Print Issues

Look, this isn’t about which teams’ nicknames or mascots are offensive. If you follow sports, or even if you don’t, you’ve already heard those arguments. If you haven’t heard them, they’re easy enough to find on the Internet. Instead, this is about who has the power to change a team’s nickname. As we will see,…

What parties know and think they know about contract law affects their obligations under the law and their intuitive obligations toward one another. Drawing on a series of new experimental questionnaire studies, this Article makes two contributions. First, it lays out what information and beliefs ordinary individuals have about how to form contracts with one…

Adjudication is fundamentally about information, usually concerning individuals’ previous or proposed behavior. Legal system design is challenging because information ordinarily is costly and imperfect. This Article analyzes a broad array of system features, asking throughout whether design should aim at the truth or at consequences, how these approaches may differ, and what general lessons may be…

Traditional consumer protection law employs various disclosure requirements to respond to market imperfections that result when consumers are misinformed or unsophisticated. This regulation assumes that consumers can rationally act on the information that disclosure seeks to produce. Experimental results in psychology and behavioral economics question this rationality premise. The numerous reasoning defects consumers exhibit in…

Law often compels the disclosure of information in particular—and, increasingly today, in visual—forms. Some judges conclude that such modern disclosure requirements break with the First Amendment interest in ensuring that consumers are “well informed.” This Article brings an empirically dedicated perspective to such judicial analyses and provides a specific delineation—for three existing legally required visual…

Bayes’ rule is not being used to guide jury decisionmaking in the vast majority of criminal cases involving evidence of DNA testing. Instead of telling juries the “source probability”—the probability that the individual whose DNA matches was the source of the forensic evidence found at the crime scene—experts only present pieces of the puzzle. They…