Politicians, Car Dealers Trying To Make It Illegal To Buy A Tesla In North Carolina

from the hating-on-disruptive-innovation dept

Last fall, we wrote about how auto dealers were bitching about the fact that electric car company Tesla sells their cars directly. It has "stores" but you can't buy your cars from those stores, due to antiquated and ridiculous regulations about car sales. Most states have laws that basically say that car companies can't sell directly. These laws serve no purpose other than to protect (often politically powerful) independent car dealers from being disintermediated.

In North Carolina, however, they're taking it up a notch. They're basically trying to make it illegal to sell a Tesla in North Carolina at all. About 80 North Carolina residents have already bought one, but they may be the last:

A legislative proposal, backed by the N.C. Automobile Dealers Association, would make it illegal for Tesla, or any other car maker, to bypass dealerships and sell directly in the state. The proposal cuts at the heart of Tesla’s business model: selling luxury cars over the phone or Internet and then delivering them to the front door of high-net-worth customers.

The North Carolina State Commerce Committee approved the proposal unanimously.

This is the same thing we see over and over again in other contexts. Companies in an entrenched legacy position trying to use regulations to block disruptive upstarts. There is no good reason for this law other than to block Tesla and to prop up dealerships. It's somewhat disgusting to see politicians actively seek to stamp out innovation.

Filed Under: dealers, north carolina, regulations, tesla
Companies: tesla

North Carolina Tells Blogger That Providing Dietary Advice Is Illegal, Blogger Tells NC To Read The 1st Amendment

from the lawsuit-on dept

A guy named Steve Cooksey developed Type II diabetes a few years back, and in response ended up embracing a paleolithic diet and exercise regime (something that's increasingly popular these days). It seemed to work quite well for him, and he ended up setting up a website called Diabetes-Warrior.net in which he wrote about that and related issues. As more people got interested in the site and what he was saying, he also started answering questions and providing advice on the site (a la Dear Abby) as well as setting up a (fee-based) "coaching" service to help those interested in a similar diet/exercise regime.

The State of North Carolina decided all of this was illegal. Apparently providing any advice to others about dieting, without a license, puts you in some hot water.

It turns out that, like nearly every other state, North Carolina has a law that regulates the practice of "dietics/nutrition." There are a set of rules, which require getting a license before you can provide any sort of dietary advice. Like many such operations it appears the regulatory regime here is much more about limiting the supply of professionals to keep pricing artificially high, rather than any real health or safety mission.

Now, it's good to stop people from outright lying about their credentials, and there may even be some gray areas where someone is actively implying professional expertise that they don't have. But can you actually ban amateurs from sharing their opinions on diets at all?

It appears that Cooksey, along with the Institute for Justice are about to test that question, filing a lawsuit claiming that the attempt to prevent him from providing advice was a violation of his First Amendment rights.

But the First Amendment does not allow the government to ban people from sharing ordinary advice about diet, or scrub the Internet—from blogs to Facebook to Twitter—of speech the government does not like. North Carolina can no more force Steve to become a licensed dietitian than it could require Dear Abby to become a licensed psychologist.

IJ also made a short animated video about the case:

This seems like an important question that could impact a number of different "regulated" industries as well. I recognize the idea that protecting the public from fraudulent or scammy advisers is what may appear to be a laudable goal, but it's wide open to abuse in which ideas that the government doesn't like are censored for not coming from a "licensed" practitioner.

Filed Under: dietics, first amendment, institute for justice, north carolina, steve cooksey

State Appeals Court Says Stubhub Isn't Responsible For Actions Of Its Users

from the tickets-he-re...-we've-got-tickets-he-re.. dept

Over the years, we've written about the Section 230 safe harbors -- which protect service providers from being liable for certain actions of their users -- a number of times. This is perfectly common sense legislation: the blame should be placed on the person who actually committed the action, rather than the tools they used. Yet, for some reason, some still have trouble understanding this. A frequent target of those misunderstandings has been online ticket reseller Stubhub. A few years back we wrote about a ruling in a case in Illinois where the court effectively ignored Section 230. Apparently there was a similar move by a state court in North Carolina some time ago, but thankfully, the appeals court has reversed it, and once again made clear that you don't blame Stubhub for illegal actions performed by its users.

