like property management agencies. A deficient notice is legally invalid, meaning the tenant isn't obligated to leave based on that timeframe and can remain until a compliant notice is served. While issues with other tenants’ contracts are separate concerns, the agency acts as an extension of the landlord – their actions are legally equivalent to the landlord’s own.

*Source: [Landlord gives 4 months notice to the rental agency which fails to give notice t](https://law.stackexchange.com/q/70645) — answer by Dale M, CC-BY-SA 4.0*


## Employment

**An individual asked whether a company’s promise to cover travel expenses for a job interview is legally binding, especially if the company cancels reimbursement after the candidate has already traveled. The question centers on enforceability without a formal written contract.**

Even without a formal contract, a verbal or clearly communicated promise to reimburse travel costs *is* generally enforceable once the candidate relies on that promise and begins traveling. A company cannot simply revoke this offer mid-journey; doing so constitutes a breach of contract. However, the agreement can be voided if the candidate knowingly proceeded despite being informed the reimbursement was cancelled, or if they misrepresented themselves (like lying on their resume).

*Source: [If a company agrees to pay travel cost for a job interview, is the promise bindi](https://law.stackexchange.com/q/36259) — answer by Iñaki Viggers, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**An employer discovered an employee’s degree comes from an unaccredited college and HR suggested termination, but the employer feels it’s unfair to fire someone who truthfully presented a document (the degree) even if its quality is questionable, and believes they were misled.**

Decisions about employment should be based on objective facts, not emotional reactions. Jumping to conclusions about the validity of an unaccredited institution can be risky – there’s a wide spectrum between legitimate but non-traditional schools and outright fraudulent 'degree mills'. Focus instead on evaluating the employee's actual skills and performance rather than solely relying on credentials; demonstrated ability is more important than where someone earned their degree.

*Source: [Can I terminate an employee for qualifying for a job through a "degree mill?"](https://law.stackexchange.com/q/30523) — answer by Harper - Reinstate Monica, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**An employer in Virginia terminated an employee within one year of hire and is attempting to recoup a signing bonus through withholding the final paycheck and billing for the remaining amount.**

Contractual obligations regarding bonuses are tied to *employee* fulfillment of stated commitments. When an employer initiates termination, they negate the employee's ability to meet those commitments, thus forfeiting their right to reclaim the bonus. While employers can pursue legal action for unpaid debts, Virginia law limits remedies to earned wages, interest, and a small civil penalty – not punitive damages.

*Source: [Virginia employer terminated employee and wants signing bonus returned](https://law.stackexchange.com/q/38013) — answer by Iñaki Viggers, CC-BY-SA 4.0*


## Employment Agreement

**The user received a 'termination certificate' request six months after resigning from their job and is concerned about signing an agreement reiterating non-compete clauses and requiring disclosure of future employment, without receiving any additional compensation.**

Don't sign agreements requested *after* employment ends unless you receive something tangible in return (known as 'consideration'). Companies often attempt to secure post-employment restrictions without offering new value, and you are not obligated to comply. Protecting yourself legally isn’t about whether an agreement is technically enforceable; it’s about avoiding unnecessary legal entanglements for no benefit, and refusing to provide information that isn't required.

*Source: [Being asked to sign a "termination certificate" 6 months after resigning](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/q/152523) — answer by mxyzplk, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**The questioner is moving from the UK to the US for work and is concerned about 'at-will' employment, which lacks the job protections they’re accustomed to in the UK; this is especially concerning because their visa status depends on continued employment.**

While uncommon, a written employment contract is the primary way to move away from at-will employment in the US. The key is proactively requesting specific provisions – like notice periods or minimum employment duration with penalties for early termination – that address your concerns and are mutually agreeable. Be prepared for negotiation; companies may refuse, but it's worth asking, potentially involving legal counsel to draft a formal agreement.

