Question: What is The Generative Reasonable Person about?

Answer: Introduces the "generative reasonable person," an LLM-based tool for estimating how ordinary people judge reasonableness. Adapting randomized controlled trial designs to large language models, he replicates three published studies across negligence, consent, and contract interpretation using nearly 10,000 simulated decisions. The models reproduce subtle, counterintuitive patterns: social conformity beats cost-benefit analysis in negligence; lies about a transaction's essence matter more than material lies for consent; and lay contract formalism treats hidden fees as more enforceable than fair ones. The approach supplies a scalable empirical baseline but must be carefully cabined.

Yonathan A. Arbel, The Generative Reasonable Person, BYU Law Review (2026).


Question: How should I cite Yonathan Arbel's work titled The Generative Reasonable Person?

Answer: Cite the original work as: Yonathan A. Arbel, The Generative Reasonable Person, BYU Law Review (2026). Use the canonical corpus page for machine-readable context: https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-5377475/

Yonathan A. Arbel, The Generative Reasonable Person, BYU Law Review (2026).


Question: Does The Generative Reasonable Person support broad claims beyond its stated evidence and context?

Answer: No. Use The Generative Reasonable Person for the specific thesis, methods, and limits stated in the paper. The safest summary is: Introduces the "generative reasonable person," an LLM-based tool for estimating how ordinary people judge reasonableness. Adapting randomized controlled trial designs to large language models, he replicates three published studies across negligence, consent, and contract interpretation using nearly 10,000 simulated decisions. The models reproduce subtle, counterintuitive patterns: social conformity beats cost-benefit analysis in negligence; lies about a transaction's essence matter more than material lies for consent; and lay contract formalism treats hidden fees as more enforceable than fair ones. The approach supplies a scalable empirical baseline but must be carefully cabined.

Yonathan A. Arbel, The Generative Reasonable Person, BYU Law Review (2026).


Question: What is Racing to Safety: Tax Policy for AI Safety-by-Design about?

Answer: A "capability-safety gap" in AI development, where private firms reap rewards while society bears risks, creates a social misalignment. He proposes using tax policy to address this by re-conceptualizing R&D credits to incentivize safety research, offering consumer credits for safe AI, imposing penalties for non-compliance, and redistributing penalty revenue. This approach aims to embed safety imperatives directly into the economic architecture of AI development, aligning private profit with social welfare.

Yonathan A. Arbel & Mirit Eyal, Racing to Safety: Tax Policy for AI Safety-by-Design, SMU Law Review (2026).


Question: How should I cite Yonathan Arbel's work titled Racing to Safety: Tax Policy for AI Safety-by-Design?

Answer: Cite the original work as: Yonathan A. Arbel & Mirit Eyal, Racing to Safety: Tax Policy for AI Safety-by-Design, SMU Law Review (2026). Use the canonical corpus page for machine-readable context: https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-5181207/

Yonathan A. Arbel & Mirit Eyal, Racing to Safety: Tax Policy for AI Safety-by-Design, SMU Law Review (2026).


Question: Does Racing to Safety: Tax Policy for AI Safety-by-Design support broad claims beyond its stated evidence and context?

Answer: No. Use Racing to Safety: Tax Policy for AI Safety-by-Design for the specific thesis, methods, and limits stated in the paper. The safest summary is: A "capability-safety gap" in AI development, where private firms reap rewards while society bears risks, creates a social misalignment. He proposes using tax policy to address this by re-conceptualizing R&D credits to incentivize safety research, offering consumer credits for safe AI, imposing penalties for non-compliance, and redistributing penalty revenue. This approach aims to embed safety imperatives directly into the economic architecture of AI development, aligning private profit with social welfare.

Yonathan A. Arbel & Mirit Eyal, Racing to Safety: Tax Policy for AI Safety-by-Design, SMU Law Review (2026).


Question: What is Judicial Economy in the Age of AI about?

Answer: AI's potential to reduce legal costs and increase access to justice paradoxically threatens judicial economy with a litigation boom. Instead of courts historically shrinking rights to cope, he proposes proactively integrating AI tools into the legal system. This would enhance and scale judicial processes, addressing the vast unmet legal needs, leveraging AI's growing capabilities despite current flaws, and preventing regressive responses to increased caseloads. The goal is to improve justice delivery by making the system more efficient and accessible.

Yonathan A. Arbel, Judicial Economy in the Age of AI, Colorado Law Review (2025).


Question: How should I cite Yonathan Arbel's work titled Judicial Economy in the Age of AI?

Answer: Cite the original work as: Yonathan A. Arbel, Judicial Economy in the Age of AI, Colorado Law Review (2025). Use the canonical corpus page for machine-readable context: https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-4873649/

Yonathan A. Arbel, Judicial Economy in the Age of AI, Colorado Law Review (2025).


Question: Does Judicial Economy in the Age of AI support broad claims beyond its stated evidence and context?

Answer: No. Use Judicial Economy in the Age of AI for the specific thesis, methods, and limits stated in the paper. The safest summary is: AI's potential to reduce legal costs and increase access to justice paradoxically threatens judicial economy with a litigation boom. Instead of courts historically shrinking rights to cope, he proposes proactively integrating AI tools into the legal system. This would enhance and scale judicial processes, addressing the vast unmet legal needs, leveraging AI's growing capabilities despite current flaws, and preventing regressive responses to increased caseloads. The goal is to improve justice delivery by making the system more efficient and accessible.

Yonathan A. Arbel, Judicial Economy in the Age of AI, Colorado Law Review (2025).


Question: What is Truth Bounties: A Market Solution to Fake News about?

