[sdhgaiojfsa]

> I suppose being open about it and not impersonating the government is the key difference between ethical and not.

That and being honest about how much value you are bringing to the table. If you don't actually improve on the free version, it is unethical to sell.

And you should never use language to imply a value proposition where there is none. For example, someone else posted a link to some green card scammers. One of their claims is:

> "USAFIS GUARANTEES 100% participation in the Lottery!"

This may be true, but it is still an unethical statement. It hints that this is a net positive vs. the free application the USG provides, but in fact any valid, submitted application participates in the lottery.

[chrismcb]

>... Any valid, submitted application...

Didn't you answer your own question? They claim if you use their service then your application will participate, this they are claiming your application will be valid and submitted. Id you don't use their service then there is a chance your application will not be valid or submitted... Isn't that a positive? Maybe not enough of a positive to justify the cost, but their claim isn't unethical.

[sdhgaiojfsa]

I doubt they have the capability to cause whatever information you provide to magically become valid. Perhaps they do additional checking and notify you if there is an error. If that is what it is, then that is what they should say. The sentence as worded implies that any application has some chance of not participating in the lottery if made through ordinary channels.