*Source: [What alternatives exist to at-will employment?](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/q/140355) — answer by BrianH, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**The questioner is experiencing frequent pushback from a grant-funded technician who questions the necessity of assigned tasks, leading to time-consuming arguments and frustration despite the technician being contractually obligated to perform the work.**

Effective leadership in this context requires clearly defining roles and expectations – embracing the 'boss' role rather than seeking to be a peer. While open discussion can be valuable, it’s crucial to recognize that technicians bring practical expertise; their questioning may stem from identifying potential issues not apparent in theoretical planning. Acknowledging one's own limitations and valuing the technician's applied knowledge is key to productive collaboration, even if it requires more upfront conversation.

*Source: [How to work with a technician hired with a grant who argues everything](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/q/143750) — answer by DrMrstheMonarch, CC-BY-SA 4.0*


## Us Constitution

**An executive order restricting immigration was issued, and the question asks for potential legal challenges to its validity.**

Legal challenges often center on whether actions align with constitutional rights like due process, equal protection, and freedom of religion. Government actions must also follow established procedural rules – such as proper notification and publication – outlined in laws like the Administrative Procedure Act. Furthermore, existing rights (like valid visas or purchased travel) and treaty obligations can limit a government's ability to retroactively change regulations or deny benefits.

*Source: [On what basis might Trump's executive order on immigration be illegal?](https://law.stackexchange.com/q/16790) — answer by ohwilleke, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**The question asks for the legal significance of the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the Fourteenth Amendment, specifically what groups of people born in the U.S. might *not* be considered citizens due to this clause and whether removing the phrase would alter the meaning.**

Legal language often clarifies existing common law principles rather than creating entirely new ones; here, the phrase wasn't intended to broadly restrict citizenship but to specifically exclude limited, historically recognized exceptions. The Supreme Court case *Wong Kim Ark* established that 'subject to jurisdiction' primarily means not being under the control of a foreign power or enjoying diplomatic immunity. Removing this clause would likely broaden birthright citizenship to include those previously excluded groups, potentially creating unintended legal consequences.

*Source: [What is the meaning of “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the 14th ame](https://law.stackexchange.com/q/33056) — answer by David Siegel, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**The user asks about the legal conditions under which armed rebellion against the government would be permissible, referencing the Declaration of Independence and the Second Amendment.**

The concept of 'legality' is irrelevant when discussing revolution; any successful revolt will redefine legality in its favor, while failed revolts are *always* deemed illegal by the existing power structure. The question isn’t about legal permission, but rather moral justification – determining if a government truly warrants being overthrown is a separate ethical consideration.  The right to bear arms facilitates both legitimate and illegitimate uprisings, but doesn't provide a legal shield for either.

*Source: [At what point is it "legal" to overthrow the government?](https://law.stackexchange.com/q/89019) — answer by o.m., CC-BY-SA 4.0*


## Education

**A parent is concerned because their child is failing a digital literacy class due to refusing to create a public Twitter account and share personal information as part of a school program, despite this requirement not being initially disclosed.**

This situation highlights the importance of understanding students' constitutional rights, specifically freedom of speech. Schools cannot compel students to express views or participate in activities that violate their beliefs, even for academic credit; requiring public self-promotion crosses a line. While schools can assign work, it shouldn’t force students into compelled speech with personal details they are uncomfortable sharing publicly. Seeking legal counsel from organizations like the ACLU or EFF may be necessary when facing such demands.

*Source: [Can a public school in the USA force a 14yr old to create a Twitter account for ](https://law.stackexchange.com/q/47456) — answer by Paul Johnson, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**A student questions whether universities can legally prohibit students from creating personal wireless networks (like hotspots), despite arguments about FCC regulations regarding interference. They've had success negotiating with their own university but are concerned about others.**

The legality of such policies doesn’t hinge on radio frequency laws, but rather on the university’s rights as a property owner and its contractual agreements with students. Universities grant access to their property under specific terms – essentially a license – and can enforce rules like prohibiting wireless networks as part of that agreement. Violating these terms could be considered a breach of contract or trespassing, giving the university grounds for action.