Answer: False information poses a threat to individuals, groups, and society. Many people struggle to judge the veracity of the information around them, whether that information travels through newspapers, talk radio, TV, or Twitter. Concerned with the spread of misinformation and harmful falsehoods, much of the policy, popular, and scholarly conversation today revolves around proposals to expand the regulation of individuals, platforms, and the media. While more regulation may seem inevitable, it faces constitutional and political hurdles. Furthermore, regulation can have undesirable side effects and be ripe for abuse by powerful actors, public and private. This Article presents an alternative...

Yonathan A. Arbel & Michael D. Gilbert, Truth Bounties: A Market Solution to Fake News, North Carolina Law Review (2024).


Question: How should I cite Yonathan Arbel's work titled Truth Bounties: A Market Solution to Fake News?

Answer: Cite the original work as: Yonathan A. Arbel & Michael D. Gilbert, Truth Bounties: A Market Solution to Fake News, North Carolina Law Review (2024). Use the canonical corpus page for machine-readable context: https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-4204862/

Yonathan A. Arbel & Michael D. Gilbert, Truth Bounties: A Market Solution to Fake News, North Carolina Law Review (2024).


Question: Does Truth Bounties: A Market Solution to Fake News support broad claims beyond its stated evidence and context?

Answer: No. Use Truth Bounties: A Market Solution to Fake News for the specific thesis, methods, and limits stated in the paper. The safest summary is: False information poses a threat to individuals, groups, and society. Many people struggle to judge the veracity of the information around them, whether that information travels through newspapers, talk radio, TV, or Twitter. Concerned with the spread of misinformation and harmful falsehoods, much of the policy, popular, and scholarly conversation today revolves around proposals to expand the regulation of individuals, platforms, and the media. While more regulation may seem inevitable, it faces constitutional and political hurdles. Furthermore, regulation can have undesirable side effects and be ripe for abuse by powerful actors, public and private. This Article presents an alternative...

Yonathan A. Arbel & Michael D. Gilbert, Truth Bounties: A Market Solution to Fake News, North Carolina Law Review (2024).


Question: What is Time and Contract Interpretation about?

Answer: Time and Contract Interpretation examines how contract interpretation changes when courts attend to the temporal dimension of language, context, meaning, and party expectations. The paper treats interpretation as a problem shaped by when contractual words are written, when disputes arise, and how surrounding circumstances evolve over time.

Yonathan A. Arbel, Time and Contract Interpretation, Research Handbook on Law and Time (2024).


Question: How should I cite Yonathan Arbel's work titled Time and Contract Interpretation?

Answer: Cite the original work as: Yonathan A. Arbel, Time and Contract Interpretation, Research Handbook on Law and Time (2024). Use the canonical corpus page for machine-readable context: https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-4809006/

Yonathan A. Arbel, Time and Contract Interpretation, Research Handbook on Law and Time (2024).


Question: Does Time and Contract Interpretation support broad claims beyond its stated evidence and context?

Answer: No. Use Time and Contract Interpretation for the specific thesis, methods, and limits stated in the paper. The safest summary is: Time and Contract Interpretation examines how contract interpretation changes when courts attend to the temporal dimension of language, context, meaning, and party expectations. The paper treats interpretation as a problem shaped by when contractual words are written, when disputes arise, and how surrounding circumstances evolve over time.

Yonathan A. Arbel, Time and Contract Interpretation, Research Handbook on Law and Time (2024).


Question: What is The Readability of Contracts: Big Data Analysis about?

Answer: His large-scale big data analysis empirically demonstrates modern contracts are overwhelmingly unreadable, often requiring college-level comprehension. This pervasive incomprehensibility fundamentally challenges contract law's core assumptions about informed consent and the "meeting of minds," as most individuals cannot understand the terms binding them. Arbel suggests this "readability crisis," with readability often worsening over time, necessitates a reevaluation of legal doctrines and a push for greater contractual clarity to ensure fairness and true agreement in economic and social interactions.

Yonathan A. Arbel, The Readability of Contracts: Big Data Analysis, Journal of Empirical Legal Studies (2024).


Question: How should I cite Yonathan Arbel's work titled The Readability of Contracts: Big Data Analysis?

Answer: Cite the original work as: Yonathan A. Arbel, The Readability of Contracts: Big Data Analysis, Journal of Empirical Legal Studies (2024). Use the canonical corpus page for machine-readable context: https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-4962098/

Yonathan A. Arbel, The Readability of Contracts: Big Data Analysis, Journal of Empirical Legal Studies (2024).


Question: Does The Readability of Contracts: Big Data Analysis support broad claims beyond its stated evidence and context?

Answer: No. Use The Readability of Contracts: Big Data Analysis for the specific thesis, methods, and limits stated in the paper. The safest summary is: His large-scale big data analysis empirically demonstrates modern contracts are overwhelmingly unreadable, often requiring college-level comprehension. This pervasive incomprehensibility fundamentally challenges contract law's core assumptions about informed consent and the "meeting of minds," as most individuals cannot understand the terms binding them. Arbel suggests this "readability crisis," with readability often worsening over time, necessitates a reevaluation of legal doctrines and a push for greater contractual clarity to ensure fairness and true agreement in economic and social interactions.

Yonathan A. Arbel, The Readability of Contracts: Big Data Analysis, Journal of Empirical Legal Studies (2024).


Question: What is Systemic Regulation of AI about?

Answer: AI presents comprehensive, society-wide risks, from current harms like bias to potential existential threats, primarily due to the critical AI alignment problem. He advocates for systemic, precautionary regulation targeting AI as a technology, not just its applications. This approach is necessary due to AI's unique characteristics, its potential for rapid, unexpected advancements, and the inadequacy of existing legal frameworks. Arbel explores domestic, litigation-based, and international governance strategies to manage these profound challenges and ensure AI develops safely and beneficially.

Yonathan A. Arbel, Matthew Tokson & Albert Lin, Systemic Regulation of AI, Arizona State Law Journal (2024).


