Internet and mobile payment volume is growing exponentially. From established technology giants like Amazon, Google and PayPal to relative newcomers like Square and Level Up, Internet and mobile payment systems are changing the face of modern commerce. Consumers and merchants have embraced cashless payment options like mobile wallets and mobile credit card readers. Unfortunately, existing laws and regulations lag behind. State money transmitter laws, once a virtual unknown, have become a source of frustration and confusion. These statutes historically regulated money transfer business like Western Union with an eye toward preventing consumer harm. The plain language of such statutes, however, purports to broadly regulate the receipt of money or monetary value for the purpose of transmitting it to another place or location by any means. As such, an array of business activity, from bike messengers to app stores, is potentially implicated. In the absence of clear guidance, a number of services that accept customer payments on behalf of merchants in connection with the sale of the merchant’s goods and services have struggled with the question of whether their unique business models are subject to regulation. In the face of uncertainty, Amazon, Google and PayPal have all become licensed money transmitters under state law. Even Facebook has become licensed to mitigate the risk of sanctions as their payments product continues to evolve. While established companies can afford to comply, the licensing and regulatory compliance costs exist as a barrier to entry for payment start ups and may stifle continued innovation if left unsettled. This Article takes the first meaningful look at the intersection of technology and consumer protection in the context of new and merging payment systems, and seeks to resolve the apparent tension between the two, suggesting a framework for modernizing state money transmitter laws to accommodate new technology and the realities of a cashless world while still respecting the statutory purpose of consumer protection where appropriate.
{"title":"Regulating the New Cashless World","authors":"Kevin V. Tu","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2235937","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2235937","url":null,"abstract":"Internet and mobile payment volume is growing exponentially. From established technology giants like Amazon, Google and PayPal to relative newcomers like Square and Level Up, Internet and mobile payment systems are changing the face of modern commerce. Consumers and merchants have embraced cashless payment options like mobile wallets and mobile credit card readers. Unfortunately, existing laws and regulations lag behind. State money transmitter laws, once a virtual unknown, have become a source of frustration and confusion. These statutes historically regulated money transfer business like Western Union with an eye toward preventing consumer harm. The plain language of such statutes, however, purports to broadly regulate the receipt of money or monetary value for the purpose of transmitting it to another place or location by any means. As such, an array of business activity, from bike messengers to app stores, is potentially implicated. In the absence of clear guidance, a number of services that accept customer payments on behalf of merchants in connection with the sale of the merchant’s goods and services have struggled with the question of whether their unique business models are subject to regulation. In the face of uncertainty, Amazon, Google and PayPal have all become licensed money transmitters under state law. Even Facebook has become licensed to mitigate the risk of sanctions as their payments product continues to evolve. While established companies can afford to comply, the licensing and regulatory compliance costs exist as a barrier to entry for payment start ups and may stifle continued innovation if left unsettled. This Article takes the first meaningful look at the intersection of technology and consumer protection in the context of new and merging payment systems, and seeks to resolve the apparent tension between the two, suggesting a framework for modernizing state money transmitter laws to accommodate new technology and the realities of a cashless world while still respecting the statutory purpose of consumer protection where appropriate.","PeriodicalId":177461,"journal":{"name":"University of New Mexico School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-02-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130825448","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article attempts to examine the special problems that community-based groups in low income and minority communities might encounter in prosecuting citizen suits under highly technical environmental statutes. To set the context for this inquiry, part II of this article describes the environmental justice movement and investigates the charge that communities of color are disproportionately and unjustly burdened with environmental hazards. Part II also explores the differences in perspective that underlie much of the conflict among environmental justice activists, mainstream environmental organizations, and EPA. Part II concludes with a look at social forces that have contributed to environmental inequities and that might influence environmental enforcement efforts. Part III examines the current scheme of private enforcement of selected, major federal environmental laws through citizen lawsuitprovisions. Existing citizen suit provisions contain limitations that create incentives for private citizens to prosecute certain types of actions and disincentives to prosecute other actions. Part III addresses the possibility that these incentives and disincentives result in an unequal playing field for enforcement by low income communities and communities of color, which in turn exacerbates the disparity in environmental protection of these communities. Common types of environmental citizen suits are examined to determine whether they have the potential to address environmental problems prevalent in low income and minority communities, and, if so, whether community-based groups might be at a disadvantage in prosecuting such lawsuits because of underfunding. In conclusion, part IV suggests amendments to environmental laws that might more directly address disparity in environmental protection. It also suggests alternative interpretations of federal citizen suit provisions that might facilitate the use of private enforcement to promote environmental justice.
