[DRAFT] Fraud and Adverts Act

[Free Algerstonia]

---OFFICIAL NOTICE---

<sup>--THIS NOTICE IS ONLY INTENDED TO BE ACCESSED BY THOSE EMPLOYED BY THEIR GOVERNMENT TO REPRESENT THEIR GOVERNMENT IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, THEIR STAFF AND THEIR GOVERNMENTAL EMPLOYERS. IF YOU DO NOT MEET THIS CRITERIA, CEASE READING IMMEDIATELY!--

--THIS DOCUMENT IS PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT. DO NOT REPRODUCE OR CLAIM AS YOUR OWN!--</sup>

The Free State of Algerstonia will not be supporting this proposal should this proposal come to vote. This resolution will prove harmful towards the operations of our businesses that serve to increase the prosperity of the Free State, and in turn, increase the prosperity of our loyal citizens. The Free State's business model has long included embellishing the truth , and no citizen in the Free State has ever spoken out against our practices! The Free State's citizenry prefers politicians and businesses that are a little bit corrupt yet provide the citizenry their income in exchange for their labor over politicians that do nothing and seek to destroy our long-standing culture . Lying is endemic in every society, and such can never be defeated. The World Assembly and the insurgent parties have long collaborated to destroy the Free State, and this ban on something that every country does is a great overreach by the World Assembly and yet another attack on the Free State and it's businesses.

Long live the Free State.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Contract is the limit. Actions in contract are self-evident, which anybody with a modicum of legal training knows."

"And what if the fraudulent activity occurs not from a contract but from another source?"

"Ambassador, can you name any non-contractual fraudulent activities for which the appropriate remedy is restitution? All other examples available are criminal matters separate and apart from this proposal. Respectfully, ambassador, I do not believe you've a strong grasp on the topic."

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

No person, natural or juridical, may wilfully make or direct or conspire with another person to make, a materially false misrepresentation to another person for the purposes of acquiring any thing of value therefrom.* * * Violation of section 1 gives rise to a cause of civil action by the injured party against the violator with damages no less than the fair market value of the things acquired in proximate consequence of such misrepresentation less the value of things already restored. * * * Whensoever a member nation is informed of a likely violation of section 1, it shall prevent the likely violator from alienating or disposing of property which the member nation has probable cause to believe was acquired in violation of section 1.

I don't think you've fully reckoned with the espionage problem by trying to sweep it away in less than a full paragraph. And I think you really need to deal with that problem before this can be conceptually sound. Espionage is not so much "basically always illegal" as it is "do as I say, not as I do." Nations get mad when others spy on them but they certainly don't hold their own spies to account under their own laws.

Normally, member nations would encourage their spies to lie and do whatever else they have to so they can discover and steal sensitive security information/equipment. Under this proposal, member nations would have to criminalize their own spies for doing what spies are supposed to do, secure the equipment so it cannot be "alienated" from its owner, and allow the other nation to sue the spy for damages. The framework needs substantial revision to avoid such an absurd result.

Edits: Yikes, my spelling and grammar sometimes is atrocious.

[Imperium Anglorum]

"And where would we place such limit? A definition would not be as bad, though perhaps stuffed in with the clarification clause of which already exists."

"Contract is the limit. Actions in contract are self-evident, which anybody with a modicum of legal training knows."

I think I have limited the cause of civil action to written contracts. Member nations may choose to extend those provisions to oral contracts, though I can't really understand why you would really want to.

No person, natural or juridical, may wilfully make or direct or conspire with another person to make, a materially false misrepresentation to another person for the purposes of acquiring any thing of value therefrom.* * * Violation of section 1 gives rise to a cause of civil action by the injured party against the violator with damages no less than the fair market value of the things acquired in proximate consequence of such misrepresentation less the value of things already restored. * * * Whensoever a member nation is informed of a likely violation of section 1, it shall prevent the likely violator from alienating or disposing of property which the member nation has probable cause to believe was acquired in violation of section 1.

I don't think you've fully reckoned with the espionage problem by trying to sweep it away in less than a full paragraph. And I think you really need to deal with that problem before this can be conceptually sound. Espionage is not so much "basically always illegal" as it is "do as I say, not as I do." Nations get mad when others spy on them but they certainly don't hold their own spies to account under their own laws.