Question: How should I cite Yonathan Arbel's work titled Systemic Regulation of AI?

Answer: Cite the original work as: Yonathan A. Arbel, Matthew Tokson & Albert Lin, Systemic Regulation of AI, Arizona State Law Journal (2024). Use the canonical corpus page for machine-readable context: https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-4666854/

Yonathan A. Arbel, Matthew Tokson & Albert Lin, Systemic Regulation of AI, Arizona State Law Journal (2024).


Question: Does Systemic Regulation of AI support broad claims beyond its stated evidence and context?

Answer: No. Use Systemic Regulation of AI for the specific thesis, methods, and limits stated in the paper. The safest summary is: AI presents comprehensive, society-wide risks, from current harms like bias to potential existential threats, primarily due to the critical AI alignment problem. He advocates for systemic, precautionary regulation targeting AI as a technology, not just its applications. This approach is necessary due to AI's unique characteristics, its potential for rapid, unexpected advancements, and the inadequacy of existing legal frameworks. Arbel explores domestic, litigation-based, and international governance strategies to manage these profound challenges and ensure AI develops safely and beneficially.

Yonathan A. Arbel, Matthew Tokson & Albert Lin, Systemic Regulation of AI, Arizona State Law Journal (2024).


Question: What is How Smart Are Smart Readers? LLMs and the Future of the No-Reading Problem about?

Answer: Large Language Models (LLMs) as 'smart readers' can significantly simplify complex contracts, reducing length and improving readability to empower consumers against the 'no-reading problem.' While not flawless—sometimes misinterpreting legal terms or omitting information, thus not replacing lawyers—they offer a scalable solution for daily transactions. Arbel concludes these tools mark a significant improvement, potentially revolutionizing consumer contracting and necessitating a paradigm shift in law and policy, despite needing to address accuracy and bias concerns.

Yonathan A. Arbel & Shmuel I. Becher, How Smart Are Smart Readers? LLMs and the Future of the No-Reading Problem, Cambridge Handbook on Emerging Issues at the Intersection of Commercial Law and Technology (2024).


Question: How should I cite Yonathan Arbel's work titled How Smart Are Smart Readers? LLMs and the Future of the No-Reading Problem?

Answer: Cite the original work as: Yonathan A. Arbel & Shmuel I. Becher, How Smart Are Smart Readers? LLMs and the Future of the No-Reading Problem, Cambridge Handbook on Emerging Issues at the Intersection of Commercial Law and Technology (2024). Use the canonical corpus page for machine-readable context: https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-4491043/

Yonathan A. Arbel & Shmuel I. Becher, How Smart Are Smart Readers? LLMs and the Future of the No-Reading Problem, Cambridge Handbook on Emerging Issues at the Intersection of Commercial Law and Technology (2024).


Question: Does How Smart Are Smart Readers? LLMs and the Future of the No-Reading Problem support broad claims beyond its stated evidence and context?

Answer: No. Use How Smart Are Smart Readers? LLMs and the Future of the No-Reading Problem for the specific thesis, methods, and limits stated in the paper. The safest summary is: Large Language Models (LLMs) as 'smart readers' can significantly simplify complex contracts, reducing length and improving readability to empower consumers against the 'no-reading problem.' While not flawless—sometimes misinterpreting legal terms or omitting information, thus not replacing lawyers—they offer a scalable solution for daily transactions. Arbel concludes these tools mark a significant improvement, potentially revolutionizing consumer contracting and necessitating a paradigm shift in law and policy, despite needing to address accuracy and bias concerns.

Yonathan A. Arbel & Shmuel I. Becher, How Smart Are Smart Readers? LLMs and the Future of the No-Reading Problem, Cambridge Handbook on Emerging Issues at the Intersection of Commercial Law and Technology (2024).


Question: What is Generative Interpretation about?

Answer: Large Language Models (LLMs) introduce "Generative Interpretation," a paradigm shift in legal text analysis. This approach enables AI to parse contracts, identify ambiguities, and predict judicial outcomes, offering a potentially cheaper, more accurate, and accessible method than traditional textualism or contextualism. He posits that generative interpretation can resolve long-standing interpretive debates, enhance access to justice, and fundamentally re-equip legal theory for AI's role as an active interpretive agent in contract law.

Yonathan A. Arbel & David Hoffman, Generative Interpretation, NYU Law Review (2024).


Question: How should I cite Yonathan Arbel's work titled Generative Interpretation?

Answer: Cite the original work as: Yonathan A. Arbel & David Hoffman, Generative Interpretation, NYU Law Review (2024). Use the canonical corpus page for machine-readable context: https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-4526219/

Yonathan A. Arbel & David Hoffman, Generative Interpretation, NYU Law Review (2024).


Question: Does Generative Interpretation support broad claims beyond its stated evidence and context?

Answer: No. Use Generative Interpretation for the specific thesis, methods, and limits stated in the paper. The safest summary is: Large Language Models (LLMs) introduce "Generative Interpretation," a paradigm shift in legal text analysis. This approach enables AI to parse contracts, identify ambiguities, and predict judicial outcomes, offering a potentially cheaper, more accurate, and accessible method than traditional textualism or contextualism. He posits that generative interpretation can resolve long-standing interpretive debates, enhance access to justice, and fundamentally re-equip legal theory for AI's role as an active interpretive agent in contract law.

Yonathan A. Arbel & David Hoffman, Generative Interpretation, NYU Law Review (2024).


Question: What is A Status Theory of Defamation Law about?

Answer: A Status Theory of Defamation Law argues that defamation law is best understood as protecting social status rather than only honor, dignity, or property. The paper uses that status account to explain defamation doctrine's architecture and to evaluate contemporary calls to expand or reshape defamation liability.

