Hacker News

points by tfrancisl 5 days ago | 0 comments

When will we start holding the people who found and operate companies whose sole purpose is to break the law accountable, rather than letting them hide behind "limited liability"?

These founders should be in prison for promoting illegal gambling. Same federal charges mafiosos get caught on for a "friendly card game".

[–] JumpCrisscross 5 days ago

> When will we start holding the people who found and operate companies whose sole purpose is to break the law accountable

You don’t even have to read the article, the headline says it all…

[–] tfrancisl 5 days ago

"Facing felony charges" doesn't tell me much, and the current state of the world tells me those charges will be dismissed as soon as some money moves around.

[–] jaredklewis 5 days ago

I think the parent comment is sarcastically accusing you of not reading the article.

[–] illithid0 4 days ago

I feel you’re being deliberately obtuse. Facing charges doesn’t mean charged, charged doesn’t mean tried, tried doesn’t mean convicted, and convicted doesn’t mean incarcerated and/or fined.

There are many more steps in the justice system where they could get off easy, and there’s plenty of precedent for that.

[–] JumpCrisscross 4 days ago

> the current state of the world tells me those charges will be dismissed

We play this game on HN every time anyone is charged. When Holmes was being sentenced there were still folks on here who were convinced (with zero research or evidence, of course, just vibes) it was a scam.

[–] bagacrap 5 days ago

"facing felony charges" in a headline doesn't tell you enough? Did you want one of those ai-generated 50 word long headlines?

[–] bryanrasmussen 5 days ago

in Utah felony charges means potential prison time.

As far as what the current state of the world tells you, what would you have done then? Should Utah have dispatched assassins? They are taking the leaders of the company to criminal court. I can't believe I have to stand up for Utah here.

[–] HDThoreaun 5 days ago

Arizona already tried charging kalshi criminally and lost. This will go nowhere

[–] petcat 5 days ago

> should be in prison for promoting illegal gambling

The problem lies in the legal gray area of what constitutes gambling, and therefore "illegal" gambling. That's what the courts have to decide.

I think most people would say this is gambling. But our legal system has to rule on that before we can start putting people in jail for it.

[–] betterunix2 5 days ago

If it is not gambling then it amounts to an unregulated futures market, which is also illegal. There is no way around this for Kalshi/Polymarket, they have broken the law and the only question is which law was broken.

[–] petcat 5 days ago

Right, but the point is that we don't just go from popular outrage about a shady business model to "straight to prison". The courts have to untangle the legalities of the shady business model before we can even determine what the charges would be. And that's what they're doing.

[–] tfrancisl 5 days ago

> Right, but the point is that we don't just go from popular outrage about a shady business model to "straight to prison".

We should! Finally incentivize rich people to not screw over the rest of society for a quick buck.

[–] tt24 5 days ago

I’m glad that people who share your point of view do not have power in the United States.

[–] tfrancisl 5 days ago

People who believe in justice and democracy, or what? We need to hold people accountable for their crimes. Fines and other slaps on the wrist let big tobacco, big ultraprocessed food, and now big gambling to take advantage. What would you do? Wait for the courts? Wait for the corrupt legislature?

[–] betterunix2 5 days ago

Read about the "rule of law," one of the foundational concepts of the US and basically any democracy, as well as most successful monarchies and other forms of government.

Yes, we wait for the courts or the legislature rather than resorting to mob justice. There are good reasons for it. The most obvious is to ensure that the corrupt politicians do not use the power of the state to arbitrarily oppress and persecute people. Another is to ensure that there is no doubt about guilt when we convict someone, and to avoid arguments about the penalties being arbitrary and unfair.

Really though, establishing courts to deal with accusations of people breaking the law is something most societies converge on at some point. "Joe was only ordered to spend 5 years working the fields, so why should Jim be executed for doing the same thing????" amounts to a rudimentary form of judicial law -- pointing to a precedent from a previous case to argue the current case.

[–] tt24 5 days ago

> Wait for the courts?