*Source: [Can a university legally enforce a policy preventing students from creating thei](https://law.stackexchange.com/q/49154) — answer by Dale M, CC-BY-SA 4.0*


## Law

**An EU resident received an unsolicited offer from a US-based 'law firm' regarding shares in a bankrupt company, and is concerned about potential fraud due to unfamiliarity with US legal processes and the speed/terms of the offer.**

When presented with unexpected financial offers, especially those requiring immediate action or complex agreements, thorough verification of the source is crucial. Legitimate professional firms will readily provide identifying information (partners' names, detailed website content) and maintain a verifiable physical presence. Multiple red flags – like hidden contact details, generic websites, and unanswered phone calls – strongly suggest fraudulent activity.

*Source: [I am an EU resident being contacted about stock I own in a defunct company by a ](https://money.stackexchange.com/q/91024) — answer by JoeTaxpayer, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**The asker manages investments for their family (parents & sibling) and wants to know if it's legally permissible – specifically, whether holding all funds in their own name is acceptable from both US and Indian legal standpoints, prioritizing simplicity in accounting and taxes.**

Directly managing family wealth by commingling funds into one’s personal account creates significant tax disadvantages. While technically possible with informal agreements, it limits each individual's ability to utilize tax-advantaged investment options like IRAs based on *their* income and circumstances. A power of attorney allows for centralized management while maintaining separate accounts in the family members’ names, preserving their individual tax benefits and legal protections.

*Source: [Is it legal if I'm managing my family's entire wealth?](https://money.stackexchange.com/q/78441) — answer by mhoran_psprep, CC-BY-SA 4.0*


## Lgpl

**The user wants to know if they can legally incorporate a library licensed under the LGPL into their commercial application, specifically one distributed through Microsoft's app marketplace.**

Using an LGPL-licensed library in a commercial product *is* permitted, but requires careful attention to linking. The key is dynamic linking – ensuring the library remains separate from your core application code. This separation allows users to replace the LGPL component with their own modified version if desired, upholding the license's intent.

*Source: [Can I use an LGPL-licenced library in my commercial app?](https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/q/47323) — answer by mario, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**The user is confused about their obligations when using an LGPL-licensed library (SDL) in their project, specifically regarding source code provision and what else might be required for compliance.**

LGPL compliance centers around allowing users the freedom to modify and replace the licensed component. This means structuring your software so it can utilize a user-supplied version of the LGPL library – either through dynamic linking or by providing complete source code for recompilation. Beyond separation, you must also clearly document *how* users can substitute their own version and provide appropriate attribution to the original developers.

*Source: [What exactly do I need to do if I use a LGPL licensed library?](https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/q/86142) — answer by P Shved, CC-BY-SA 4.0*


## Is X Legal

**The questioner asks if there’s a legal prohibition against individuals with IQs below 83 enlisting in the US Armed Forces, referencing a claim made by Jordan Peterson.**

Military enlistment isn't strictly governed by an IQ cutoff defined in law. Instead, the Department of Defense sets minimum standards based on ASVAB scores (a standardized test), which correlate with but don’t directly equate to IQ. While current policy generally excludes those scoring below a level roughly equivalent to an IQ of 92 for high school grads, regulations allow waivers and lower thresholds if needed, demonstrating that requirements are policy-driven and subject to change.

*Source: [Is it truly illegal for the US Armed Forces to hire someone whose IQ is less tha](https://law.stackexchange.com/q/37491) — answer by ohwilleke, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**A shopper asked if a supermarket was legally allowed to prevent their father from buying beer because the shopper, accompanying him, couldn't provide ID despite being of age.**

Businesses have broad discretion in refusing sales as long as it isn’t discriminatory. Alcohol laws are designed to prevent indirect provision to underage individuals, meaning stores can err on the side of caution even if a seemingly adult individual cannot verify their age. Large retailers often adopt stricter policies across all locations to comply with varying state regulations and minimize risk.

*Source: [Is it legal for a supermarket to refuse to sell an adult beer if an adult with t](https://law.stackexchange.com/q/42984) — answer by sharur, CC-BY-SA 4.0*


## Legal Concepts

**The questioner observes that ignorance of the law isn’t an excuse, but they were never formally taught any laws and wonders who is responsible for ensuring citizens are aware of their legal obligations.**

While it's assumed everyone knows the law, the total volume of legislation is immense and largely irrelevant to most individuals. Instead of expecting universal legal education, society relies on specialized professionals (lawyers, accountants, etc.) to navigate complex regulations within specific fields. Individuals are typically only expected to learn laws directly applicable to their activities, often through mandated training or licensing requirements.

