Brief for Appellants in:
Students Overwhelmingly Hungry from Undue Nullification of Granted Reward Yums (SOHUNGRY)
v.
LexisNexis Rewards
75 U.Va. 22 (2023)
Prepared by Duncan Hardiman ’25, counsel for Appellants.
SUMMARY OF FACTS
As the 2022–23 academic year began, the fresh, innocent, beaming faces of a new class of 1Ls filled the halls of UVA Law. As they took the first steps of their new legal careers, they faced the choice of which legal research database to use. To facilitate their decision, LexisNexis, one of the two major research platforms, offered a rewards system where students received points for their engagement with the platform to incentivize them to use it. These points could then be redeemed on the Lexis Rewards website for a variety of prizes, including gift cards, donations to charities, or even cryptocurrency. The points-to-dollars exchange rate for gift cards is 70 points per dollar. Throughout the course of the fall semester, students could receive 350 points for a visit to the Lexis Lab during “Office Hours” in the Library and 10 points for a search on Lexis. Other opportunities to earn points included attending seminars and table events and answering questions on the Lexis website. The points values for these varied from 100 to 700 points.
For many poor and hungry 1Ls, Lexis’s rewards program was a beacon of hope, whose promise of gift cards in exchange for points served as a salvation from impending starvation. 1Ls would visit the Lexis Lab daily to earn points and cash them in for gift cards to places like Chipotle, Taco Bell, Starbucks, and other chain eateries in the Barracks Road Shopping Center. One visit to Office Hours earned a student enough points for a Taco Bell Cravings Trio®, and two visits could afford a student a chicken burrito at Chipotle. Both meal options provide up to 1,000 calories—half the required daily nutrition for a student. The Lexis Rewards system became an integral part of how many 1Ls would budget their weekly meals.
Then, Lexis got cold feet. In late October, Lexis lowered the number of points for a visit to Office Hours from 350 to 100. This lowered the potential amount for a student to earn in a week from $20 to $5.71. Students complained, but with crafty budgeting, students were able to ration their remaining points in hopes that things would return to normal in the spring. But Lexis refused to stop. In January, the research platform again restricted a student’s ability to earn points. As the spring semester began, the points were limited to one visit to Office Hours per week, worth 200 points, cutting potential earnings down to just $2.85 per week. It would now take students seven weeks to earn what they had previously earned in just one. A glimmer of hope came in early February when Lexis increased the points for a weekly visit to 700. However, students were then informed that they could only receive the 700 points up to six times. Finally, after students returned from spring break, they were informed that there would be no more points for students at all for visiting Office Hours. There have since been no updates, and students continue to be left not only with empty hands, but with empty stomachs too.
QUESTION PRESENTED
Whether the Court of Petty Appeals can find it in their hearts to take sympathy for the 1Ls who have developed a reliance on the Lexis Rewards points for sustenance and can formally recognize the wrongs committed against them.
SHORT ANSWER
While the Court is unable to offer any form of equitable relief to 1Ls and rarely finds in favor of 1Ls in any capacity, the Court has the opportunity to do so here, as the harm done to the 1Ls impacts the entire student body and community at large. It forces the 1Ls who developed a reliance on these points to look for other sources of free food at the cost of the greater Law School student body, causes more complaining from 1Ls that the whole school has to deal with, and deprives future 1Ls of the ability to receive nourishment from local fast food chains.
ARGUMENT
It is well-established precedent that it is the duty of this Court to “defend the right of citizens of UVA Law to a decent meal.”[1] So, if there is any infraction on the quantity or quality of food supplied to the students of UVA Law, or on “the rights of Law School students to use food as one of the few pleasures left to us in this cruel world,”[2] it falls squarely within the jurisdiction of the Court. The present case is no different. This is an infraction on students’ right to receive food as some petty recompense for their sacrifices at law school.
The Court might, of course, construe this action as merely 1Ls complaining, in which case, “1Ls always lose.”[3] However, in Hungry People v. Law School Student Orgs, the Court held that in similar free food situations, the quality of food-providing events must be acceptable under the standard applied to 2Ls and 3Ls, even if 1Ls are disproportionately harmed.[4] Since the opportunities to receive Lexis Rewards—and thus the food benefits from them—are open to 2Ls and 3Ls, the Lexis Rewards changes are an infraction on their ability to receive free food as well. The mere fact that 1L students tend to rely on these points more does not preclude judgment in their favor.
Next, we turn to the impact on the broader Law School community as a result of the 1Ls’ injury. Without the ability to feed themselves via Lexis, 1Ls will be forced to turn to food enjoyed by 2Ls and 3Ls. Specifically, 1Ls will turn to ravaging the already depleted resources at the free food table and events.[5] In October 2022, this Court highlighted the woes of UVA Law’s current state of free food and enjoined the 1Ls from consuming more than one-third of the free food at student org events.[6] 1Ls, at this time, had few other food options. This class entered UVA Law with Graduate PLUS loans having an interest rate of 7.54%. This is an increase from 6.28% last year, and 5.30% the year before. With rising inflation and no fat summer associate checks, 1Ls have been forced to spend an unconscionable amount of money on food. Like manna sent from heaven, Lexis points offered these students the ability to purchase a burrito that they would not be paying off at a 7.54% interest rate for the next decade.
Finally, this brief is an indicator of the damage caused by the discontinuation of the Office Hours points. Who in their right mind would write a brief like this? Who would go to these lengths to complain? Sadly, me. I spent four hours writing this. I took time out of my day, at the expense of preparing for Con Law, because I am disappointed and hungry. I am broke. And I have no idea how to use any other research platform because of my reliance on Lexis Rewards. This is a clear act of desperation, and the moaning and whining will only continue.
CONCLUSION
Please, I am so hungry.
---
snr3wx@virginia.edu
[1] UVA Law v. Barracks Road Chipotle, 74 U.Va. 9 (2021).
[2] Hungry People v. Law School Student Orgs, 75 U.Va. 12 (2022).
[3] Students v. Empty Food Table, 75 U.Va. 10 (2022).
[4] Hungry People, 75 U.Va. 12.
[5] See Students v. Empty Food Table, 75 U.Va. 10 (2022).
[6] 1Ls v. 2Ls and 3Ls, 75 U.Va. 6 (2022).