Yes. This is what we do in the United States and most of Western Europe. This is how countries like this function

[–] hvb2 5 days ago

You're missing the point. Popular outrage and a crime are not the same thing.

Until a judge says it's a crime, it isn't. Innocent until proven guilty etc

[–] whimsicalism 5 days ago

? But Kalshi is regulated by the CFTC

[–] lotsofpulp 5 days ago

The federal government has claimed Kalshi is a regulated futures market.

https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9281-26

[–] betterunix2 5 days ago

That is the federal government asserting that Kalshi is subject to federal regulation by the CFTC and not state regulation. It is not an assertion that Kalshi is actually in compliance with futures market regulations, nor is it an assertion that the contracts offered by Kalshi are actually legal (there are explicitly illegal futures contracts).

[–] qurren 5 days ago

Why is betting on risky 0DTE stock options legal in Utah but sports not legal?

Why are casinos operated by Native Americans legal but casinos operated by black people illegal?

I don't think "illegal gambling" is illegal for the reasons you want it to be illegal.

[–] hvb2 5 days ago

> Why are casinos operated by Native Americans legal but casinos operated by black people illegal?

You might want to look up what the reservations are, legally speaking

[–] jjuel 5 days ago

Casinos of all kinds are banned in Utah.

[–] Zigurd 5 days ago

The reason we have judges is that a thing that's 80% sports betting and 20% prediction market is still an online casino.

[–] freejazz 5 days ago

This would be a great post for Kalshi's lawyers to make. Hard to believe it though. To be clear it is a not a fundamental proposition of the legal system that every illegal activity be tested before it "actually" becomes illegal. It is a business' obligation to not violate the law, not the other way around.

[–] petcat 5 days ago

I'm not going to argue the merits of their business model. But the fact that numerous lawsuits have had mixed rulings indicates that there is at least some legal gray area here.

But if you know better then maybe you should just decree from the courtroom in your house and send your ruling to the AGs of all 50 states.

[–] freejazz 5 days ago

I don't think there are "numerous lawsuits" which have had "mixed rulings" it's really only a subset of the cases that have had anything remotely construable as positive to these companies. And again, that doesn't excuse their behavior. Bold of you to point to one court saying "I'm not sure" when the vast majorities of the others have said "this is perfectly clear, and here's why the other court is wrong"

Like, do you have any actual argument as to why it's not gambling, or are you just going to hang it on this plausible deniability? It's not like they knew the 3rd circuit would decide in their favor anyway, so I don't really think your point is the slam dunk you're acting like it is. They knowingly engaged in activities that most states consider to be gambling. They aren't even really denying that. They are just saying it falls under federal regulation, but the argument for that is so shockingly poor, it's hard to imagine how the 3rd circuit's decision could stand, but its only on a preliminary injunction anyway, so it's still not quite a merits decision. The third circuit said that by its own logic, Congress must weigh in on whether or not "bingo" is a swap regulated by the CFTC. If you can't understand how facially stupid that is, I don't know what to say.

[–] petcat 5 days ago

Apparently having a legal discussion that requires nuance is impossible in this forum.

Yes I think what they are doing is illegal and they should not be permitted to operate outside the gaming regulations of individual states.

But it doesn't matter what I think. I was trying to have a conversation about the gray areas and why we don't just send people straight to jail for trying out a new, novel, (and potentially illegal), business model.

The courts are figuring it out.

[–] tfrancisl 5 days ago

The point of my original post, which I think the one youre responding to aligns with, is that we shouldn't have to "wait for the courts to figure it out." Illegal things should be illegal as a matter of the written law, not dicta from jurists. To do that we need legislators that will write narrow laws not influenced by the industry they are regulating, not tied to a poison pill budget proposal, etc...

[–] Dylan16807 5 days ago

Nobody is stopping nuance. But small enough gray areas don't excuse going hog-wild and courts seem to think this gray area is not very big.

[–] freejazz 4 days ago

Weird how your response to me asking you if there was an argument with actual merit is to decry my inability to engage in nuance in a legal discussion (ps I'm an attorney)... Also, it's worth pointing out that it seems like you completely made up the vast majority of your previous post. I guess that's just "nuance?"

