3 ms·

Problem is easy to fix without explicitly outlawing the practices. If business is selling government records, they need to disclose the actual cost in a define

by adrr 7y ago

Problem is easy to fix without explicitly outlawing the practices. If business is selling government records, they need to disclose the actual cost in a defined format on a separate insert. Violations are similar to canned spam law and have a statutory damages of $750 per violation.

onion2k 7y ago
For that to work you'd need to demonstrate the business is actually charging $80 for the deed ... but they're not. Deep in the fine print there'll be something about the cost being $3 for the deed and $86 for the "proof-reading, checking, and validation service to ensure you have included the necessary information for your deed request to be completed promptly". Regulating against services that claim to help people would be very difficult.
- bradstewart 7y ago
  As long as that is called out explicitly, people can make a (more) informed decision about whether or not those additional services are worth $86. If I see "the document itself costs $3, additional <something> $86"; I'm much more realize I may be able to procure said document through other channels. EDIT: grammar.
- rtkwe 7y ago
  I think OP meant just for the violation of not properly displaying the base cost of the service if you went to the county/city directly if you phrase it properly it doesn't matter how much they charge as 'proof reading' services if they don't show people that it only costs $3 directly they can get fined for all the purchases made since it was last properly displayed wiping out their profits. I think also forcing them to link out to either the direct form or at least some page explaining how to submit the form directly to the government would also be a good idea in addition to forcing them to just show the base cost. Force them to provide an actual value add instead of just fleecing people looking for the correct way to do something.
  - JoshuaDavid 7y ago
    > I think also forcing them to link out to either the direct form or at least some page explaining how to submit the form directly to the government would also be a good idea While I agree, I also kind of expect that if you did this they would find the most difficult possible way to submit the form directly to the government that would still work (e.g. "to renew your car registration without using our quick and easy service, call the California DMV at [number] and request form REG 343. Fill in the form with your, vehicle identification number, make, model, year, and [87 more fields]. Fax the form to [fax number] or make an in-person appointment with the DMV").
    - rtkwe 7y ago
      It could, but only if the law allowed them to choose where to point to but it could just as easily allow the agency to dictate the canonical website to point to.
draw_down 7y ago
“I thought about this for 2 minutes and solved it forever”

by adrr 7y ago

onion2k 7y ago

For that to work you'd need to demonstrate the business is actually charging $80 for the deed ... but they're not. Deep in the fine print there'll be something about the cost being $3 for the deed and $86 for the "proof-reading, checking, and validation service to ensure you have included the necessary information for your deed request to be completed promptly". Regulating against services that claim to help people would be very difficult.

bradstewart 7y ago
As long as that is called out explicitly, people can make a (more) informed decision about whether or not those additional services are worth $86. If I see "the document itself costs $3, additional <something> $86"; I'm much more realize I may be able to procure said document through other channels. EDIT: grammar.
rtkwe 7y ago
I think OP meant just for the violation of not properly displaying the base cost of the service if you went to the county/city directly if you phrase it properly it doesn't matter how much they charge as 'proof reading' services if they don't show people that it only costs $3 directly they can get fined for all the purchases made since it was last properly displayed wiping out their profits. I think also forcing them to link out to either the direct form or at least some page explaining how to submit the form directly to the government would also be a good idea in addition to forcing them to just show the base cost. Force them to provide an actual value add instead of just fleecing people looking for the correct way to do something.
- JoshuaDavid 7y ago
  > I think also forcing them to link out to either the direct form or at least some page explaining how to submit the form directly to the government would also be a good idea While I agree, I also kind of expect that if you did this they would find the most difficult possible way to submit the form directly to the government that would still work (e.g. "to renew your car registration without using our quick and easy service, call the California DMV at [number] and request form REG 343. Fill in the form with your, vehicle identification number, make, model, year, and [87 more fields]. Fax the form to [fax number] or make an in-person appointment with the DMV").
  - rtkwe 7y ago
    It could, but only if the law allowed them to choose where to point to but it could just as easily allow the agency to dictate the canonical website to point to.

draw_down 7y ago

“I thought about this for 2 minutes and solved it forever”