The original reporting by 404media is excellent in that it covers the background context, links to the actual PDF of the lawsuit, and reaches out to an outside expert to verify information presented in the lawsuit and learned from their research. It’s a worthwhile read, although it’s behind a paywall; archive.ph may be effective though.

For folks that just want to see the lawsuit and its probably-dodgy claims, the most recent First Amended Complaint is available through RECAP here, along with most of the other legal documents in the case. As for how RECAP can store copies of these documents, see this FAQ and consider donating to their cause.

Basically, AXS complains about nine things, generally around: copyright infringement, DMCA violations (ie hacking/reverse engineering), trademark counterfeiting and infringement, various unfair competition statutes, civil conspiracy, and breach of contract (re: terms of service).

I find the civil conspiracy claim to be a bit weird, since it would require proof that the various other ticket websites actually made contact with each other and agreed to do the other eight things that AXS is complaining about. Why would those other websites – who are mutual competitors – do that? Of course, this is just the complaint, so it’s whatever AXS wants to claim under “information and belief”, aka it’s what they think happened, not necessarily with proof yet.

Ah, now I understand what you mean. Yes, the stock C80 would indeed legally be a Class 2 ebike in California, by virtue of its operable pedals, whether or not it’s actually practical to use the pedals. That the marketing material suggests the C80 is used primarily with its throttle is no different than other Class 2 ebikes which are often ridden throttle-only, as many city dwellers have come to fear.

As for the unlock to Class 3, I wonder how they do that: California’s Class 3 does not allow throttle-only operation, requiring some degree of pedal input.

The spectrum of two-wheelers in California include: bicycles, ebikes (class 1, 2, 3), scooters, mopeds (CVC 406), motor-driven cycles, and motorcycles (aka motorbikes; CVC 400)

The “moped” category, one which has almost been forgotten to the 1970s, has seen a resurgence: the now-updated law recognizes 30 mph, electric, 4 HP (3 kW) max two- or three-wheelers. These mopeds are street legal, bike lane legal, don’t have annual registration, no insurance requirement, but do need an M1/M2 license. These CVC 406 mopeds are not freeway legal, but darn if they’re not incredibly useful for in-town riding.

I could get myself an electric dirt bike and plates for it, 100% legally.

Do you have a reference for “class 3 e-scooters”? My understanding of the California Vehicle Code is that the class system only applies to bicycles with pedals, per CVC 312.5.

Whereas e-scooters – the things that Bird and Lime rent through their app – exist under CVC 407.5, which previously covered the older, gasoline-powered 50 cc types of scooters. But apparently the law has now completed written out the gas-powered ones, only mentioning electric-powered “motorized scooters”.

Strictly speaking, there isn’t a requirement in the law for e-scooters to have a speed governor, whereas ebikes must have one, either 20 mph (32 kph) or 28 mph (45 kph). Instead, riders of e-scooters are subject to a speed limit of 15 mph (25 kph), a stalwart from the days of the gas-powered scooters.

The key distinction here is that an ebike over-speeding beyond its class rating is an equipment violation, akin to an automobile without operational brake lights. But an e-scooter over-speeding beyond 15 mph is a moving violation, potentially incurring points on the rider’s driving license – if they have one – and can impact auto insurance rates, somewhat bizarrely.

I’m not saying CA law is fair to e-scooters – it’s not – but I can’t see a legal scenario where an e-scooter can overtake an ebike rider if both are operating at full legal limits.

I’m surprised he was able to attach his phone to the turnstile at a train station’s bathroom. :)