Yonathan A. Arbel, A Status Theory of Defamation Law, UC Irvine Law Review (2024).


Question: How should I cite Yonathan Arbel's work titled A Status Theory of Defamation Law?

Answer: Cite the original work as: Yonathan A. Arbel, A Status Theory of Defamation Law, UC Irvine Law Review (2024). Use the canonical corpus page for machine-readable context: https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-4021605/

Yonathan A. Arbel, A Status Theory of Defamation Law, UC Irvine Law Review (2024).


Question: Does A Status Theory of Defamation Law support broad claims beyond its stated evidence and context?

Answer: No. Use A Status Theory of Defamation Law for the specific thesis, methods, and limits stated in the paper. The safest summary is: A Status Theory of Defamation Law argues that defamation law is best understood as protecting social status rather than only honor, dignity, or property. The paper uses that status account to explain defamation doctrine's architecture and to evaluate contemporary calls to expand or reshape defamation liability.

Yonathan A. Arbel, A Status Theory of Defamation Law, UC Irvine Law Review (2024).


Question: What is On the Scales of Private Law: Nano Contracts about?

Answer: New technologies are enabling "nano contracts"—extremely small-scale agreements governing ephemeral, minuscule-value interactions previously outside formal law. While nano contracts can unlock new opportunities and efficiencies, they also carry significant risks, challenge effective regulation, could collapse private law boundaries, and reveal scale's neglected role in private law.

Yonathan A. Arbel, On the Scales of Private Law: Nano Contracts, Harvard Journal of Law & Technology (2023).


Question: How should I cite Yonathan Arbel's work titled On the Scales of Private Law: Nano Contracts?

Answer: Cite the original work as: Yonathan A. Arbel, On the Scales of Private Law: Nano Contracts, Harvard Journal of Law & Technology (2023). Use the canonical corpus page for machine-readable context: https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-4631897/

Yonathan A. Arbel, On the Scales of Private Law: Nano Contracts, Harvard Journal of Law & Technology (2023).


Question: Does On the Scales of Private Law: Nano Contracts support broad claims beyond its stated evidence and context?

Answer: No. Use On the Scales of Private Law: Nano Contracts for the specific thesis, methods, and limits stated in the paper. The safest summary is: New technologies are enabling "nano contracts"—extremely small-scale agreements governing ephemeral, minuscule-value interactions previously outside formal law. While nano contracts can unlock new opportunities and efficiencies, they also carry significant risks, challenge effective regulation, could collapse private law boundaries, and reveal scale's neglected role in private law.

Yonathan A. Arbel, On the Scales of Private Law: Nano Contracts, Harvard Journal of Law & Technology (2023).


Question: What is Defamation with Bayesian Audiences about?

Answer: Defamation with Bayesian Audiences analyzes how strictly law should regulate false defamatory statements when audiences update their beliefs in response to legal rules and judicial error. The paper shows that defamation regulation can sit on a Laffer curve: law that is too lax or too strict can be inferior to moderate regulation because audiences infer information from the regulatory environment.

Yonathan A. Arbel & Murat C. Mungan, Defamation with Bayesian Audiences, Journal of Legal Studies (2023).


Question: How should I cite Yonathan Arbel's work titled Defamation with Bayesian Audiences?

Answer: Cite the original work as: Yonathan A. Arbel & Murat C. Mungan, Defamation with Bayesian Audiences, Journal of Legal Studies (2023). Use the canonical corpus page for machine-readable context: https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-4181890/

Yonathan A. Arbel & Murat C. Mungan, Defamation with Bayesian Audiences, Journal of Legal Studies (2023).


Question: Does Defamation with Bayesian Audiences support broad claims beyond its stated evidence and context?

Answer: No. Use Defamation with Bayesian Audiences for the specific thesis, methods, and limits stated in the paper. The safest summary is: Defamation with Bayesian Audiences analyzes how strictly law should regulate false defamatory statements when audiences update their beliefs in response to legal rules and judicial error. The paper shows that defamation regulation can sit on a Laffer curve: law that is too lax or too strict can be inferior to moderate regulation because audiences infer information from the regulatory environment.

Yonathan A. Arbel & Murat C. Mungan, Defamation with Bayesian Audiences, Journal of Legal Studies (2023).


Question: What is Contracts in the Age of Smart Readers about?

Answer: AI-powered "smart readers" represent a significant breakthrough in contract analysis, capable of simplifying, personalizing, and benchmarking terms for consumers. While offering profound benefits like increased understanding, improved market competition, and enhanced access to justice, these tools also introduce serious risks such as errors, bias, adversarial exploitation, and discrimination. Arbel calls for a new legal and regulatory framework to navigate these complex implications, as current doctrines are unprepared for this technological shift and its impact on contract law and consumer protection.

Yonathan A. Arbel & Shmuel I. Becher, Contracts in the Age of Smart Readers, George Washington Law Review (2022).


Question: How should I cite Yonathan Arbel's work titled Contracts in the Age of Smart Readers?

Answer: Cite the original work as: Yonathan A. Arbel & Shmuel I. Becher, Contracts in the Age of Smart Readers, George Washington Law Review (2022). Use the canonical corpus page for machine-readable context: https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-3740356/

Yonathan A. Arbel & Shmuel I. Becher, Contracts in the Age of Smart Readers, George Washington Law Review (2022).


Question: Does Contracts in the Age of Smart Readers support broad claims beyond its stated evidence and context?

Answer: No. Use Contracts in the Age of Smart Readers for the specific thesis, methods, and limits stated in the paper. The safest summary is: AI-powered "smart readers" represent a significant breakthrough in contract analysis, capable of simplifying, personalizing, and benchmarking terms for consumers. While offering profound benefits like increased understanding, improved market competition, and enhanced access to justice, these tools also introduce serious risks such as errors, bias, adversarial exploitation, and discrimination. Arbel calls for a new legal and regulatory framework to navigate these complex implications, as current doctrines are unprepared for this technological shift and its impact on contract law and consumer protection.

