Not always. Often times prosecutors pick cases with bad fact patterns to be test cases when they want to attack a right. A recent example is Biden DoJ choosing to take US v Rahimi to SCOTUS in an attempt to wheel back the NYSRPA v Bruen decision.

The structural problem is that revenue goes to program costs and traffic calming, not to anyone harmed by speeding, which makes the fines punitive in character under any substance-over-label analysis.

The lack of DMV points and criminal record weakens the argument somewhat, but under California's substance-over-label approach those omissions aren't dispositive. They merely show the legislature knew how to stay on the civil side of the line, not necessarily that it succeeded.

If a court finds the penalties punitive in character, the owner-liability structure becomes a compounding problem: California's state due process protections are arguably more robust than federal, and imposing a punitive fine on a registered owner without proof they were driving, while burden-shifting exculpation to them looks increasingly difficult to sustain.

> These aren't niche services. They are the backbone of how major VPN and proxy providers operate.

> This isn't datacenter IP space being labeled as residential — it's actual ISP networks being leveraged as proxy pipes

The "this isn't X, it's Y" construction is a bright red tell for AI slop. Posting AI slop is just bad manners.

Places I have lived in: London, Santiago, Rio de Janeiro, Miami, New York, San Francisco.