>I was trying to have a conversation about the gray areas and why we don't just send people straight to jail for trying out a new, novel, (and potentially illegal), business model.

Actually we do. If a court finds your activity was illegal, you get the according punishment. The court doesn't say "oh gee golly, you're guilty but we'll let you off for this one because who could see it coming!"

>The courts are figuring it out.

The courts figured it out. It does not matter in Utah state court, what the 3rd circuit thinks. It is not binding precedent in Utah state courts.

[–] furytrader 5 days ago

You need to take a course in basic business.

[–] tfrancisl 5 days ago

I think I understand the basics of business and business law in the US. It is disgusting how easy it is to hide behind a corporation or LLC to avoid criminal charges and civil liability.

[–] iso8859-1 5 days ago

Limited liability is a concept in all of the developed world. Are you saying it's possible to have a developed society without limited liability? Why should I believe that? Do you just want anarchy or autarky? I feel like you might disagree with more than just limited liability.

[–] tfrancisl 5 days ago

I dont have time for the mind games of it all. If someone wittingly did something, or unwittingly but negligently did something, and it caused harm to society, it doesnt matter if theyre an individual acting alone or part of a "corporate identity." That person did the crime and they should be held accountable. Kalshi isnt doing illegal gambling, the directors of the company are.

[–] Aurornis 5 days ago

Be careful what you wish for: This lawsuit comes from the same state that wants to hold companies liable for letting people connect via VPN to adult websites: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/10/court-agrees-eff-utahs...

Thankfully that part of the law didn't stand under closer inspection. As anyone on this website should know, it's technically impossible to identify all VPN users or geolocate VPN users behind their VPN. Anyone can set up a VPN on a raspberry Pi and leave it at a friends' house in another state. Under the law they tried to pass, adult websites would be liable for this.

[–] tfrancisl 5 days ago

Slippery slope argument. You can have authoritarian, anti-people legislation, and you can have pro-people, anti-corporation legislation. These are very different, and any legislator or ideologue that tells you any different has listened to too many Maggie Thatcher and Ronald Reagan speeches.

[–] Aurornis 5 days ago

> Slippery slope argument.

The legislation in my example wasn't a hypothetical slippery slope. It actually passed. This was part of what they were trying to regulate.

[–] method_capital 5 days ago

The ONLY difference is who's reading and writing the legislation. I never know if I should be alarmed or humored by people so blind to their own political biases.

[–] tfrancisl 5 days ago

I am very much not blind to my viewpoints. I believe the authoritarian pseudo-Christians that run Utah are dangerous people with dangerous "political bias" (adults call this ideology).

[–] jkestner 5 days ago

Sympathetic but that's not relevant. GP is not talking about what kinds of things corporations should be held accountable for, but whether their officers should be held accountable. At the heart of this is whether the punishments for corporations are sufficient if they don't actually deter illegal behavior.

[–] sailfast 5 days ago

I dunno it sure seems to have worked for Uber and AirBnB…

I would amend your “breaking the law” comment to “willfully ignoring all regulation, taxes, and labor provisions” perhaps but, same sentiment.

[–] burningChrome 5 days ago

This is the old, "Easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission"

A lot of these companies have taken this approach. Break laws until someone finally notices AND does something about it. The runway to a slap on the wrist is often times more financially beneficial to companies - there is no incentive to stop if you run a billion dollar company and breaking the law gets you a $50M dollar fine you make back in a single month.

I thought SOX (Sarbanes–Oxley Act) was supposed to prevent a lot of this, but I guess companies just continue to find loopholes to exploit.

[–] Loughla 5 days ago

It's literally just move fast and break things.

[–] whimsicalism 5 days ago

I think sometimes people need a visceral demonstration of what bad laws are actually preventing. Uber was a pareto improvement in my view: we are in a better world both for consumers & for low-income wages having ridesharing as a backstop.

On the other hand, I've come around to the view that sports betting is a net unqualified bad -- and I didn't necessarily feel that way before the Kalshi/PM explosion.