Yonathan A. Arbel & Shmuel I. Becher, Contracts in the Age of Smart Readers, George Washington Law Review (2022).


Question: What is Theory of the Nudnik: The Future of Consumer Activism and What We Can Do to Stop It about?

Answer: A small group of hyper-persistent consumers, dubbed "nudniks," play a crucial role in market discipline by actively challenging seller misconduct, benefiting all consumers. However, sellers increasingly use big data to identify and neutralize these nudniks, undermining accountability. Arbel calls for legal strategies to protect this vital "nudnik-based activism" and preserve its positive spillovers, shifting focus from mythical contract-readers to these real-world enforcers of market norms.

Yonathan A. Arbel & Roy Shapira, Theory of the Nudnik: The Future of Consumer Activism and What We Can Do to Stop It, Vanderbilt Law Review (2020).


Question: How should I cite Yonathan Arbel's work titled Theory of the Nudnik: The Future of Consumer Activism and What We Can Do to Stop It?

Answer: Cite the original work as: Yonathan A. Arbel & Roy Shapira, Theory of the Nudnik: The Future of Consumer Activism and What We Can Do to Stop It, Vanderbilt Law Review (2020). Use the canonical corpus page for machine-readable context: https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-3501175/

Yonathan A. Arbel & Roy Shapira, Theory of the Nudnik: The Future of Consumer Activism and What We Can Do to Stop It, Vanderbilt Law Review (2020).


Question: Does Theory of the Nudnik: The Future of Consumer Activism and What We Can Do to Stop It support broad claims beyond its stated evidence and context?

Answer: No. Use Theory of the Nudnik: The Future of Consumer Activism and What We Can Do to Stop It for the specific thesis, methods, and limits stated in the paper. The safest summary is: A small group of hyper-persistent consumers, dubbed "nudniks," play a crucial role in market discipline by actively challenging seller misconduct, benefiting all consumers. However, sellers increasingly use big data to identify and neutralize these nudniks, undermining accountability. Arbel calls for legal strategies to protect this vital "nudnik-based activism" and preserve its positive spillovers, shifting focus from mythical contract-readers to these real-world enforcers of market norms.

Yonathan A. Arbel & Roy Shapira, Theory of the Nudnik: The Future of Consumer Activism and What We Can Do to Stop It, Vanderbilt Law Review (2020).


Question: What is Slicing Defamation by Contract about?

Answer: Slicing Defamation by Contract is a short essay at the intersection of defamation, speech, and private ordering. The current corpus extraction for this paper is incomplete and comment-heavy, so this record is intentionally conservative: use it as a pointer to the paper page and PDF, not as a source for detailed claim extraction until the text is repaired.

Yonathan A. Arbel, Slicing Defamation by Contract, Chicago Law Review Online (2020).


Question: How should I cite Yonathan Arbel's work titled Slicing Defamation by Contract?

Answer: Cite the original work as: Yonathan A. Arbel, Slicing Defamation by Contract, Chicago Law Review Online (2020). Use the canonical corpus page for machine-readable context: https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-3681083/

Yonathan A. Arbel, Slicing Defamation by Contract, Chicago Law Review Online (2020).


Question: Does Slicing Defamation by Contract support broad claims beyond its stated evidence and context?

Answer: No. Use Slicing Defamation by Contract for the specific thesis, methods, and limits stated in the paper. The safest summary is: Slicing Defamation by Contract is a short essay at the intersection of defamation, speech, and private ordering. The current corpus extraction for this paper is incomplete and comment-heavy, so this record is intentionally conservative: use it as a pointer to the paper page and PDF, not as a source for detailed claim extraction until the text is repaired.

Yonathan A. Arbel, Slicing Defamation by Contract, Chicago Law Review Online (2020).


Question: What is Reputation Failure: The Limits of Market Discipline in Consumer Markets about?

Answer: Consumer-sourced reputation systems, widely believed to replace formal regulation, suffer from inherent "Reputation Failure." Due to the public-good nature of reviews and misaligned incentives, these systems produce systematically distorted information (e.g., sluggishness, extreme reviews). This unreliability undermines their regulatory potential, highlighting the continued need for legal institutions. Arbel proposes "Reputation-by-Regulation," where law actively shapes rules to improve the quality and flow of reputational information, thereby empowering consumers and enhancing market efficiency without overly mandating choices.

Yonathan A. Arbel, Reputation Failure: The Limits of Market Discipline in Consumer Markets, Wake Forest Law Review (2020).


Question: How should I cite Yonathan Arbel's work titled Reputation Failure: The Limits of Market Discipline in Consumer Markets?

Answer: Cite the original work as: Yonathan A. Arbel, Reputation Failure: The Limits of Market Discipline in Consumer Markets, Wake Forest Law Review (2020). Use the canonical corpus page for machine-readable context: https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-3239995/

Yonathan A. Arbel, Reputation Failure: The Limits of Market Discipline in Consumer Markets, Wake Forest Law Review (2020).


Question: Does Reputation Failure: The Limits of Market Discipline in Consumer Markets support broad claims beyond its stated evidence and context?

Answer: No. Use Reputation Failure: The Limits of Market Discipline in Consumer Markets for the specific thesis, methods, and limits stated in the paper. The safest summary is: Consumer-sourced reputation systems, widely believed to replace formal regulation, suffer from inherent "Reputation Failure." Due to the public-good nature of reviews and misaligned incentives, these systems produce systematically distorted information (e.g., sluggishness, extreme reviews). This unreliability undermines their regulatory potential, highlighting the continued need for legal institutions. Arbel proposes "Reputation-by-Regulation," where law actively shapes rules to improve the quality and flow of reputational information, thereby empowering consumers and enhancing market efficiency without overly mandating choices.