Normally, member nations would encourage their spies to lie and do whatever else they have to so they can discover and steal sensitive security information/equipment. Under this proposal, member nations would have to criminalize their own spies for doing what spies are supposed to do, secure the equipment so it cannot be "alienated" from its owner, and allow the other nation to sue the spy for damages. The framework needs substantial revision to avoid such an absurd result.

Edits: Yikes, my spelling and grammar sometimes is atrocious.

I excepted member nations from being bound in section 1 for otherwise lawful activities.

[Makko Oko]

"We're not against this proposal directly, even though our division merely skimmed it for time-saving measures (OOC: Will look deeper into it later and provide feedback if I have any), but we do think this is similar to 'Combating Disinformation' by Ambassador Orwell. It may be a newer proposal than this, but regardless, we felt a need to bring it up." - The Makko Oko Ministry Of Diplomatic Affairs, World Assembly Affairs Division

[Imperium Anglorum]

"We're not against this proposal directly, even though our division merely skimmed it for time-saving measures (OOC: Will look deeper into it later and provide feedback if I have any), but we do think this is similar to 'Combating Disinformation' by Ambassador Orwell. It may be a newer proposal than this, but regardless, we felt a need to bring it up." - The Makko Oko Ministry Of Diplomatic Affairs, World Assembly Affairs Division

I don't think it has anything to do with "Combating Disinformation". Information which is relied upon in a commercial transaction differs greatly from information sent into the world on completely irrelevant topics. Someone trying to part you of your money by misrepresenting a pump-and-dump scheme differs greatly from telling you that historians think Christianity caused the fall of the Roman empire.

a statement made by a person or group of people; that is (I made it.)
falsely represented and stated to be a true fact; (Christianity caused the fall of the Roman empire.)
with the knowledge, from the person/people who made the statement, that the statement is factually untrue; and/or (I know it is not true.)
stated with a purposeful and reckless disregard for the statement's falsity; and (First prong satisfied. Even so, I do not care if it is not true.)
is likely to cause harm to individuals specifically holding an arbitrary or reductive characteristic; and/or (People could retaliate against Christians, who are such persons, for causing the Dark Ages.)
is intended to harm the reputation and/or wellbeing of any persons or nation. (First prong satisfied.)

Notably, saying "Edward Gibbon, the author of The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, believed that Christians caused the fall of the Roman empire" is not covered under this resolution because he did believe that.

[Makko Oko]

"We're not against this proposal directly, even though our division merely skimmed it for time-saving measures (OOC: Will look deeper into it later and provide feedback if I have any), but we do think this is similar to 'Combating Disinformation' by Ambassador Orwell. It may be a newer proposal than this, but regardless, we felt a need to bring it up." - The Makko Oko Ministry Of Diplomatic Affairs, World Assembly Affairs Division

I don't think it has anything to do with "Combating Disinformation".

Fraud. No person, natural or juridical, may wilfully and dishonestly

make or

direct or conspire with another person to make
a materially false misrepresentation to another person for the purposes of acquiring any thing of value therefrom. This section does not prohibit the World Assembly or any member nation from doing any otherwise lawful act.

"Now correct us if we're wrong Ambassador but is a misrepresentation not a form of disinformation, or moreso another way to say it? And is fraud not something that can happen due to misinformation?"

collectively and individually make further regulations to ensure the truthfulness of commercial speech, including but not limited to the claims made in advertisements; and

"5b gives us even more defense, via the mention of 'truthfulness of commercial speech' and the regulations of it. This sounds like something straight out of the BOT (Bureau Of Truth), which we support just to mention. While your legislation was first, and as such we consider it to be 'trumping' the other one, maybe you should work with Ambassador Orwell to prevent either legislation from potentially becoming illegal should the other pass. It's a bureaucratic nightmare to say the least." - The Makko Oko Ministry Of Diplomatic Affairs, World Assembly Affairs Division

OOC: Read more into it, in full support for the most part

[Imperium Anglorum]

I don't think it has anything to do with "Combating Disinformation".

Fraud. No person, natural or juridical, may wilfully and dishonestly

make or

direct or conspire with another person to make
a materially false misrepresentation to another person for the purposes of acquiring any thing of value therefrom. This section does not prohibit the World Assembly or any member nation from doing any otherwise lawful act.

