You're right: I do object to the law's passing, to the entities that have been documented to be backing the law (see http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_2751-2800/ab...; the members of The Money Services Round Table are clarified at http://www.federalreserve.gov/SECRS/2006/August/20060829/R-1...), to its constitutionality, and to its implementation. That doesn't mean that I "have decided not to comply with the law," which is quite a charge to levy.

Just to compare notes, I'd like to see your list of startups that have applied for and are licensed under the California Money Transmission Act. As far as I can tell, based on the DFI's monthly summaries (see http://dfi.ca.gov/publications/summaries/), one startup (Venmo) has applied, and zero startups have licenses to date. This is now ten months after the law went into effect.

As for the law's intent, the statute claims that it's "consumer protection." I doubt anyone who claims that a money transmitter needs $1 million to $80 million of net worth and $750,000 of surety bonds in order to safely transmit $1.

Good luck with your startup. You should do some more research. Right now you sound like an apologist for multi-billion dollar financial corporations.