[DoreenMichele]

The language violates the new California Consumer Financial Protection Law (CCFPL), which took effect this year

At the risk of being misconstrued as defending predatory practices, it sounds like they quickly reached an agreement to comply with legal stuff that probably didn't exist when they wrote the language that's being updated.

[threatofrain]

It's true, before it was legal to be dishonest about whether loans could be discharged under federal law.

[tomnipotent]

> probably didn't exist

Except the language in the contract had always been deceptive, regardless of whether they were legally compelled to remove it. Lambda made a conscious decision to mislead customers for their own financial benefit, knowing full well that they were not covered by Section 523(a)(8).

They don't deserve credit for removing the language.

[kelnos]

True, but I think it's important to acknowledge that those practices, regardless of their prior legality, were predatory. If it was an honest mistake about something that wasn't a big deal, I don't think many people would be up in arms about it. But these particular circumstances lead me to believe Lambda is a pretty scummy organization.

They're only agreeing to change their language because they were previously lying, and now there could be regulatory and financial consequences for them if they don't change it.

[pseudalopex]

See [1] for further discussion of this.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26947875

[hluska]

That seems accurate. Consumer protection laws are a genuine mess - it’s okay to lie about some things and not okay to lie about others. Some lies are meant to be dealt with in civil court whereas others are meant to be dealt with by regulators. That line moves back and forth every few years.