Filed Under: north carolina, secondary liability, section 230, ticket sales
Companies: stubhub

'Concerned Citizen' Critic Of Muni Cable System Now Admits He Works For Time Warner Cable

from the well,-look-at-that... dept

The big broadband providers have long been fighting local community/muni broadband efforts, passing laws and making ridiculous claims about those efforts. The real point is that these service providers don't want competition and want to charge monopoly prices. While I have my concerns about how effectively some community broadband projects can work, the attempts to legally block them go way overboard -- especially in North Carolina. Karl Bode now points our attention to the news that one very vocal "concerned citizen" critic of just such a community cable effort in NC has now admitted he works for Time Warner Cable, the monopoly cable provider in the area, though he never disclosed this when criticizing the community effort, and, in fact denied working for the company when asked about it:

Andy Stevens of Troutman has spoken out against the towns’ 2007 cable purchase, posted comments on this and other local websites and started an anti-MI-Connection blog. He has described himself as a concerned citizen and an opponent of government ownership of government involvement in telecommunications. When reporters and local officials have questioned him about his employment, he has repeatedly denied working for the company.

But in an email to DavidsonNews.net on Friday, Mr. Stevens acknowledged he works for Time Warner Cable as an installer. His admission followed an encounter with MI-Connection’s general manager, who spotted Mr. Stevens at a local shopping center wearing a Time Warner Cable uniform and driving a Time Warner Cable truck.

Not only that, but it turns out he doesn't even live in the service area of the community broadband effort. When confronted with all of this Stevens apparently claimed that he "separates" his employment from his criticisms. I guess that must be why he denied working for the company when he did.

Filed Under: broadband, north carolina
Companies: time warner cable

Court Lets Amazon Protect Customer Purchase Info In North Carolina

from the phew dept

While Amazon was receiving a giant bill from Texas for not collecting sales tax, it had a good day concerning a similar issue in North Carolina. As you may recall, the state of North Carolina was demanding that Amazon tell it about every purchase made by a North Carolina resident, so that it could go after each of them for sales tax. Amazon already provided a ton of info to the state, including the date and price of each transaction, along with the city, county and zip code to which the order was shipped, along with the product codes identifying the products ordered. Basically, Amazon is already handing over the details of everything you purchase -- except your name and address. Except North Carolina wanted that too, which seemed like an even bigger privacy violation.

Thankfully, a district court judge has ruled against the state, noting that it has "no legitimate need" for the info -- though, did leave open the possibility that a "narrower" request for info could be legal. Of course, to some of us, it seems like Amazon is already turning over way too much info. What people buy in a state is not the state government's business.

Filed Under: data, north carolina, privacy, sales tax
Companies: amazon

NC State Senator Admits Broadband Companies Wrote His Bill & Says He 'Carries Water' For Companies

from the wow dept

Ah, North Carolina. A year and a half ago, we wrote about an attempt by the North Carolina state legislature to pass an anti-municipal broadband bill in the state. These bills have become somewhat common. Basically, cities that feel that giant broadband companies aren't providing quality services often decide to build their own local offering. Since broadband is often a monopoly or a duopoly of critical infrastructure, having a local community create another option makes tremendous sense, when done right (though, admittedly, many don't do it well). Yet, the big broadband players tend to spend tons of money fighting these community competitors, rather than actually providing better/faster services.

What was most interesting about the situation in North Carolina, however, was how blatant state politicians were in highlighting that it was really the broadband companies who were calling the shots. In our story from April of 2009, it was noted that when the state representatives sponsoring the bill were asked questions about it during a committee hearing, they asked Time Warner employees to answer for them. Think about that for a second. The sponsors of the bill couldn't answer the questions, so they asked industry folks to answer instead. We had thought that was about as blatant as a politician could be in admitting that the bill was actually written by the industry and that the politicians didn't even understand what they were sponsoring.

However, now it appears that a North Carolina state Senator may have taken that even further. Ars Technica points us to a local news report by WCNC, who asked bill sponsor Senator David Hoyle if the bill was written by cable companies:

When the I-Team asked him if the cable industry drew up the bill, Senator Hoyle responded, "Yes, along with my help."

