4 ms·
Also fraud.
by dboreham 3y ago
Also fraud.
- gruez 3y agoYou might think it's fraud, but that's irrelevant unless you're also able to convince a judge. What's the precedence on this sort of stuff?
- mihaic 3y agoWhy do you need a precedent to pass a law that improves the situation for every consumer and doesn't harm anyone dishonest?
- gruez 3y ago>Why do you need a precedent to pass a law that [...] When did I say that? I only claimed that having additional fees that are disclosed in fine print doesn't meet the legal definition of fraud, and that some rando calling it "fraud" doesn't make it so. That says nothing about whether I support California's SB 478, and in fact if you check my other comments I actually support it.
- s1artibartfast 3y agoDifferent words have different definitions. Annoying and burdensome is not the same as fraud. You can want to be free of both without conflating them.
- boxed 2y agoI mean.. if a judge can't see this then yea you have a big problem. Which the US does.