*Source: [Who is supposed to teach the law to the citizens?](https://law.stackexchange.com/q/48515) — answer by ohwilleke, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**The questioner observes that laws primarily focus on prohibitions and punishments, and wonders why legal systems don't explicitly *reward* positive behaviors with codified benefits.**

Laws absolutely incentivize desired actions, though often indirectly through financial mechanisms. Rather than direct 'rewards,' the law frequently uses economic tools like payments, subsidies, tax advantages, or welfare programs to encourage specific conduct. These incentives are legally structured and enforced just as much as prohibitions, demonstrating that legal systems *do* actively shape behavior through positive reinforcement.

*Source: [Why are there no laws rewarding people](https://law.stackexchange.com/q/80334) — answer by Dale M, CC-BY-SA 4.0*


## Rules Of Court

**The user is curious about the legal consequences of refusing to take a court oath and answering 'no' when asked if they will tell the truth.**

Directly defying a court order, even one as fundamental as swearing an oath, immediately puts you in a precarious position. Courts have established mechanisms – specifically contempt charges and potential jail time – to enforce cooperation with legal proceedings. This demonstrates that compliance with procedural rules is paramount, regardless of personal feelings about the underlying case.

*Source: [What happens if I negatively answer the court oath regarding the truth?](https://law.stackexchange.com/q/60974) — answer by Greendrake, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**The questioner, a non-Christian, asks if they can legally refuse to swear on the Bible during court testimony given its religious origins and potential conflict with freedom of religion.**

Legal systems recognize and accommodate diverse beliefs by offering alternatives to religiously-rooted oaths. Individuals are generally permitted to make a 'solemn affirmation' instead of swearing, omitting references to God or religious texts. This alternative carries the same legal weight as a traditional oath, ensuring equal accountability regardless of personal belief.

*Source: [Can you refuse to swear on the Bible?](https://law.stackexchange.com/q/3921) — answer by feetwet, CC-BY-SA 4.0*


## Jury

**The questioner observes that lawyers are consistently removed from juries during jury selection, despite not being automatically excluded, and asks why this happens.**

Legal professionals are strategically removed because they can readily interpret complex legal instructions in a way that undermines the intended ambiguity. Attorneys crafting jury instructions deliberately make them difficult for non-lawyers to understand, hoping jurors will apply a common (and potentially advantageous) misinterpretation of the law. A lawyer on the jury would clarify these instructions, negating this strategy and potentially leading to an unfavorable outcome for the side removing them.

*Source: [Why are lawyers typically excluded from juries?](https://law.stackexchange.com/q/4559) — answer by gracey209, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**The questioner wonders why juries are composed of ordinary citizens rather than legal professionals, questioning the logic of having non-experts decide legal outcomes.**

The jury system prioritizes judgment by one’s peers – individuals from a similar background – to ensure fairness and prevent bias from those in positions of power or with specialized knowledge. Juries are not expected to *know* the law, but rather to determine the facts of a case based on evidence presented, while the judge clarifies the applicable legal principles. This division of labor safeguards against potential conflicts of interest and upholds the right to be judged by representatives of one's community.

*Source: [Why are common people selected for jury duty?](https://law.stackexchange.com/q/80702) — answer by Dale M, CC-BY-SA 4.0*


## Trespass

**The questioner noticed 'POSTED' is commonly written on 'No Trespassing' signs and wondered if it has a legal purpose beyond simply stating the obvious – that the sign *is* posted.**

The word 'Posted' isn’t redundant; it’s a specific legal term indicating the landowner has taken legally-required steps to formally notify others against trespassing. This often involves placing signs (or paint markings) at property boundaries according to precise state regulations regarding size, color, and spacing. Using this term signals compliance with trespass laws and strengthens a potential legal case if someone ignores the warning.