When asked about criticism that he was "carrying water" for the cable companies, Hoyle replied, "I've carried more water than Gunga Din for the business community - the people who pay the taxes."

That's going to look great on a campaign poster from a competitor in a future election. While none of this is surprising -- the fact that lobbyists write the bills and politicians simply shuffle them forward -- is nothing new, it is surprising to see a politician so willing to admit it. Perhaps he forgets that it's not just the companies who pay taxes (and, for the most part, these big companies are really good at avoiding taxes), but the citizens of the state who vote for him (or not) who pay taxes as well. Flat out stating that he's "carried more water than Gunga Din for the business community," may make the citizens wonder whether he was elected to represent companies like Time Warner (not based in North Carolina) or the actual citizens who elected him.

Filed Under: broadband, david hoyle, muni broadband, north carolina

ACLU Allowed Into Lawsuit Over North Carolina's Demands To Hand Over Amazon Purchase History

from the privacy-anyone? dept

Back in March, we noted that the state of North Carolina was demanding all sorts of info from Amazon about what everyone located in the state was purchasing. It was actually scary enough to find out that Amazon was already providing "the date and total price of each transaction, the city, county and ZIP code to which each item was shipped and Amazon's standard product code for each item." Even at that point, that information seems like it could lead to serious privacy violations, but North Carolina wanted more. It demanded that Amazon also hand over names and addresses for every purchase as well -- a clear and blatant privacy no-no. Amazon began fighting this and, in June, the ACLU asked to jump into the case as well, representing some Amazon customers who live in North Carolina, and who believed that their voices should be heard as well.

Thankfully, those voices will be heard. Michael Scott points us to the news that the court has allowed the ACLU to intervene in the case, noting that the Amazon customers the ACLU represents have both 1st and 14th Amendment rights at stake, and that Amazon's interests in the case could diverge from its customers. This is a good first step -- but now hopefully the court correctly recognizes how far beyond reasonable North Carolina's request really is. Meanwhile, if you live in North Carolina, what is your government doing, to demand such personal information?

Filed Under: north carolina, privacy, purchase data
Companies: aclu, amazon

Can Alcoa Get Reporters' Notes Under Open Records Laws If The News Organization Is Connected To A State University?

from the protecting-journalists-vs.-freedom-of-information dept

JJ points us to an interesting situation in North Carolina. Apparently, Alcoa, the aluminum giant, is demanding all of the reporting documents associated with a segment done about the company, concerning its attempt to renew its 50-year lease for its facilities on the Yadkin River. Now, normally, a news organization wouldn't turn over such information, but there's a bit of a twist here. The reporting was done by UNC-TV, which is connected to the University of North Carolina. Thus, Alcoa makes the case that it is subject to North Carolina's "Open Records" laws, and it appears that the folks at UNC-TV are realizing they need to comply.

This certainly raises questions about how any news organization that is somehow connected to a gov't entity can feel its reporting is protected. This is also worth remembering as we keep hearing more and more newspapers insist that government subsidies are the best way to save newspapers. Doing so could, potentially, open up similar claims by private entities wishing to dig deeper into a reporters' notes.

Filed Under: freedom of information, journalism, north carolina, open records, shield laws
Companies: alcoa, unc-tv

ACLU Jumps Into Case Where North Carolina Wants Detailed Info On Your Amazon Purchases

from the privacy-anyone? dept

Back in March, we wrote about the surprising effort by the North Carolina government to force Amazon to hand over a list of details on every purchase made by anyone in the state. Amazon already provides a ton of information to the government. In fact, I think many would argue it provides too much info:

It routinely provides the Revenue Department with "voluminous information" about its sales to North Carolina addresses as part of routine audits of the company's compliance with sales and use tax laws. The information includes the date and total price of each transaction, the city, county and ZIP code to which each item was shipped and Amazon's standard product code for each item, which allows officials to see the description of every product purchased.

