Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lambda School fined $75k by CA for operating without state approval [pdf]

bppe.ca.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 364 posts

Re: Lambda School fined $75k by CA for operating without state approval [pdf]

#121

Post by noodlesUK »

austenallred wrote: post #11

It’s true. Our counsel informed us that we didn’t need to register. Counsel was wrong. Now we have new counsel :) We’ve submitted all the paperwork and have worked closely with California. This all happened a long time ago. I’m not sure what the right level of regulation is (it’s hard taking care of 50 states at once - one state registration was 2,277 pages and weighed 25 pounds https://twitter.com/austen/status/1153…

I’d love to see some lightweight analysis of the different regulatory burdens you’ve dealt with in each of the states you’ve registered in. How many places have you had to liaise with? How deep does it go? Just state level, or do you have to interact with Educational Service Districts etc?

Re: Lambda School fined $75k by CA for operating without state approval [pdf]

#122

Post by enraged_camel »

wutbrodo wrote: post #91
enraged_camel wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't buy these "regulation kills innovation" type arguments. While regulation does put up barriers to entry, it also ensures a baseline level of quality and prevents abuse of the system. I mean there's a reason we don't allow everyone to perform surgery or fly commercial aircraft.

What does manually ensuring a baseline level of quality have to do with innovation? Your comment makes a case for why regulation exists, not a case against the claim that it harms innovation.

The parent poster offered a false dichotomy where you have regulation on one end and innovation on the other. The reason this dichotomy is false is because it assumes that innovation is only introduced by small and new players in a market. My objection is that not only is that not true (some of the largest companies in any regulated market can also be the most significant innovators in that market), it is also the case that small and new players are often in it to cheat and fleece customers, and regulation is a good defense against them.

Re: Lambda School fined $75k by CA for operating without state approval [pdf]

#123

Post by austenallred »

noodlesUK wrote: post #121
austenallred wrote: post #11

It’s true. Our counsel informed us that we didn’t need to register. Counsel was wrong. Now we have new counsel :) We’ve submitted all the paperwork and have worked closely with California. This all happened a long time ago. I’m not sure what the right level of regulation is (it’s hard taking care of 50 states at once - one state registration was 2,277 pages and weighed 25 pounds https://twitter.com/austen/status/1153…

I’d love to see some lightweight analysis of the different regulatory burdens you’ve dealt with in each of the states you’ve registered in. How many places have you had to liaise with? How deep does it go? Just state level, or do you have to interact with Educational Service Districts etc?

I'll comment after we're done with it, don't want to complicate it while we're still in the middle of it.

Re: Lambda School fined $75k by CA for operating without state approval [pdf]

#124

Post by paulgb »

jstanley wrote: post #88
zacharycohn wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or, it serves as an appropriate barrier to prevent people from scamming prospective students out of huge sums of money.

Except, it doesn't, because if you're scamming people out of huge sums of money you don't give a shit if you're registered with the regulators.

You do if you want the scam to keep going. See Corinthian Colleges, for example. (Or Trump University's recent settlement, for a more recent example.)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corinthian_Colleges

Re: Lambda School fined $75k by CA for operating without state approval [pdf]

#125

Post by moate »

freetobesmart wrote: post #97
moate wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

lip service. Im not buying it. Maybe they went to their legal counsel and said. "How do we do this cheaply, how do we get around approval?" In either case, you have an education company, educating in the tech field making a technical mistake. Not good. Whats the quick fix. Lawyers fault , we got new lawyers. 1) Is there no legal recourse for being lied to by your lawyer? 2) How do they know they hired the right lawye…

I mean that's your call my dude. Hanlon's razor, story checks out to me.

I'm fine with the "official" story.

Re: Lambda School fined $75k by CA for operating without state approval [pdf]

#127

Post by joelhaasnoot »

anonymous5133 wrote: post #95
joelhaasnoot wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

As far as i know TU wasn't a scam. It was simply a real estate focused program.

It was settled for $25 million, so we'll never really know: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_University#Allegations_o...

Re: Lambda School fined $75k by CA for operating without state approval [pdf]

#128

Post by duxup »

icelancer wrote: post #115
duxup wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know as I've no specific information on what they actually did. However, it sounds a bit like backdating stock options type thing, and a fair amount of people went to jail over that across various industries.

A bunch of companies did it simply because they thought it was best practice, not for specifically immoral means. The majority of people who did it accidentally and could prove it with a paper trail of trying to follow auditors best practices got off with fines / warnings, which seems appropriate.

Back dating stock options (i'm still assuming that is what the situation was, I do not know) certainly was commonplace, I don't know how many people really knew the law.

I DO think there is something that should set off someone's spidy sense that "Wait, we're changing the dates on these options that already exist?" or "We're lying about the dates / price these options were really granted at?".

To me at least that raises a lot of questions just changing the date on something financal to say it happened in the past like magic. I'm not a lawyer, but I'd be very nervous about that.

Re: Lambda School fined $75k by CA for operating without state approval [pdf]

#130

Post by madenine »

austenallred wrote: post #11

It’s true. Our counsel informed us that we didn’t need to register. Counsel was wrong. Now we have new counsel :) We’ve submitted all the paperwork and have worked closely with California. This all happened a long time ago. I’m not sure what the right level of regulation is (it’s hard taking care of 50 states at once - one state registration was 2,277 pages and weighed 25 pounds https://twitter.com/austen/status/1153…

Glad to hear you're working through it.

At Metis, state and federal regulation (we're accredited) is a big burden - but something I as an instructor feel is in the best interest of my students.

Post reply on HN