Well, they're now getting sued. The other option would have been to apply for a permit, get denied a permit, go to court. They chose not to but rather offer their service despite it being clearly in violation of the law. I feel no pity for them.
This did apply, otherwise they would have been immediately liable. They only faced liability for not complying with an injunction. The relevant law is §7 paragraph 3 and 4.
They would get raided by the government and forced to comply. They literally can't refuse in this case. They could have fought it in court (and lost) but at the end they would have to produce the documents under threat of contempt and then criminal charges.
Their founder mentioned elsewhere in this thread that they are working with the state to get into compliance as soon as they got this notice. Looks like they weren't even trying to skirt the law, they just got bad advice.
If they had noted a legal enforcement, it would have sounded like threatening. They did the right thing and just noted the problem for now. Maybe the other party will fix the infringement and close the issue.
It's an administrative complaint with the Department of Homeland Security, not a legal case. Not sure if this is an area where there is an administrative remedy that needs to be exhausted before filing a lawsuit, or if there is some other reason for the decision to take this approach.
Considering that they are violating a court order in continuing to enforce parts of the order, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they are also neglecting to fill out the proper paperwork.
That does seem to me like a fairly obvious case of evil to me.
I guess the reason is that they probably could have sued for malicious prosecution and asked the court to expunge it without signing a waiver, but it was easier to just sign.
They shouldn't have taken legal obligations to do otherwise, i.e. they shouldn't have sold the ticket and shouldn't have applied for liquor permit.
"Yes, we took your cash in return for promise of delivering goods and services, but our policy forbids us from delivering" sounds more like Rule of Acquisition.
Answered elsewhere in thread: Their legal counsel said they didn't need to. The lawyer was wrong, and they now have new legal counsel. Seems like a legit oops which they're since fixed.
I think most likely is a consent decree that says they're not allowed to engage in this behavior, and the gov has the right to inspect their operations to ensure compliance. That along with a token fine.
By complying with the request they immediately violated the safe harbor provision.
reply