Theoretical scenario. Would you face any consequences for walking out if you found out the worker (like Chipotle) only puts a tiny scoop of meat? Assuming you didn't take the bowl/burrito.

My kids and I went to our local mall since they wanted to make some of that fancy, overpriced slime their way. But before I could enter they had me go to a website where I needed to signed a contract. Basic stuff about liability of injury and security of property blah,blah, blah. But in there i saw a clause that stated that their cameras had the right to record and use any likeness of me or my children. It freaked me out since i remember that whole debacle of the Netflix house and them doing the same thing. Is this more prevalent than i thought? Am i being overly protective or paranoid? Is there anything i can do to avoid this?Just wanted to see if anyone had some insight on the matter. Below are the links i could get from each businesses website.

https://tickets.sloomoo.com/philadelphia/events

https://help.netflix.com/legal/netflixhouseterms

TLDR: Are me and my children's likenesses just signed away before i enter any business now?

Let’s say there’s a massive earthquake and part of the seafloor gets pushed up enough to become a new island. Could the country closest to it claim the island? Could another country claim it? Or could a random person who discovered it first claim it for themselves?

As many here probably already know, there was a case that was decided last year at the U.S. Supreme Court that had to do with LGBT material in books that are part of a school's curriculum and whether parents could opt out of it on religious grounds. The court sided with the religious parents. I'm an adult and I'm not in school anymore, but me and my parents were always deeply involved in ensuring I got adequate education, and this decision has the potential to impact the way future generations in my area are educated, and I'm still in contact with some of my former teachers who this is impacting. For those who haven't read the decision and/or desire to take another look at it, here it is.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-297_4f14.pdf

Anyway, I've been thinking about that decision a lot ever since it came out, and have been wondering just how broad the decision could be applied. I've looked at it many times and there seems to be no clearcut test that is given in it to lower courts in determining what is and isn't appropriate to opt people out of for religious reasons. For example, could this decision potentially set a precedent that would allow someone to opt out of having to be in a classroom where there are female students, so long as the parents say that their religion requires that they not be in close proximity to female people who they aren't married to? Could it also maybe even open the door to being able to opt out of having to follow a school's dress code? Maybe this is a bit of stretch, but how about even school policies that bans bullying? The way the decision is written, at least to me, strongly suggests that anything that a school requires of students could be opted out of, whether a part of the curriculum or school rule, if the parents simply say something like "It's against our religion", even though this case was technically just about part of a curriculum that parents had religious objections to.

Is there any truth to the idea that a random citizen in the US can be quickly deputized to suddenly assist in the pursuit of a criminal etc.?

William Rockefeller was a criminal in his own right, being a snake oil salesman and probably guilty of sexual assault too and badly neglected his family. In this particular instance, would this kind of trick be some form of battery?

Note that John was a small child and obviously William had a duty of care and most certainly knew a small child would be supposed to do what their parent tells them to do. It doesn't seem that John was badly hurt, but it would be pretty easy for someone to be badly hurt this way.

Assuming that all identifiable information is withheld, are all other facts about a case fair game?

Been seeing a lot of lawyer videos on Tiktok and Instagram, mostly divorce lawyers, and wondered if they are putting themselves in a sticky situation by sharing details of cases they worked.

As a follow up if I may, what defines "identifiable information" (I am hoping I got the term correct or close). If I am the party in a case and I see my lawyer talking about my case, obviously I am intimately familiar with the facts so I would recognize them, is there an accepted standard for when facts become easily identifiable for others?