Luna responds to your comments:
227 karma · joined April 20, 2012
"As of January 31, 2022, we had 7,461 employees, of which approximately 67% were in sales, marketing and customer success, 20% in engineering, product development and customer operations and 13% in general and administrative. We had approximately 69% of our employees based in the U.S. and the remainder in international locations."
What matters now is how the company spends the money. Hopefully they spend it smartly and the value of the company increases 10x. Now your stock is worth $100k. You didn't get screwed by dilution, you got a $90k bonanza because the company was successful.
They were simply confirming the plain meaning of the FDCPA, which applies to people who collect debt that is owed to another person. Junk debt buyers buy their debt outright, so they're not collecting on someone else's behalf, so FDCPA doesn't apply. If people are upset about this, they should direct that toward Congress for not having amended the law.
"In light of the potentially sweeping implications discussed above and the lack of any more direct authority, the Court cannot conclude that hiQ has at this juncture raised 'serious questions' that LinkedIn's conduct violates its constitutional rights under the California Constitution."
HiQ argued that LinkedIn has a monopoly on "the professional networking market" and is unfairly exploiting that monopoly to gain an advantage in the data analytics market. HiQ showed that LinkedIn might be developing an analytics product that competes directly with their Skill Mapper product.
A citizen cannot look at the law and figure out if they're committing a crime, which is why I said the law is unconstitutional.
It makes it illegal to "develop a real estate appraisal" without a license. An appraisal is defined as simply "an opinion of value". So if you are driving down the street and say to your spouse, "Look at that house, it's gotta be worth a million bucks," you just committed a misdemeanor.
This law as it's written has got to be unconstitutional.
So the more specific rule of "States may ask for SSN's for tax purposes" would override the general rule of "States may not ask for SSN's". And the exception was presumably enacted after the general rule, since otherwise there would have been no need to make an exception.