> Are you suggesting this isn't an introduction of new regulations per se, since it was always a deceptive statement?
It was always false and deliberately deceptive to claim that Lambda’s California Retail Installment Contracts were qualified education loans under federal law, and therefore subject to discharge only on cases of undue hardship.
Lying about that in commerce in CA was not previously something for which there was previously a clear cause of action, especially one which would allow the State to take action. It’s not, at least in purpose, classic fraud: it is designed not to induce purchases but to dissuade past purchasers from seeking bankruptcy relief.
100%. It might have been a civil cause of action before, but now it's regulated by the DPFI.
Obviously ask your lawyer if you need legal advice, don't rely on anyone commenting on HN, but just as a general rule of thumb it's a bad idea to make deceptive or misleading statements to people you do business with.
It was always false and deliberately deceptive to claim that Lambda’s California Retail Installment Contracts were qualified education loans under federal law, and therefore subject to discharge only on cases of undue hardship.
Lying about that in commerce in CA was not previously something for which there was previously a clear cause of action, especially one which would allow the State to take action. It’s not, at least in purpose, classic fraud: it is designed not to induce purchases but to dissuade past purchasers from seeking bankruptcy relief.