"Now correct us if we're wrong Ambassador but is a misrepresentation not a form of disinformation, or moreso another way to say it? And is fraud not something that can happen due to misinformation?"

collectively and individually make further regulations to ensure the truthfulness of commercial speech, including but not limited to the claims made in advertisements; and

"5b gives us even more defense, via the mention of 'truthfulness of commercial speech' and the regulations of it. This sounds like something straight out of the BOT (Bureau Of Truth), which we support just to mention. While your legislation was first, and as such we consider it to be 'trumping' the other one, maybe you should work with Ambassador Orwell to prevent either legislation from potentially becoming illegal should the other pass. It's a bureaucratic nightmare to say the least." - The Makko Oko Ministry Of Diplomatic Affairs, World Assembly Affairs Division

OOC: Read more into it, in full support for the most part

There are two points which you're confusing here. General requirement of truthsaying with exotic enforcement mechanisms is far more broad than clearly-defined and actor-specified harms that are judicially cognisable enforced by civil action. Second, all the reservation clauses have no blocking effect.

[The Orwell Society]

Where are the introductory clauses?

[Hulldom]

Where are the introductory clauses?

They aren’t strictly necessary.

On another note, support.

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

I support the endeavor!

That said, a couple points:

a materially false misrepresentation

What is a materially false misrepresentation? Isn't that one of those words like "reasonable" and "substantial" and "good faith" that should be disfavored because they don't really mean anything? Also, is there really such a thing as a "true misrepresentation" which we must make sure to distinguish from a "false misrepresentation"?

This section does not prohibit the World Assembly or any member nation from doing any otherwise lawful act.

Help me understand the point of this. I genuinely don't get it. What is the scope of these "otherwise lawful acts" we're not prohibiting?

It is a defence against liability to show on the balance of probabilities that the claimant knowingly exchanged the thing of value in question for the misrepresentation itself.

What does this mean? It's a defense if you can prove that the person paid for the privilege of being misled? Do you mean it is a defence if you can show "that the claimant would have knowingly exchanged the thing of value in question despite the misrepresentation"?

Otherwise I don't have any immediate comments.

[Separatist Peoples]

I support the endeavor!

That said, a couple points:

a materially false misrepresentation

What is a materially false misrepresentation? Isn't that one of those words like "reasonable" and "substantial" and "good faith" that should be disfavored because they don't really mean anything?

"I am not the author and wouldn't presume to speak for them, but my understanding of the term generally is that a materially false statement is a statement where the falsehood is material to the fraud or act. That is, if I am selling you a car on a sunny day, and I tell you it has a new engine and it's currently raining, and both are false, only one of those lies is relevant to the subsequent lawsuit. Though why you would buy from me after I lied about something so obvious is beyond me."

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

I support the endeavor!

That said, a couple points:

What is a materially false misrepresentation? Isn't that one of those words like "reasonable" and "substantial" and "good faith" that should be disfavored because they don't really mean anything?

"I am not the author and wouldn't presume to speak for them, but my understanding of the term generally is that a materially false statement is a statement where the falsehood is material to the fraud or act. That is, if I am selling you a car on a sunny day, and I tell you it has a new engine and it's currently raining, and both are false, only one of those lies is relevant to the subsequent lawsuit. Though why you would buy from me after I lied about something so obvious is beyond me."

Ha ha. Yes, it may be that I'm being unfair on that one. Materiality does have a measure of established meaning in contract law. Of course, whether a matter is actually material or not changes with the context of the agreement, sometimes even with the subjective intent of the parties. If I bought your vehicle at a higher cost or without inspection, because you said it was raining and I wanted to be sure I had a car right away to stay dry in, we may yet debate whether the misrepresentation was material to the deal. Like the other concepts I mention, "materiality" has a defined meaning but whether or not it is implicated is heavily influenced by context, just like reasonableness and good faith.

But consider that point about materiality withdrawn!

[Imperium Anglorum]

This section does not prohibit the World Assembly or any member nation from doing any otherwise lawful act.

Help me understand the point of this. I genuinely don't get it. What is the scope of these "otherwise lawful acts" we're not prohibiting?

The phraseology may trend between "civil" and "criminal" law, in which case I'd desire some suggestion, but if it is otherwise legal and done by a member nation, it would not be held illegal. This is meant for stuff like espionage or police detective work, which may involve acquiring things of value by misrepresentation (ie your point earlier).

It is a defence against liability to show on the balance of probabilities that the claimant knowingly exchanged the thing of value in question for the misrepresentation itself.