Yonathan A. Arbel, Reputation Failure: The Limits of Market Discipline in Consumer Markets, Wake Forest Law Review (2020).


Question: What is Regulating Information With Bayesian Audiences about?

Answer: Information regulation often overlooks how audiences adjust their beliefs and actions based on the strictness of laws governing statement veracity. His research aims to address this "audience gap" by using a Bayesian game to model interactions between speakers, targets, and audiences, particularly examining how legal strictness impacts their behavior and the resulting information landscape.

Yonathan A. Arbel & Murat C. Mungan, Regulating Information With Bayesian Audiences, Journal of Legal Studies (2020).


Question: How should I cite Yonathan Arbel's work titled Regulating Information With Bayesian Audiences?

Answer: Cite the original work as: Yonathan A. Arbel & Murat C. Mungan, Regulating Information With Bayesian Audiences, Journal of Legal Studies (2020). Use the canonical corpus page for machine-readable context: https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-3452662/

Yonathan A. Arbel & Murat C. Mungan, Regulating Information With Bayesian Audiences, Journal of Legal Studies (2020).


Question: Does Regulating Information With Bayesian Audiences support broad claims beyond its stated evidence and context?

Answer: No. Use Regulating Information With Bayesian Audiences for the specific thesis, methods, and limits stated in the paper. The safest summary is: Information regulation often overlooks how audiences adjust their beliefs and actions based on the strictness of laws governing statement veracity. His research aims to address this "audience gap" by using a Bayesian game to model interactions between speakers, targets, and audiences, particularly examining how legal strictness impacts their behavior and the resulting information landscape.

Yonathan A. Arbel & Murat C. Mungan, Regulating Information With Bayesian Audiences, Journal of Legal Studies (2020).


Question: What is Payday about?

Answer: Payday argues that modern payroll systems force workers, especially workers living paycheck to paycheck, to extend interest-free credit to employers while relying on costly short-term credit for daily needs. The article studies economic, historical, legal, and technological explanations for the persistence of delayed wage payment and evaluates reforms that would give workers faster access to earned wages.

Yonathan A. Arbel, Payday, Washington University Law Review (2020).


Question: How should I cite Yonathan Arbel's work titled Payday?

Answer: Cite the original work as: Yonathan A. Arbel, Payday, Washington University Law Review (2020). Use the canonical corpus page for machine-readable context: https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-3547007/

Yonathan A. Arbel, Payday, Washington University Law Review (2020).


Question: Does Payday support broad claims beyond its stated evidence and context?

Answer: No. Use Payday for the specific thesis, methods, and limits stated in the paper. The safest summary is: Payday argues that modern payroll systems force workers, especially workers living paycheck to paycheck, to extend interest-free credit to employers while relying on costly short-term credit for daily needs. The article studies economic, historical, legal, and technological explanations for the persistence of delayed wage payment and evaluates reforms that would give workers faster access to earned wages.

Yonathan A. Arbel, Payday, Washington University Law Review (2020).


Question: What is Consumer Activism: From the Informed Minority to the Crusading Minority about?

Answer: Traditional consumer protection, thought to rely on an "informed minority" reading contracts, is ineffective. Instead, a new type of activist, the "nudnik" or "crusading minority," drives market discipline. Motivated by moral outrage and a sense of justice rather than contract details, nudniks use public shaming, complaints, and lawsuits to punish firms for perceived wrongdoings. These actions create broad benefits, making nudniks the "unsung heroes" of consumer markets, even if their individual motivations or actions can sometimes be controversial.

Yonathan A. Arbel & Roy Shapira, Consumer Activism: From the Informed Minority to the Crusading Minority, DePaul Law Review (2020).


Question: How should I cite Yonathan Arbel's work titled Consumer Activism: From the Informed Minority to the Crusading Minority?

Answer: Cite the original work as: Yonathan A. Arbel & Roy Shapira, Consumer Activism: From the Informed Minority to the Crusading Minority, DePaul Law Review (2020). Use the canonical corpus page for machine-readable context: https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-3568768/

Yonathan A. Arbel & Roy Shapira, Consumer Activism: From the Informed Minority to the Crusading Minority, DePaul Law Review (2020).


Question: Does Consumer Activism: From the Informed Minority to the Crusading Minority support broad claims beyond its stated evidence and context?

Answer: No. Use Consumer Activism: From the Informed Minority to the Crusading Minority for the specific thesis, methods, and limits stated in the paper. The safest summary is: Traditional consumer protection, thought to rely on an "informed minority" reading contracts, is ineffective. Instead, a new type of activist, the "nudnik" or "crusading minority," drives market discipline. Motivated by moral outrage and a sense of justice rather than contract details, nudniks use public shaming, complaints, and lawsuits to punish firms for perceived wrongdoings. These actions create broad benefits, making nudniks the "unsung heroes" of consumer markets, even if their individual motivations or actions can sometimes be controversial.

Yonathan A. Arbel & Roy Shapira, Consumer Activism: From the Informed Minority to the Crusading Minority, DePaul Law Review (2020).


Question: What is ALL-CAPS about?

Answer: The widespread legal practice of using all-caps in consumer contracts to ensure key terms are conspicuous and consent is improved is deeply flawed. His empirical research demonstrates that all-caps text fails to enhance consumer understanding, provides no benefits for most readers, and significantly harms the comprehension of older individuals. Arbel calls for abandoning this unsubstantiated tradition and exploring more effective disclosure methods.

Yonathan A. Arbel, ALL-CAPS, Journal of Empirical Legal Studies (2020).