*Source: [Why do many "No Trespassing" signs say "POSTED"?](https://law.stackexchange.com/q/83103) — answer by David Siegel, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**The questioner routinely accesses a post office employee-only area at the invitation of a supervisor to drop off packages, but is concerned about potential legal issues related to trespassing based on advice from others.**

Explicit permission from an authority figure negates a trespassing claim. As long as access is granted and no conditions are violated, being in a restricted area isn't illegal; however, that permission can be revoked at any time, after which continued presence *would* constitute trespassing. This highlights the importance of understanding that implied or explicit agreements define acceptable behavior on private property.

*Source: [USPS Back Room - Trespassing?](https://law.stackexchange.com/q/41270) — answer by Nuclear Hoagie, CC-BY-SA 4.0*


## Copyright

**The user questions whether including detailed copyright notices and licenses within each source code file is truly necessary for both open and closed-source projects, wondering if it’s driven by legal need or convention.**

Extensive in-file licensing isn't legally required; automatic copyright protection exists regardless. The primary benefit of brief notices *within* files is clarity when those files might be isolated from the main project context. A central LICENSE file and a comprehensive README are generally sufficient for communicating licensing terms, offering a more maintainable approach than repeating full licenses in every source file.

*Source: [Copyright notices/disclaimers in source files](https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/q/19649) — answer by Peter Boughton, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**This question concerns legal responsibility when instructed by a superior (employer or client) to perform copyright infringement – specifically, installing illegally obtained software. The asker wants to know who bears liability and how to navigate these ethically and legally challenging situations.**

Ignoring the law doesn't absolve you of responsibility, even if directed by someone else; both civil and criminal penalties can apply. Proactively documenting your objections (in writing) provides a crucial defense against accusations of complicity, especially when working within a company structure. As a freelancer, refusing unethical requests is the most direct solution, but clear communication about legal risks is vital in any professional context to protect yourself.

*Source: [Is it illegal to infringe copyright if your boss or your client ordered you to d](https://law.stackexchange.com/q/37252) — answer by Paul Johnson, CC-BY-SA 4.0*


## Children

**The questioner asks if it's true that men can be legally obligated to pay child support even when they did not consent to having a child, referencing claims from men’s rights groups and extreme examples of non-consensual impregnation.**

Legal obligations for child support are generally tied to biological parentage, not consensual intent regarding parenthood. Most jurisdictions prioritize the well-being of the child by establishing financial responsibility on the father regardless of circumstances surrounding conception, with limited exceptions like legal termination of parental rights or formal sperm donation. While historical practices varied widely – even including infanticide – modern laws consistently place a support duty on both parents, and women also have a corresponding obligation to support their children.

*Source: [Is it true that men are forced to pay child support for children they didn't con](https://law.stackexchange.com/q/79652) — answer by ohwilleke, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**A user asked if the name 'X Æ A-12', chosen by Elon Musk for his child, is legally permissible in California.**

Legal compliance isn't always about what *isn't* explicitly forbidden, but also about how administrative rules are interpreted and enforced. While a statute may not directly prohibit certain characters, detailed guidelines from governing bodies can create practical limitations based on technical constraints. This highlights the importance of understanding both formal laws and the operational realities of implementing them, as well as anticipating potential challenges to those interpretations.

*Source: [Is Elon Musk's child name valid in California?](https://law.stackexchange.com/q/51365) — answer by user6726, CC-BY-SA 4.0*


## Property

**The questioner wonders if retrieving a package addressed to them directly from a delivery truck before it reaches their home constitutes a crime, reasoning that it's their property and they might be preventing theft.**

Ownership of goods in transit isn’t automatically transferred upon dispatch; the carrier holds entrusted possession during delivery. Interfering with this process can create legal liability, as it disrupts the contract between sender and carrier regarding safe delivery and insurance claims. Even if you believe you're protecting your property, taking a package before official handover is legally considered theft under federal statutes, carrying potential fines or imprisonment.

*Source: [Is it a crime to take my own package from a delivery truck before it has reached](https://law.stackexchange.com/q/56782) — answer by Trish, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**The question asks whether a CEO and majority shareholder taking company property for personal use constitutes theft, even if they could easily afford to purchase it themselves.**

Even those with significant ownership and control of a company are legally bound by fiduciary duty – the obligation to prioritize the company's interests over their own. Removing company assets for personal gain violates this duty, regardless of personal wealth or potential marketing benefits. While there might be nuanced arguments in specific cases where usage could arguably benefit the company, simply taking property is generally considered improper.

