Why journalists don't call it as fraud?
They spent money on drafting this legislation and this is not fit for purpose.
But by the looks of it, big money must be behind it so it ticks the box, but does not actually change anything.
They spent money on drafting this legislation and this is not fit for purpose.
But by the looks of it, big money must be behind it so it ticks the box, but does not actually change anything.
Because it's not fraud.
Fraud requires obtaining a valuable security by deception. That's not what's going on here. So it's not fraud.
It's very much what's going on here.
The damages would be that the product that they wish to repair are irreparable.
I don't know if you think the entire legislation is the words 'right to repair'? It obviously isn't - it's far more nuanced than that.
That's exactly what you are doing. You responded to somebody typing literal English with an spurious debate about a legal term no one asked about and is different depending on what jurisdiction you live in.
People say stuff like "he's a fraud" all the time without meaning that in a precise legal sense.
Because those who write these laws are the same signing the journalists' paycheck.