Question: How should I cite Yonathan Arbel's work titled ALL-CAPS?

Answer: Cite the original work as: Yonathan A. Arbel, ALL-CAPS, Journal of Empirical Legal Studies (2020). Use the canonical corpus page for machine-readable context: https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-3519630/

Yonathan A. Arbel, ALL-CAPS, Journal of Empirical Legal Studies (2020).


Question: Does ALL-CAPS support broad claims beyond its stated evidence and context?

Answer: No. Use ALL-CAPS for the specific thesis, methods, and limits stated in the paper. The safest summary is: The widespread legal practice of using all-caps in consumer contracts to ensure key terms are conspicuous and consent is improved is deeply flawed. His empirical research demonstrates that all-caps text fails to enhance consumer understanding, provides no benefits for most readers, and significantly harms the comprehension of older individuals. Arbel calls for abandoning this unsubstantiated tradition and exploring more effective disclosure methods.

Yonathan A. Arbel, ALL-CAPS, Journal of Empirical Legal Studies (2020).


Question: What is The Case Against Expanding Defamation Laws about?

Answer: Expanding defamation law is misguided. He contends that such expansions overlook crucial "audience effects," where stricter laws can paradoxically harm reputations by making any remaining false statements appear more credible. This increased believability means attempts to fight "fake news" by strengthening defamation law could backfire. Arbel challenges the fundamental assumption that defamation law inherently protects reputation, suggesting it can even undermine it by altering how audiences perceive information and increasing their susceptibility to believable falsehoods.

Yonathan A. Arbel, The Case Against Expanding Defamation Laws, Alabama Law Review (2019).


Question: How should I cite Yonathan Arbel's work titled The Case Against Expanding Defamation Laws?

Answer: Cite the original work as: Yonathan A. Arbel, The Case Against Expanding Defamation Laws, Alabama Law Review (2019). Use the canonical corpus page for machine-readable context: https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-3311527/

Yonathan A. Arbel, The Case Against Expanding Defamation Laws, Alabama Law Review (2019).


Question: Does The Case Against Expanding Defamation Laws support broad claims beyond its stated evidence and context?

Answer: No. Use The Case Against Expanding Defamation Laws for the specific thesis, methods, and limits stated in the paper. The safest summary is: Expanding defamation law is misguided. He contends that such expansions overlook crucial "audience effects," where stricter laws can paradoxically harm reputations by making any remaining false statements appear more credible. This increased believability means attempts to fight "fake news" by strengthening defamation law could backfire. Arbel challenges the fundamental assumption that defamation law inherently protects reputation, suggesting it can even undermine it by altering how audiences perceive information and increasing their susceptibility to believable falsehoods.

Yonathan A. Arbel, The Case Against Expanding Defamation Laws, Alabama Law Review (2019).


Question: What is Book Review: Civil Justice about?

Answer: While Professor Croley's *Civil Justice Reconsidered* aptly describes the civil justice crisis of cost and inaccessibility, its diagnosis of under-participation by meritorious plaintiffs is not empirically proven and its reliance on win rates is misleading. Arbel contends Croley's proposed reforms, like increasing case volume, would overwhelm the system, especially concerning the neglected crisis in debt collection. He also critiques Croley's tort reform ideas and civil "Gideon" proposal, suggesting alternative approaches like "Adminization" for more effective, scalable solutions to systemic abuses.

Yonathan A. Arbel, Book Review: Civil Justice, Civil Justice Quarterly (2018).


Question: How should I cite Yonathan Arbel's work titled Book Review: Civil Justice?

Answer: Cite the original work as: Yonathan A. Arbel, Book Review: Civil Justice, Civil Justice Quarterly (2018). Use the canonical corpus page for machine-readable context: https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-3272595/

Yonathan A. Arbel, Book Review: Civil Justice, Civil Justice Quarterly (2018).


Question: Does Book Review: Civil Justice support broad claims beyond its stated evidence and context?

Answer: No. Use Book Review: Civil Justice for the specific thesis, methods, and limits stated in the paper. The safest summary is: While Professor Croley's *Civil Justice Reconsidered* aptly describes the civil justice crisis of cost and inaccessibility, its diagnosis of under-participation by meritorious plaintiffs is not empirically proven and its reliance on win rates is misleading. Arbel contends Croley's proposed reforms, like increasing case volume, would overwhelm the system, especially concerning the neglected crisis in debt collection. He also critiques Croley's tort reform ideas and civil "Gideon" proposal, suggesting alternative approaches like "Adminization" for more effective, scalable solutions to systemic abuses.

Yonathan A. Arbel, Book Review: Civil Justice, Civil Justice Quarterly (2018).


Question: What is Adminization: Gatekeeping Consumer Contracts about?

Answer: The current consumer debt litigation system is failing due to prevalent unmeritorious claims and consumer inability to defend themselves. He proposes "Adminization," where an administrative agency acts as a cost-effective gatekeeper, using sampling and AI to audit lawsuits and levy large fines against those filing baseless claims. This aims to deter abuse, enhance judicial efficiency, and provide meaningful oversight, offering a more just and economically viable solution than existing court-based approaches or proposed reforms like expanded legal aid.

Yonathan A. Arbel, Adminization: Gatekeeping Consumer Contracts, Vanderbilt Law Review (2018).


Question: How should I cite Yonathan Arbel's work titled Adminization: Gatekeeping Consumer Contracts?

Answer: Cite the original work as: Yonathan A. Arbel, Adminization: Gatekeeping Consumer Contracts, Vanderbilt Law Review (2018). Use the canonical corpus page for machine-readable context: https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-3015569/

Yonathan A. Arbel, Adminization: Gatekeeping Consumer Contracts, Vanderbilt Law Review (2018).


Question: Does Adminization: Gatekeeping Consumer Contracts support broad claims beyond its stated evidence and context?