*Source: [If I'm the CEO and largest shareholder of a public company, would taking anythin](https://law.stackexchange.com/q/60445) — answer by Ryan M, CC-BY-SA 4.0*


## Gdpr

**A user questioned the legality of GitLab's terms and conditions requiring contributors to waive their right to data deletion under GDPR, specifically regarding embedded names and email addresses in project code.**

GDPR rights are non-waivable; attempting to obtain a waiver is legally unsound. Instead of seeking waivers, organizations should clearly articulate the legitimate interests justifying data retention – such as security auditing or historical record keeping – and rely on those legal bases for processing under GDPR. While GitLab doesn't *need* to fulfill deletion requests in this specific case, their approach of asking for a waiver is incorrect.

*Source: [Is requesting waiving the right to deletion of contributions against GDPR?](https://law.stackexchange.com/q/28856) — answer by Free Radical, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**The user is asking whether GDPR regulations still apply to customers located in the United Kingdom following Brexit.**

Even after Brexit, data protection rules largely remain consistent for UK citizens due to the Data Protection Act 2018 being based on GDPR standards. While the UK no longer participates in EU decision-making regarding GDPR, the core principles of data privacy are still upheld domestically. Essentially, the practical impact on data handling hasn't fundamentally changed – compliance with GDPR-aligned rules is still necessary for processing UK customer data.

*Source: [Does GDPR include UK customers, or not anymore?](https://law.stackexchange.com/q/48724) — answer by Greendrake, CC-BY-SA 4.0*


## Visa

**An employee's work visa is expiring due to company administrative error, and the company now proposes significant pay cuts (50-75%) to continue employment remotely from another country, despite the value of their work remaining consistent.**

It’s reasonable to expect continued compensation reflecting your value, especially when a reduction stems from employer oversight. Accepting drastically reduced pay sets a poor precedent and may indicate the company is undervaluing your contributions. Prioritize exploring opportunities that respect your skills and experience; don't be afraid to walk away from exploitative offers.

*Source: [Company did not petition for visa in a timely manner. Is asking me to work from ](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/q/137652) — answer by Neo, CC-BY-SA 4.0*


## Patents

**The questioner wants to publicly release an invention without a patent but is concerned someone else might later *obtain* a patent for the same idea, effectively restricting its use. They're worried that unless the Patent Office knows about their prior work, it won’t be considered 'prior art'.**

Instead of relying on patents to protect innovation, proactively sharing your invention—even without seeking a patent—can prevent others from later patenting it. This can take the form of openly licensing technology or publicly declaring non-enforcement of potential patent rights, fostering wider adoption and progress. Several companies have successfully used this approach, demonstrating that open access can be more impactful than exclusive control.

*Source: [If I don't want to patent something, what can I do to ensure the patent office d](https://law.stackexchange.com/q/29588) — answer by Ron Beyer, CC-BY-SA 4.0*


## Religion

**The questioner fears for their life due to apostasy from Islam in their country and seeks information about seeking asylum in English-speaking nations, specifically Ireland or Norway.**

International law, particularly the 1951 Refugee Convention, provides grounds for asylum based on religious persecution. However, a major hurdle is *reaching* a safe country; obtaining visas can be extremely difficult for individuals from countries with high rates of asylum seekers due to concerns about overstaying. While some locations like Turkey or Svalbard offer potential loopholes, these options may present their own significant challenges and aren't guaranteed solutions.

*Source: [I want to leave Islam, but they would execute and kill me. What do I do?](https://law.stackexchange.com/q/27486) — answer by user6726, CC-BY-SA 4.0*


## International

**The questioner struggles with why Russian fighters in Ukraine are legally classified as soldiers entitled to POW status, despite appearing to commit acts of terror and Russia’s denial of a formal state of war.**

International law, specifically the Geneva Conventions, defines applicability based on *the existence of armed conflict* and occupation—not on declarations of war or a party's self-description. This means protections apply regardless of whether a nation formally acknowledges being at war or if its forces commit violations. Even suspected war criminals retain POW rights; accountability for crimes is handled through legal processes, separate from basic humanitarian protection under the conventions.