{"title":"Federal Environmental Citizen Provisions: Obstacles and Incentives on the Road to Environmental Justice","authors":"Eileen Gauna","doi":"10.15779/Z38QZ7S","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38QZ7S","url":null,"abstract":"This article attempts to examine the special problems that community-based groups in low income and minority communities might encounter in prosecuting citizen suits under highly technical environmental statutes. To set the context for this inquiry, part II of this article describes the environmental justice movement and investigates the charge that communities of color are disproportionately and unjustly burdened with environmental hazards. Part II also explores the differences in perspective that underlie much of the conflict among environmental justice activists, mainstream environmental organizations, and EPA. Part II concludes with a look at social forces that have contributed to environmental inequities and that might influence environmental enforcement efforts. Part III examines the current scheme of private enforcement of selected, major federal environmental laws through citizen lawsuitprovisions. Existing citizen suit provisions contain limitations that create incentives for private citizens to prosecute certain types of actions and disincentives to prosecute other actions. Part III addresses the possibility that these incentives and disincentives result in an unequal playing field for enforcement by low income communities and communities of color, which in turn exacerbates the disparity in environmental protection of these communities. Common types of environmental citizen suits are examined to determine whether they have the potential to address environmental problems prevalent in low income and minority communities, and, if so, whether community-based groups might be at a disadvantage in prosecuting such lawsuits because of underfunding. In conclusion, part IV suggests amendments to environmental laws that might more directly address disparity in environmental protection. It also suggests alternative interpretations of federal citizen suit provisions that might facilitate the use of private enforcement to promote environmental justice.","PeriodicalId":177461,"journal":{"name":"University of New Mexico School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series","volume":"9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121371734","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Since 2001, Colorado has recognized a special type of water right for whitewater parks, which are designed and constructed within a river channel to provide play features for kayakers and other boaters. These water rights, called recreational in-channel diversions or RICDs, are unique to Colorado, even though whitewater parks exist in several western states. This article addresses some of the underlying reasons why RICDs got established in Colorado, and traces the controversy surrounding their recognition by that state’s courts and legislature. Over the last decade, however, the controversy has largely died away, and whitewater park rights have now become an accepted part of Colorado water law. This article reviews these developments, examines the policy choices made by the legislature in enacting two different statutes on RICDs, and offers concluding observations regarding Colorado’s experience with whitewater park water rights.
{"title":"Protecting River Flows for Fun and Profit: Colorado's Unique Water Rights for Whitewater Parks","authors":"Reed D. Benson","doi":"10.15779/Z38WS14","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38WS14","url":null,"abstract":"Since 2001, Colorado has recognized a special type of water right for whitewater parks, which are designed and constructed within a river channel to provide play features for kayakers and other boaters. These water rights, called recreational in-channel diversions or RICDs, are unique to Colorado, even though whitewater parks exist in several western states. This article addresses some of the underlying reasons why RICDs got established in Colorado, and traces the controversy surrounding their recognition by that state’s courts and legislature. Over the last decade, however, the controversy has largely died away, and whitewater park rights have now become an accepted part of Colorado water law. This article reviews these developments, examines the policy choices made by the legislature in enacting two different statutes on RICDs, and offers concluding observations regarding Colorado’s experience with whitewater park water rights.","PeriodicalId":177461,"journal":{"name":"University of New Mexico School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series","volume":"36 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125843083","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：