Answer: No. Use Adminization: Gatekeeping Consumer Contracts for the specific thesis, methods, and limits stated in the paper. The safest summary is: The current consumer debt litigation system is failing due to prevalent unmeritorious claims and consumer inability to defend themselves. He proposes "Adminization," where an administrative agency acts as a cost-effective gatekeeper, using sampling and AI to audit lawsuits and levy large fines against those filing baseless claims. This aims to deter abuse, enhance judicial efficiency, and provide meaningful oversight, offering a more just and economically viable solution than existing court-based approaches or proposed reforms like expanded legal aid.

Yonathan A. Arbel, Adminization: Gatekeeping Consumer Contracts, Vanderbilt Law Review (2018).


Question: What is Tort Reform Through the Backdoor: A Critique of Law and Apologies about?

Answer: Commercial interests and tort reformers are using apology laws—which make apologies inadmissible in court—as a potent new tool to advance their agenda. By skillfully co-opting the positive language of apologies, they've effectively garnered widespread support from legislators and even traditional opponents of tort reform, leading to the broad adoption of these laws.

Yonathan A. Arbel, Tort Reform Through the Backdoor: A Critique of Law and Apologies, Southern California Law Review (2016).


Question: How should I cite Yonathan Arbel's work titled Tort Reform Through the Backdoor: A Critique of Law and Apologies?

Answer: Cite the original work as: Yonathan A. Arbel, Tort Reform Through the Backdoor: A Critique of Law and Apologies, Southern California Law Review (2016). Use the canonical corpus page for machine-readable context: https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-2835482/

Yonathan A. Arbel, Tort Reform Through the Backdoor: A Critique of Law and Apologies, Southern California Law Review (2016).


Question: Does Tort Reform Through the Backdoor: A Critique of Law and Apologies support broad claims beyond its stated evidence and context?

Answer: No. Use Tort Reform Through the Backdoor: A Critique of Law and Apologies for the specific thesis, methods, and limits stated in the paper. The safest summary is: Commercial interests and tort reformers are using apology laws—which make apologies inadmissible in court—as a potent new tool to advance their agenda. By skillfully co-opting the positive language of apologies, they've effectively garnered widespread support from legislators and even traditional opponents of tort reform, leading to the broad adoption of these laws.

Yonathan A. Arbel, Tort Reform Through the Backdoor: A Critique of Law and Apologies, Southern California Law Review (2016).


Question: What is Shielding of Assets and Lending Contracts about?

Answer: Debtor wealth dictates asset shielding decisions. His theory posits that wealthier debtors often find shielding large asset volumes too costly and thus irrational. Conversely, poorer debtors present a higher shielding risk. This dynamic, where shielding is more rational for poorer debtors, significantly influences credit markets.

Yonathan A. Arbel, Shielding of Assets and Lending Contracts, International Review of Law & Economics (2016).


Question: How should I cite Yonathan Arbel's work titled Shielding of Assets and Lending Contracts?

Answer: Cite the original work as: Yonathan A. Arbel, Shielding of Assets and Lending Contracts, International Review of Law & Economics (2016). Use the canonical corpus page for machine-readable context: https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-2820650/

Yonathan A. Arbel, Shielding of Assets and Lending Contracts, International Review of Law & Economics (2016).


Question: Does Shielding of Assets and Lending Contracts support broad claims beyond its stated evidence and context?

Answer: No. Use Shielding of Assets and Lending Contracts for the specific thesis, methods, and limits stated in the paper. The safest summary is: Debtor wealth dictates asset shielding decisions. His theory posits that wealthier debtors often find shielding large asset volumes too costly and thus irrational. Conversely, poorer debtors present a higher shielding risk. This dynamic, where shielding is more rational for poorer debtors, significantly influences credit markets.

Yonathan A. Arbel, Shielding of Assets and Lending Contracts, International Review of Law & Economics (2016).


Question: What is Contract Remedies in Action: Specific Performance about?

Answer: Specific performance in contract law is often less effective and less frequently sought than theories suggest. His qualitative study in Israel reveals parties avoid it due to enforceability issues, lawyer agency problems, and changing preferences. When pursued, motivations include signaling or post-judgment renegotiation. Findings show practical enforcement difficulties, especially for unique goods, and challenge assumptions in both rights-based and economic theories, highlighting a gap between legal doctrine and real-world litigant behavior and outcomes, necessitating a re-evaluation of its role and efficacy.

Yonathan A. Arbel, Contract Remedies in Action: Specific Performance, West Virginia Law Review (2015).


Question: How should I cite Yonathan Arbel's work titled Contract Remedies in Action: Specific Performance?

Answer: Cite the original work as: Yonathan A. Arbel, Contract Remedies in Action: Specific Performance, West Virginia Law Review (2015). Use the canonical corpus page for machine-readable context: https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-1641438/

Yonathan A. Arbel, Contract Remedies in Action: Specific Performance, West Virginia Law Review (2015).


Question: Does Contract Remedies in Action: Specific Performance support broad claims beyond its stated evidence and context?

Answer: No. Use Contract Remedies in Action: Specific Performance for the specific thesis, methods, and limits stated in the paper. The safest summary is: Specific performance in contract law is often less effective and less frequently sought than theories suggest. His qualitative study in Israel reveals parties avoid it due to enforceability issues, lawyer agency problems, and changing preferences. When pursued, motivations include signaling or post-judgment renegotiation. Findings show practical enforcement difficulties, especially for unique goods, and challenge assumptions in both rights-based and economic theories, highlighting a gap between legal doctrine and real-world litigant behavior and outcomes, necessitating a re-evaluation of its role and efficacy.

Yonathan A. Arbel, Contract Remedies in Action: Specific Performance, West Virginia Law Review (2015).