What does this mean? It's a defense if you can prove that the person paid for the privilege of being misled? Do you mean it is a defence if you can show "that the claimant would have knowingly exchanged the thing of value in question despite the misrepresentation"?

I read it as the nexus of both: someone must have been deceived and they must not have desired the misrepresentation itself. If the Onion were a subscription service, paying for it would be paying for the misrepresentations therein. The Onion also is not dishonestly peddling its "news service".

[Imperium Anglorum]

Bump.

[Tinhampton]

Article 1 defines a crime which involves the acquisition of property. In many societies, those suspected of crimes are presumed innocent until found guilty. Yet Article 3 forbids those who have "likely violat[ed]" Article 1 from disposing the property they probably acquired pursuant to Article 1. Why is Article 1's present "likely violation" standard preferable to a standard in which non-disposal is only imposed at the point of (say) charge or conviction? (Optional: What real-world examples exist of an Article 3-style likely-violation standard for non-disposal of fraudulently acquired property?)

[Imperium Anglorum]

Article 1 defines a crime which involves the acquisition of property. In many societies, those suspected of crimes are presumed innocent until found guilty. Yet Article 3 forbids those who have "likely violat[ed]" Article 1 from disposing the property they probably acquired pursuant to Article 1. Why is Article 1's present "likely violation" standard preferable to a standard in which non-disposal is only imposed at the point of (say) charge or conviction? (Optional: What real-world examples exist of an Article 3-style likely-violation standard for non-disposal of fraudulently acquired property?)

Search warrants.

[Unibot III]

“I think the esteemed delegation would be wise to include a preamble as there is a simple justification as to why fraud is an international issue…” said Ambassador Winslow, sporting a nasty sun tan from a weekend at Sorawasaga - almost burgundy.

“Consumer products are sold internationally, especially with online sales, fraud is a very frustrating issue to resolve for as long as there are “fraud” havens that permit con artists to misrepresent their products abroad,” explained the ambassador.

Percy held up his sunscreen: “like this thing, Azurescreen, it promises a long lasting protection, but I’ve since discovered it’s just butter. Butter!! I roasted like a chicken. It’s the last time that I buy anything made in…”

As he reads the label, he begins to blush, “… Unibot. (Gulp!) Erm, no further comment.”

[Imperium Anglorum]

What do people think of the following preamble clauses?

The World Assembly finds as follows:

Fraudulent misrepresentations that cause customers or firms to lose money to liars who misrepresent what they sell, especially across international borders, are a profound harm to international and domestic trade.

Section 4 of GA 436 "Protecting Free Expression" fails to allow member nations to prohibit fraud; enabling legislation such as this resolution is therefore required to ensure that reasonable restraints on fraudulent speech are both enacted and enforced.

[Barfleur]

"We support this proposal with the proposing delegation's tentative preamble."

[Imperium Anglorum]

"We support this proposal with the proposing delegation's tentative preamble."

I made a few changes to style to make it fit into the framework of the proposal draft as it currently exists.

[The Ice States]

Ooc: How would this interact with "Concerning Financial Fraud"?

[Imperium Anglorum]

Ooc: How would this interact with "Concerning Financial Fraud"?

Some provisions are duplicated. Some provisions are greatly extended, especially in terms of enforcement. The clauses at the end fulfil the preamble ¶ b, which would not be otherwise fulfilled. I don't see any contradictions between the two resolutions. Even if disposition is differently directed by GA 177, this is a separate action, a claimant would merely have the option to follow one form of action or the other.

[The Ice States]

Ooc: How would this interact with "Concerning Financial Fraud"?

Some provisions are duplicated. Some provisions are greatly extended, especially in terms of enforcement. The clauses at the end fulfil the preamble ¶ b, which would not be otherwise fulfilled. I don't see any contradictions between the two resolutions. Even if disposition is differently directed by GA 177, this is a separate action, a claimant would merely have the option to follow one form of action or the other.

I didn't think there was contradiction, my question was more so from the angle of what this would do that would be novel. Based on this response, I am happy to support as written.

[Tigrisia]

While we believe that an international resolution against Fraud is desperately needed, we believe that this resolution should put more focus on international cooperation, as this is one of the main reasons why it is difficult to combat international fraud.

For the Tigrisian Delegation
Ambassador Thomas Salazar
Head of Mission