3 ms·
It looks to me like the use of the word "may" in the actual law lends a degree of flexibility to the implementation. A service provider *may* provide the n
by bashinator 8y ago
It looks to me like the use of the word "may" in the actual law lends a degree of flexibility to the implementation.
A service provider *may* provide the notice [...]
That does not seem like a hard requirement. Or is this a case where legalese differs from commonly-understood grammar?
- pytyper2 8y agoDepends on what the meaning of "is" is...
- pwg 8y agoThat "may" there appears to refer to selecting among the choices (A), (B), or (C) within the statute. The portion before the selection list (which I did not quote, as it can be read in full in the actual article) begins: A service provider shall, before December 30, 2018, notify ... This clause says they "shall" notify. So it is mandatory they notify. It is not mandatory that they perform the notification via the means they selected to perform the notification. The method is awful, but the method is allowed by at least clause (C) of the statute. Which was my original point. The bill sponsor replied that their intent was "by email" or "with the invoice". But what they wrote as the statute not only encompasses that intent, but allows choosing a huge number of other, many very awful (as is this one), ways of 'notifying' as well. If the sponsor's intent was "email" or "with invoice" then their statute should have said "by email" or "with invoice".
- ryanlol 8y agoThis feels particularly delusional. Even if the law said that this notification must be delivered via certified mail, that would obviously not prevent Centurylink from also doing this. Why is it that you so badly want to blame lawmakers for this?