4 ms·

Paid to the FCC, and not the victims? It appears that the government is not interested in the victims, rather just wants a cut of the scam for themselves.

maxk42 8y ago
FTC, although to be fair it doesn't say what will be done with the funds.
- ithilglin909 8y ago
  I seriously doubt that, unless otherwise stated, the FTC would do anything other than appropriate the funds for itself.
  - throwawayjava 8y ago
    > I seriously doubt that, unless otherwise stated, the FTC would do anything other than appropriate the funds for itself. The money goes to the Treasury. Congress holds the purse strings. FTC fines are not designed to make victims whole; fines are inherently punitive. In our current system, restitution and civil damages fill that role; i.e., victims who want to be made whole should sue Mr. Brar individually, sue him as a class, and/or find a prosecutor who will go after criminal charges with restitution and make sure they're included as victims. The good news for victims is that the FTC settlement generally makes civil suits easier for victims to win. The settlement significantly increases the probability of success and significantly decreasing the cost of each individual victim's lawsuit. In particularly egregious cases, FTC settlements will require an explicit admission of guilt. Those admissions make victims' cases even easier to win (the victim only has to prove that they were defrauded; the question of whether the interaction was fraudulent is already settled). IMO the most appropriate structure for an FTC fine would be ${some multiple of the money you made scamming people, AFTER paying back all victims who decide to file a civil suit}. I think the ordering is exactly the opposite, though, unless the civil suits include punitive damanges. We'd have to find a bankrupcy lawyer to be sure.
    - gowld 8y ago
      Consumer redress is in scope for FTC https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/what-we-do/enforcement-authority https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/what-we-do/enforcement-authori...
briandear 8y ago
GDPR fines also go to the governments and not the victims. The reason this is relevant because there wasn’t any discussion of the potential cash-grab incentives for governments because of GDPR. Violations against a person should have fines paid to the person and not the government, thus the government becomes a neutral party and not a beneficiary.
privacypoller 8y ago
How exactly would you propose a settlement of a criminal proceeding be paid out to a large number of victims? This is what class-action is designed for: it qualifies claimants, unifies proceedings and operates in civil court where the barrier is much lower. I'm probably like most in that I think most class-action suits are ambulance chasing lawyers cashing in vs. justice for the true victims, but this seems to be a textbook scenario for class action.
- gowld 8y ago
  This was not a criminal proceeding. > I'm probably like most in that I think most class-action suits are ambulance chasing lawyers cashing in That's not "most people", that's the big business lobby's propaganda. Yes, it's often the case that the costs to prosecute a case are a large fraction of the damages. The defendant doesn't escape punishment just because their payments go to legal fees instead of customers.
dbcurtis 8y ago
Well, congress has only granted them the power to collect fines. The FCC has not been empowered to dispense compensation. However, now the victims have a pretty good piece of evidence for a small claims court filing. Andnof course, the justice department at several levels could bring charges.

maxk42 8y ago

FTC, although to be fair it doesn't say what will be done with the funds.

ithilglin909 8y ago
I seriously doubt that, unless otherwise stated, the FTC would do anything other than appropriate the funds for itself.
- throwawayjava 8y ago
  > I seriously doubt that, unless otherwise stated, the FTC would do anything other than appropriate the funds for itself. The money goes to the Treasury. Congress holds the purse strings. FTC fines are not designed to make victims whole; fines are inherently punitive. In our current system, restitution and civil damages fill that role; i.e., victims who want to be made whole should sue Mr. Brar individually, sue him as a class, and/or find a prosecutor who will go after criminal charges with restitution and make sure they're included as victims. The good news for victims is that the FTC settlement generally makes civil suits easier for victims to win. The settlement significantly increases the probability of success and significantly decreasing the cost of each individual victim's lawsuit. In particularly egregious cases, FTC settlements will require an explicit admission of guilt. Those admissions make victims' cases even easier to win (the victim only has to prove that they were defrauded; the question of whether the interaction was fraudulent is already settled). IMO the most appropriate structure for an FTC fine would be ${some multiple of the money you made scamming people, AFTER paying back all victims who decide to file a civil suit}. I think the ordering is exactly the opposite, though, unless the civil suits include punitive damanges. We'd have to find a bankrupcy lawyer to be sure.
  - gowld 8y ago
    Consumer redress is in scope for FTC https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/what-we-do/enforcement-authority https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/what-we-do/enforcement-authori...

briandear 8y ago

GDPR fines also go to the governments and not the victims. The reason this is relevant because there wasn’t any discussion of the potential cash-grab incentives for governments because of GDPR. Violations against a person should have fines paid to the person and not the government, thus the government becomes a neutral party and not a beneficiary.

privacypoller 8y ago

How exactly would you propose a settlement of a criminal proceeding be paid out to a large number of victims? This is what class-action is designed for: it qualifies claimants, unifies proceedings and operates in civil court where the barrier is much lower. I'm probably like most in that I think most class-action suits are ambulance chasing lawyers cashing in vs. justice for the true victims, but this seems to be a textbook scenario for class action.

gowld 8y ago
This was not a criminal proceeding. > I'm probably like most in that I think most class-action suits are ambulance chasing lawyers cashing in That's not "most people", that's the big business lobby's propaganda. Yes, it's often the case that the costs to prosecute a case are a large fraction of the damages. The defendant doesn't escape punishment just because their payments go to legal fees instead of customers.

dbcurtis 8y ago

Well, congress has only granted them the power to collect fines. The FCC has not been empowered to dispense compensation. However, now the victims have a pretty good piece of evidence for a small claims court filing. Andnof course, the justice department at several levels could bring charges.