Hacker News Reader

Comment by btilly | Hacker News Reader

I believe that you are wrong.

My understanding is that if a California resident signs up for a service with a company in Iowa that has no California presence, that becomes interstate commerce. According to the Constitution and case law dating back to the 1800s (largely established by mail order companies), California does not have the right to regulate interstate commerce. Even when one end of that transaction is in California.

That is, in fact, at the heart of the whole sales tax issue with Amazon that has been in the news. By California state law, sales tax is owed, but California can't regulate what Amazon, an out of state company, does. Only Congress has that authority. (It looks like they may do it as well.)

I am not a lawyer, and could be wrong. If you want actual legal advice, you need to consult a lawyer. But this is my understanding.

View on HN

Your understanding is incorrect.

California has the constitutional right to regulate commerce within its borders. When a California resident in California signs up for a service, even a service provided by a company in another state, California law applies.

In this case particular case, California exceeded its constitutional bounds by passing a law that claims to regulate commerce nationwide. Whether or not you agree with that, the exemption order that my company received proves the interpretation.

Either way, Dwolla is not registered as a money transmitter in California, has not applied for a license, is doing business with California residents in the state, and is in violation of the law as a result.

New York used to have a physical presence requirement as part of its money transmission statute; those companies without a physical presence in the state were not required to obtain a license. As of September 30, 2011, that changed: all money transmitters with New York customers must obtain licenses, whether or not there is a physical presence. With the advent of the internet, states are realizing that "presence" does not necessarily have to be physical in order to claim tax revenues or license fee revenues.

Is his understanding incorrect, or is it your understanding that his understanding is incorrect?

Yes, states like to claim that they have jurisdiction. But I haven't seen court cases supporting that theory.

I would be very interested to hear about any that you run across.

One of the cases is his own lawsuit against California, which is underway: https://www.facecash.com/legal/brown.html

The critical difference is that he has a California company that California is trying to regulate under California law. The company may still win on interstate commerce, but California is in a much stronger position than it is when trying to regulate an Iowa company.

Your company exists in California, making it subject to California law; thus, any interaction between your company and the state of California doesn't prove anything. I still consider the law awful, but that aspect of it unfortunately does not exceed the scope of state law.

Unfortunately, until California makes the mistake of attempting to go after a non-California company with this law, the law won't get overturned on the grounds of regulating interstate commerce.

They can claim all the tax revenues and license fee revenues they like, but they'll find themselves sorely disappointed.

Josh,

What you're missing is that California went after my company for attempting to do business outside of California, which gives my company standing to oppose the law on interstate commerce grounds.

Aaron

What I'm missing is where they "went after [your] company". Did FaceCash get a cease-and-desist that isn't documented in your HN submissions about the issue?

You don't need to issue a cease-and-desist to choke the life out of a company through clouded regulation such is the case w/ FaceCash. Aaron is obviously going to operate his company within the confines of California law and wasn't able to do so...

I'll be following the civil suit very closely. Best of luck.

My point is that "went after my company" implies that they targeted him specifically, which doesn't seem to be supported by the facts at all.

It's like saying "the government is after me!" because of the Census.

It's documented in the complaint filed with the Court.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com