Already that seems like a privacy violation. However, to state officials, that's not enough info. They want actual names and addresses of who bought what and have threatened Amazon if it does not comply. The ACLU has now stepped in to defend Amazon, noting that North Carolina's demands from Amazon are unconstitutional violations of users free speech, anonymity and privacy rights. Specifically, the ACLU has filed a case against the state on behalf of six anonymous North Carolina residents who don't believe the government should have a right to look at what they purchased:

• Jane Doe 1, who purchased books on self-help and how to get a divorce and a restraining order after her former spouse developed substance abuse problems and threatened to kill her;
• Jane Doe 2, the general counsel of a global corporation, who has purchased books and movies with overt political leanings as well as books that may reveal her religious beliefs;
• Jane Doe 3, who has purchased books on mental health in order to better understand the conditions afflicting her former spouse, including "Stop Walking On Eggshells: Taking Your Life Back When Someone Your Care About Has Borderline Personality Disorder," as well as books about cancer, including "Cancer: 50 Essential Things To Do: Revised and Updated," by Greg Anderson. She has also purchased books on atheism. She is not public about her personal beliefs and doesn't want others to find out;
• Jane Doe 4, who has received several politically-charged items through Amazon from her parents, including "Obama Zombies: How The Liberal Machine Brainwashed My Generation," by Jason Mattera. Jane Doe 4 is a law school student who would like to one day work in the public sector, and she is concerned that her career prospects may be impaired if her personal and political beliefs are disclosed;
• Jane Doe 5, the parent of Jane Doe 4, who is a Florida resident, but whose information has been caught up in NCDOR's request. She does not want the government to know which books she has decided to purchase for her child;
• Jane Doe 6, whose purchases include books with sensitive and potentially controversial subject matters; and
• Cecil Bothwell, an elected city official, author and proprietor of a publishing house who has both purchased and sold potentially controversial books on Amazon. He is an atheist, which his political opponents seized on following his election because of a provision in the North Carolina Constitution that purports to prohibit anyone who "shall deny the being of Almighty God" from holding public office. He is joining the lawsuit on behalf of himself and his readers and customers, whose information has also been sought by NCDOR.

It's really amazing that North Carolina has not backed down on this yet, but I guess that a bunch of states these days have decided that tax revenue (what this case is really about) is more important than citizens' rights.

Filed Under: north carolina, privacy
Companies: aclu, amazon

North Carolina Demands Amazon Reveal Every Detail Of Purchases By NC Residents

from the hope-you-didn't-buy-anything-embarrassing dept

For years, there have been attempts by states to get Amazon to collect sales tax on purchases in those states, even if Amazon doesn't actually have any facilities in those states. Historically, companies haven't needed to charge sales tax if they don't directly operate in those states since (the argument goes) they're not making use of state resources and thus shouldn't have to collect for the state. Of course, buyers are still supposed to pay the sales tax directly to the state -- though that almost never happens. Various states have worked on ways around this in blatant revenue grabs. For example, it's become popular for states to claim that if a particular state has any residents who have signed up as Amazon affiliates, Amazon now has a presence in that state. In response to this, Amazon has cut off affiliate programs in various states. One of those states was North Carolina.

North Carolina's response was to go even further -- and have its Department of Revenue demand from Amazon a list of everyone in the state who had made a purchase on Amazon.com since 2003. Amazon contends that it already turns over plenty of data to North Carolina:

It routinely provides the Revenue Department with "voluminous information" about its sales to North Carolina addresses as part of routine audits of the company's compliance with sales and use tax laws. The information includes the date and total price of each transaction, the city, county and ZIP code to which each item was shipped and Amazon's standard product code for each item, which allows officials to see the description of every product purchased.

But what it does not provide is the actual names and addresses -- and North Carolina threatened to charge Amazon with contempt if it didn't provide that info. In response, Amazon is now suing North Carolina, claiming that the demand to turn over such information is a massive breach of the First Amendment, in that it could create serious chilling effects on what people would buy if they knew that the gov't was reviewing all of their purchases.

It's hard to see how North Carolina has any case here at all. Demanding such information would be a huge breach of privacy and of individual rights -- all in a blatant attempt by the state to collect more revenue. Hopefully the courts shut down this overreach quickly.

Filed Under: north carolina, purchases, receipts
Companies: amazon