[–] cowlevel 4 days ago

> Uber was a pareto improvement in my view: we are in a better world both for consumers & for low-income wages having ridesharing as a backstop.

Which has led to the interesting phenomenon that a sequence of Pareto improvements (each of which makes everyone better off) has seemed to leave everyone worse off.

[–] whimsicalism 4 days ago

Causal evidence indicates that uber entrance raises wages and reduces unemployment among the poorest, even who are not working for uber. Riders also get value.

How the hell is that leaving everyone worse off?

[–] lenerdenator 5 days ago

Uber and AirBnB were things we should have taken far more seriously.

That being said, they weren't effectively offering unregulated gambling on any difference of opinion. Gambling is a vice. We've made it a regulated vice, but it's very much still a vice. If you get rid of the "regulated" part, people, including those with the ability to present a case in front of a grand jury, are going to see you as a 1980s cosa nostra capo and act accordingly.

[–] BeetleB 4 days ago

Eh. Uber and Lyft exploit people bad at math. Just as gambling operations do.

[–] tt24 5 days ago

So your two examples of this supposed bad thing are two completely unambiguous goods for the world?

[–] hvb2 5 days ago

Uber and Airbnb are unambiguous good for the world?

You might want to look up Barcelona and the issues airbnb causes there. Basically it follows out the cities as you can make way more money doing Airbnb than renting to people living/working there.

As to Uber, I'm not sure if the driver experience is unambiguous good. For some, sure. For the ones that depend on it, I'm sure they'll disagree

[–] tt24 5 days ago

Airbnb is a convenient scapegoat in Barcelona. The service it provides is an unambiguous good.

Uber drivers are welcome to no longer drive for uber if they don’t enjoy the experience.

[–] lenerdenator 4 days ago

> Uber drivers are welcome to no longer drive for uber if they don’t enjoy the experience.

Are they?

The drivers have a certain set of capital and skills, and Uber (and to a lesser extent, Lyft) have created a near-monopoly on the market to buy services produced using that capital and skills. Since the ability to execute a transaction in that market is severely compromised if you don't work by Uber's rules, you are effectively outside of the marketplace if you no longer drive for Uber. You make no money. You go broke. You don't have the capital necessary to effectively compete in the market for giving rides in exchange for money. They own your skills and capital in all but the legal sense.

If there were either real, multi-company competition for Uber's market share, or a larger amount of regulation upon their monopoly, it'd be a different story.

Of course, there are people who think that monopolies are good, but that seems to be counterintuitive to anyone with a basic grasp of human nature and history.

[–] cowlevel 4 days ago

Why don't we make another Uber, a third and fourth and fifth Uber until prices converge to the market optimum?

This isn't a rhetorical question. As far as I know there are only two globally - Uber and Lyft. If most of what you need is a web server and a lawyer, shouldn't there be ten of these in every city?

[–] Dylan16807 4 days ago

"Car" and "follow GPS" are a set of capital and skills shared by most adults. Uber doesn't own most adults. You're supposed to have marketable skills on top of that.

The skill of knowing all the roads stopped being important a decade or two before Uber even started.

[–] tfrancisl 5 days ago

> Uber drivers are welcome to no longer drive for uber if they don’t enjoy the experience.

This is obviously a fallacy under our current economic system; workers are not "free to choose whatever job/occupation" they'd like. Their circumstances (material conditions) dictate what they can and cannot do for work, and in some places, driving for Uber is about it, at least for a part time gig that can fit around a primary job (since many Americans at least must work in excess of 50 hours a week to afford food and rent).

So, instead of punching down and saying "man, just get a better job" we could recognize the realities of the world and hope we can make the conditions of drivers better. Uber, or a system like it, at least if we are forced to have car-centric infrastructure, should be a net good. At the moment it is not.

[–] Dylan16807 4 days ago

I dunno. This is a job that didn't exist until recently. Society isn't structured around it and I don't think it's punching down to say people can skip that specific job.

It should have more protections too, I'm not arguing against those. I just think "it's the only job some people can get" is often a bad argument. And it's often used to perpetuate bad systems.

