Hacker News Reader

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/39/3001 (specifically, (d)) says that it's a scam:

> Matter otherwise legally acceptable in the mails which— is in the form of, and reasonably could be interpreted or construed as, a bill, invoice, or statement of account due; but constitutes, in fact, a solicitation for the order by the addressee of goods or services, or both; is nonmailable matter [...] unless such matter bears on its face, in conspicuous and legible type in contrast by typography, layout, or color with other printing on its face [...] the following notice: [...]

(emphasis added).

The law says that this wiggle room does not exist directly in the text. It's a scam, and clearly so.

What you state as self evident fact is in fact something that's to be argued in court. Laws are not sets of mathematical rules, as shown by ubiquitous uses of words like "reasonably".

Classic scam used to just be faxing an invoice to a small business. Good bet the office manager will just pay it. Now people do the same thing by email, I periodically get emailed invoices for small painting jobs that I assume come from some scammer thinking I'm in the property management business.

As discussed at length in the excellent book "Lying for Money" by Dan Davies, these kinds of scam exploit the trust that exists in the business world and perhaps most destructive in the way that they destroy that trust. Having to spend extra time verifying the provenance every invoice or bill you receive is the kind of thing that, in aggregate, becomes a huge cost and irritation.

Very true. In addition, no one wants to risk having a small bill go to collection because of the horrible way our credit reporting systems (don't) work. It is like big companies who settle to save money and move on with life. These people are despicable.

An interesting read: https://www.popehat.com/2011/09/25/anatomy-of-a-scam-chapter.... A series of articles about a similar mail fraud, this one using printer toner instead.

In chapter one, Ken explains why this is absolutely fraud:

> Whether a communication is fraudulent — for the purposes of criminal law, torts, or consumer protection law — depends upon communications as a whole. Scammers cannot insulate themselves with fine print, hidden disclosures, or contradictory disclaimers when the entire solicitation is intended to defraud and is misleading to a reasonable person.

Although the mailing in OP is somewhat less scammy, on the totality of the evidence, any reasonable person would clearly decide that it is mail fraud.

I wonder if people who like to call things "stupid tax" also say robbery is not a crime but a "weaking tax"

Kind of like when FB and others testified to congress that their data collection practices were clearly disclosed in the TOS

The problem is that these sorts of standards are selectively applied. We might as well call federal and state taxes a scam (in the US) because it is easy to pay more than you actually are legally obligated to pay. The tax system has been made confusing, and regardless if it was done purposefully or not (because purposefulness of the design isn't a factor in this sort of standard, and even if it was it can be optimized around).

Are state run lotteries also a scam given how they are advertised in a way to exploit underlying flaws in human rationality?

Are the people who go on dating applications with the primary goal of seeking free meals from their dates scam artists?

Are advertisers making any sort of ad that exploits underlying flaws in human nature scamming their users, but not quite to the level of this flyer, scam artists?

What about grocery stores who put the products that appeal to children at heights meant for the children to see them, and who do things like put candy at the checkout section?

What about every phone vendor, game vendor, and website that has a large legal document that they know full well their users aren't reading, but requiring them to agree to, as they know the users will just click the I agree and move on?

All of these are in some way exploiting flaws in humans to make a profit. Should they all be scams and condemned? Maybe so, but we should try to be consistent in doing so.

>It's like trying to pass off counterfeit bills and then claiming you weren't engaging in fraud because the money had "Not legal tender" written in small print and the store clerk would have realized that if they'd only inspected every individual bill closely enough.

So, what would be the closest thing to legal tender that a person can offer to use without payment without having to explicitly call out the fact it isn't legal payment? If I were to offer someone operating a register an item of value, let's say an older model smartphone, in place of my bill, wouldn't that be legal and wouldn't it be acceptable for them to accept that as trade for the items? If they aren't an owner and don't have permission to make such decisions, then they should either refuse or act as a middle man (accept the item and pay out of their own product, if that is allowed). But how close can I get to legal tender before it becomes unacceptable socially and unacceptable legally? Does either answer maybe depend upon how I look, if I'm attractive, what gender/race I am, how rich I am? I ask that because I do honestly think if we had alien scientists who were creating a perfect answer to that question, they would find those to be factors.

But the example's disclosure in the link was not hidden in fine print at all. It is in boldface and uses the largest font on the paper: THIS IS NOT A BILL. THIS IS A SOLICITATION. There are scams out there but this one seems more like a dark pattern. You don't have to be that astute to identify it--you just have to be able to read and not go on autopilot.

Victims don't deserve to get scammed, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't exercise caution.

although the picture is very blurry, by my reckoning, that part is roughly the sixth largest font on the page, the top three being "Website Listing Service", "Web Listings Inc", and "DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES", "SUBSCRIPTION INCLUDES", and "INQUIRIES". there is absolutely no way that "THIS IS NOT A BILL" is the largest text.

You guys are looking at a different image than I am then. The disclaimer is huge, very prominent and also in the center of the page. There are many more better examples of scams out there--this one is mild.

Also for a mail sent in feb 2017, the service listed clearly says from March onwards. A bit of a dark pattern yes, but honestly with all the scams out there this really doesn’t seem like a particularly scammy one

"Dark pattern" is just a nice way of saying "how can we trick people while staying just barely on the right side of the law."

Why is tricking people legally ok?

Often tricking people is not legally ok, also even tricking people that is not deemed criminal may not be allowed by a civil court, if you cared to take it to court of course.