[nrmitchi]

This headline feels overly clickbait:

> The settlement is the result of a DFPI investigation that found that Lambda was engaged in conduct that violated the new law.

So a new law was created, that Lambda was in violation of, and agreed to update their materials to comply with the new law?

This is kind of implying that Lambda was previously breaking the law, which doesn't really seem to be the case?

As well, Lambda stating that ISA's are not dischargable in bankrupcy when they actually are is probably the least shady "deceptive" marketing practice I've heard of from bootcamps and code-schools.

[pseudalopex]

The headline implies the practices were deceptive before they were illegal. It doesn't imply they were breaking the law previously.

[nrmitchi]

I didn't realize the HN headline was different than the linked article, which is "Lambda School Reaches Settlement with DFPI, Agreeing to End Deceptive Educational Financing Practices".

"Reaching a settlement" with an enforcement agency implies, at least to me, that you were acused of breaking a law.

[pseudalopex]

Lambda School engaged in deceptive but apparently legal practices. A new law made them illegal. Lambda School continued to engage in the now illegal practices. The state began enforcement proceedings. The parties settled.

[nrmitchi]

Part of my point, that I did not make clear, is that this law came into effect January 1st. A 3 month turn-around between something becoming illegal, and a "settlement" being reached, feels awfully fast to me, and implies that everyone involved was actually trying to follow this new law.

[nicklecompte]

I don’t know why you’re being so pedantic:

- the conduct Lambda School engaged in became unlawful on Jan 1

- Lambda School continued engaging in that contact well-past Jan 1

- The state called them out and a settlement (favorable to CA) was quickly reached

It is far more likely that a settlement was reached because the conduct was clearly unlawful but not deeply damaging - so worth enforcing but not worth an ugly legal brawl.

I sincerely don’t know why you’re pretending Lambda was “actually trying to follow this new law” and insinuating there’s something suspicious about anything here - it is not an onerous regulation and Lambda had plenty of warning. Clearly they weren’t trying to follow the law! (probably more out of bad management than nefariousness)

Regardless: companies do not get an implicit grace period between when a law comes into force and when the company is actually required to obey it. In certain cases the law can be unconstitutionally coercive or unfair but obviously not here.

[dragonwriter]

> Part of my point, that I did not make clear, is that this law came into effect January 1st. A 3 month turn-around between something becoming illegal, and a "settlement" being reached, feels awfully fast to me, and implies that everyone involved was actually trying to follow this new law.

Not really, I’d say it more implies:

(1) regulators were ready to start enforcement, at least of easy cases, on day 1 (unsurprising, as non-emergency laws in CA have a significant delay between passage and going into effect, both to prepare for enforcement and to give people subject to them sufficient notice to comply), and

(2) Lambda either didn’t want to comply or was lackadaisical (or they would have stopped before the law went into effect, since, again, there was notice) and

(3) the violation was open-and-shut leaving no room for denial, it was settle or lose for Lambda, with no upside for fighting.

[pseudalopex]

The law passed in August. It took effect in January so businesses could fix violations before. And the practices were always deceptive.

[detaro]

Wouldn't someone truly "trying to follow the new law" have started following the law beginning from the date it's in effect? (Of course mistakes happen, and yes it is probably a sign that they weren't trying to fight it too much, but that's a low bar assuming it is legally clear)

[dang]

HN limits titles to 80 chars, so the submitter had no choice but to use a different title. The edit looks to me like it was done in good faith, i.e. was just trying to neutrally fit the limit. If someone comes up with a better (more accurate and neutral) title, we can change it again.

[DoreenMichele]

Lambda School updates language to comply with new California law

Looks like that's 64 characters.

Just tossing out a suggestion. Maybe could stand to be edited to clarify where this language occurs or something.

[pseudalopex]

That would make it sound like Lambda School did it proactively. It would obscure the claims were deceptive irrespective of California law. And it would obscure Lambda School acknowledged the claims were misleading.

[DoreenMichele]

Maybe: Lambda School agrees to update deceptive language

Titles are hard, especially with a character limit.

[nrmitchi]

I didn't mean to imply that the change was necessarily done in bad faith. I'm just used to them matching, and as such commented on the article title without considering that they didn't match.

[gadf]

Lambda School Agrees To Stop Beating Its Wife

CA Gov Site Denies Making Deceptive Headline

Journalists Covering CA Gov's Headline Deception Deny Using Clickbait

HN Commentariat Denies Having Insubstantial Discussion About Title Clickbait