[–] cowlevel 4 days ago

Things existing generally can't be ignored as their mere existence can have higher-order effects. For example your landlord can now raise your rent higher and say "why don't you just drive Uber to pay this", and even if he doesn't actually say that, people's extra Uber income still raises the average amount that people can pay for rent, which raises the amount that landlords can charge for rent and still fill their apartments.

[–] logdahl 5 days ago

That is not at all how it works in practice though. Where I live, Uber has basically fixed the rate of all taxi companies. Effectively, if you order an Uber, you will 80% of the time get a normal taxi, except they earn less.

[–] whimsicalism 5 days ago

That is because you live somewhere that is poorly governed and defaults to protecting incumbents, probably Europe.

[–] tt24 5 days ago

This is due to regulation

[–] Dylan16807 4 days ago

While it's often a scapegoat for lack of construction, it does contribute to a lack of housing. It's not an unambiguous good, especially when you look at the hosts that have more than 1-2 houses.

[–] tt24 4 days ago

This is like saying that my LED lightbulb contributes to climate change. Technically true, but completely meaningless.

[–] Dylan16807 4 days ago

Barcelona's at something like 1.2% empty housing and a similar amount of Airbnb locations if these Google results can be trusted. Let's say we want 10% more housing. If shutting down Airbnb would put just 1/4 of those locations on the market, that would be 0.3% of the market or 3% of the goal. That's not a meaningless amount. It's not your flashlight's roughly 0.00000000000001% of 100PWh per full charge.

[–] nsoam 5 days ago

Barcelona has a big problem with a lack of development and mass migration. Has little to do with Airbnb although it’s a good scapegoat.

[–] t-writescode 5 days ago

Are they?

Uber is a major driver of the gig economy and all the lack of worker protections that that includes.

They’re also arguably a major driver/originator of DoorDash and Uber Eats, a company that famously takes an enormous percentage of every restaurant’s order fee, compounding either the increase in costs of restaurant food, or causing restaurants to struggle further or both.

They’ve done good - they’ve made it easier to get a job when you otherwise can’t, and they’ve reduced car reliance for some people; but “unambiguous good” is too far a bridge.

[–] tt24 5 days ago

The gig economy is good.

If a restaurant doesn’t like the cut taken by DoorDash they’re welcome to not participate in DoorDash. As far as I know, neither company has ever forced a restaurant into participation.

[–] cowlevel 4 days ago

You're assuming that a sum of a finite number of voluntary transactions adds up to a voluntary system, but this doesn't actually work. The whole is not equal to the sum of its parts.

[–] JDups 4 days ago

DoorDash has absolutely added restaurants without consent, the other food delivery apps as well, they call them non partnered listing. California, Colorado, and maybe other states have passed laws against it.

DoorDash got sued by In-N-Out for doing this. https://www.eater.com/2015/11/11/9714840/in-n-out-doordash-d...

[–] tt24 4 days ago

Sorry, did you read the context of the thread?

The parent comment was complaining about the fee that DoorDash charges the restaurant.

Is that link going tell me that DoorDash was charging restaurants non consensually? That would be very tough for me to believe

[–] jmuguy 5 days ago

What behavior from Airbnb do you think compares in criminality to running an online bookie?

[–] sailfast 4 days ago

How many billions of dollars in taxes went unpaid? How many overnight accommodation laws were broken? How much consumer harm has occurred due to lack of rights where they might otherwise have redress? Just a few that come to mind.

[–] jmuguy 4 days ago

So Airbnb is responsible for the individual hosts who decide to do something illegal? People have been doing short term rentals for a long time, including online, before Airbnb - what specifically did the company do that was so bad that its the same level as the gambling enabled by Kalshi etc?

[–] sailfast 4 days ago

This might be a controversial take, but if you take a small cottage industry and make it a consolidated global platform that is growing the practice on purpose by thousands of percentage points, then the platform IS actually responsible.

As for the gambling bits I guess if I had to answer it would be property investors that bought thinking they could rent on AirBnB - speculation but also driving up prices in popular areas to price out locals.