*Source: [Why are Russian combatants in Ukraine considered soldiers rather than terrorists](https://law.stackexchange.com/q/85191) — answer by phoog, CC-BY-SA 4.0*


## Discrimination

**A user asks if a company offering coding courses exclusively to women and non-binary individuals constitutes illegal sex-based discrimination.**

While seemingly discriminatory, such programs can be legally justified under 'positive action' provisions. These provisions allow for targeted initiatives aimed at addressing historical disadvantages or underrepresentation of specific groups. The key is demonstrating that the program is a proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim like increasing diversity in a field where certain groups are significantly lacking.

*Source: [Is it legal for a company to offer free coding courses to women only?](https://law.stackexchange.com/q/53788) — answer by Matthew, CC-BY-SA 4.0*


## First Amendment

**A parent is concerned about religious displays and a speaker promoting faith at their child's public school and wants to report it without fear of repercussions.**

When facing potentially sensitive issues within institutions, leverage established advocacy groups like the ACLU who specialize in navigating legal complexities and protecting anonymity. If direct channels prove ineffective, consider involving media outlets as a means of raising awareness and prompting action. Prioritizing personal safety by utilizing methods to shield your identity is crucial when addressing concerns that could lead to retaliation.

*Source: [How do I anonymously report the Establishment Clause being broken?](https://law.stackexchange.com/q/44349) — answer by BlueDogRanch, CC-BY-SA 4.0*


## Theft

**An individual is questioning the legality of a private 'repo' operation that impounds e-scooters left on private property, as it appears to be operating without legal authority and potentially engaging in extortion.**

The situation hinges on established tort law principles regarding property rights. Property owners have the right to remove items encroaching on their land, but are limited to recovering reasonable costs associated with that removal. The scooter companies' claim rests on unlawful interference with their property (the scooters), while the landowners justify action based on maintaining access and preventing obstruction; ultimately, the outcome will depend on how courts interpret these principles in this novel context.

*Source: [Is it legal for private citizens to "impound" e-scooters?](https://law.stackexchange.com/q/43175) — answer by Dale M, CC-BY-SA 4.0*


## Driving

**The questioner is confused about why someone received a citation for parking in a disabled space when the person the permit belonged to wasn't *in* the car, especially considering scenarios where a caregiver might need to use the space to assist with arrival or departure. They are seeking clarification on how this applies both in the US and potentially within EU regulations.**

Disabled parking permits aren’t simply for convenient access; they are specifically intended to facilitate *transportation* of the disabled individual. The legality hinges on whether the permit is being used directly in connection with the disabled person's movement – meaning they need to be nearby and the use must relate to their transport, not just general convenience. Using the space without that direct link constitutes misuse, even if the permit holder intends to eventually pick up or meet the disabled person.

*Source: [Why would someone get a fine when using a disabled parking space when the disabl](https://law.stackexchange.com/q/36546) — answer by Nuclear Hoagie, CC-BY-SA 4.0*


## Murder

**The questioner is confused by a California driving test question stating drivers must obey signal persons 'at all times,' even if it conflicts with laws, and wonders if this means they would be legally obligated to follow an unlawful order like one instructing them to harm someone.**

Professional guidance emphasizes interpreting instructions within the reasonable context of their purpose. While rules require following directions from those in authority, that doesn't negate personal responsibility or common sense; absurd or illegal requests should not be followed and may even warrant reporting. Tests are designed to assess practical application, not literal adherence to potentially extreme scenarios, so critical thinking is key.

