576 Pa. at 661, 841 A.2d at 1010. But the consequences of imposing Appellant’s duty on the public— including customers laundering bar rags in a public laundromat — based on the instant record, is less clear. Appellant has not referred us to anything in the record substantiating its bald claim that the public consequences are “modest.” Cf. Thierfelder, 617 Pa. at 337-38, 52 A.3d at 1277; Althaus, 562 Pa. at 555, 756 A.2d at 1170. We are, therefore, reluctant to render a social policy judgment and impose a Commonwealth-wide duty based solely on Appellant’s unsupported characterization of the burden on the public. Cf. Seebold, 618 Pa. at 653, 57 A.3d at 1245. We are in accord with the trial court’s holding. See Trial Ct. Op. at 9-10; see also Seebold, 618 Pa. at 650, 57 A.3d at 1243 (<HOLDING>). At best, without more, this factor does not
recognizing de novo standard of review recognizing that the standard of review for issues of statutory interpretation and construction is de novo holding that review of the denial of a motion to compel arbitration is under the de novo standard holding that the appellate standard of review of ineffectiveness claim is de novo holding that appellant was entitled to a de novo review however he was not entitled to a de novo review of an argument never raised