*Source: [If a signal person in California tells me to kill someone, do I have to do so?](https://law.stackexchange.com/q/13219) — answer by animuson, CC-BY-SA 4.0*


## Real Estate

**A homeowner wants to build on a lot governed by an HOA that explicitly limits residency to families of four or fewer, regardless of house size. They are concerned about potential legal issues if their family grows beyond this limit after moving in.**

HOAs cannot legally enforce restrictions that discriminate against families with children; such rules violate the Fair Housing Act. While occupancy *limits* are permissible, they must be tied to legitimate concerns like safety or property maintenance – a flat restriction on family size is likely unenforceable. Reasonable limits might relate to factors like bedroom count or square footage, but arbitrary caps on occupants are problematic and could lead to legal challenges.

*Source: [HOA Prohibits "Large Families"](https://law.stackexchange.com/q/71149) — answer by user6726, CC-BY-SA 4.0*


## Freedom Of Speech

**The questioner asks whether simply running away from a police officer—even without any other illegal activity—is itself a crime in the US, both if the officer doesn't pursue and if they do.**

While provoking law enforcement is not inherently illegal (protected under free speech), actively evading them *becomes* illegal once an officer attempts to detain you or gives a direct order like 'Stop'. Running away before any detention or command isn’t automatically criminal, as individuals have the right to ignore police approach without reasonable suspicion. However, actions like yelling and fleeing can create probable cause for further investigation.

*Source: [Is it illegal to run away from a police officer in a way that provokes them, in ](https://law.stackexchange.com/q/1297) — answer by Jdahern, CC-BY-SA 4.0*


## Constitutional Law

**The user questions the legal difference between Donald Trump blocking individuals on Twitter versus Twitter banning him, given rulings that a public official's social media feed can be considered a public forum.**

The core distinction lies in *who* was doing the restricting. The First Amendment’s restrictions against viewpoint discrimination apply to government actors – like an elected official – but not to private companies. Twitter, as a private entity, has the right to set its own terms of service and moderate content even if it risks losing certain legal protections.

*Source: [What is the legal distinction between Twitter banning Trump and Trump blocking i](https://law.stackexchange.com/q/63838) — answer by Nate Eldredge, CC-BY-SA 4.0*


## Civil Law

**A vegetarian, due to religious beliefs, was served chicken in a Chipotle bowl labeled as vegan and is considering legal action against the restaurant.**

While a breach of contract likely occurred by serving meat when a vegan dish was ordered, simply proving this isn't enough for a successful lawsuit. To win, one must demonstrate a specific, legally recognized harm – like financial loss or significant emotional distress – beyond just being upset about violating dietary restrictions. The case law suggests that claims based on product defect or negligence are unlikely to succeed without provable damages.

*Source: [Can I sue a restaurant for serving me meat in vegetarian dish?](https://law.stackexchange.com/q/26950) — answer by user6726, CC-BY-SA 4.0*


## Labor Law

**An employee in Germany is being threatened with immediate termination if they don't voluntarily resign, and wants to know if this tactic is legal and what recourse they have.**

In Germany, employers face strict regulations regarding terminations, especially in companies of a certain size. It’s generally better to be terminated (fired) than to quit voluntarily, as quitting can impact unemployment benefits eligibility. Employers often bluff with threats of immediate termination because proving legitimate grounds for firing is difficult and requires adherence to specific procedures and notice periods.

*Source: [In Germany, is it allowed for an employer to ask an employee to quit his job and](https://law.stackexchange.com/q/76752) — answer by amon, CC-BY-SA 4.0*


## European Union

**The question concerns whether Stack Exchange’s new arbitration clause is legally valid for users in the European Union under GDPR and related legal precedents, specifically regarding collective action lawsuits versus individual arbitration.**

Legal precedent (specifically a Dutch Supreme Court case referencing the right to an independent judge) suggests mandatory arbitration clauses are unlikely to be enforceable against EU citizens. Companies targeting EU consumers must adhere to *all* applicable EU laws, not just GDPR, and cannot rely on US legal structures to bypass those regulations.  EU law likely grants individuals the right to pursue claims in their local courts, overriding stipulations about jurisdiction, and provides a timeframe to reject arbitration after a dispute arises. This means clauses like indemnification become largely ineffective if rulings aren't legally binding within the EU.

*Source: [How does SE's arbitration clause hold up under the GDPR?](https://law.stackexchange.com/q/28180) — answer by MSalters, CC-BY-SA 4.0*
