In common civil law, detrimental reliance on the misstatement is a necessary element to be proven for fraud recovery.. This remedial statute is intended to stop misrepresentations to the public by various scammers and con-artists. This applies mostly to advertising. The activity to be prohibited is generally under the heading of false advertising, or bait and switch. It’s obviously not intended to apply to a one-on-one transaction where two parties negotiate. Using the law in this manner is only about Trump. The state of New York freely admits that.
Id argue trumps case because this statute is unconstitutional in its application IMO. It violates the takings clause.
Your claim that "This remedial statute is intended to stop misrepresentations to the public by various scammers and con-artists" is not supported by the statute.
P. 3 of the ruling quotes the statute as follows:
"Executive Law § 63(12) now reads as follows:
Whenever any person shall engage in repeated fraudulent or illegal acts or otherwise demonstrate persistent fraud or illegality in the carrying on, conducting or transaction of business, the attorney general may apply... for an order enjoining the continuance of such business activity or of any fraudulent or illegal acts, directing restitution and damages and, in an appropriate case, cancelling any certificate filed under and by virtue of the provisions of section four hundred forty of the former penal law or section one hundred thirty of the general business law, and the court may award the relief applied for or so much thereof as it may deem proper. The word “fraud” or “fraudulent” as used herein shall include any device, scheme or artifice to defraud and any deception, misrepresentation, concealment, suppression, false pretense, false promise or unconscionable contractual provisions. The term “persistent fraud” or “illegality” as used herein shall include continuance or carrying on of any fraudulent or illegal act or conduct. The term “repeated” as used herein shall include repetition of any separate and distinct fraudulent or illegal act, or conduct which affects more than one person. Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, all monies recovered or obtained under this subdivision by a state agency or state official or employee acting in their official capacity shall be subject to subdivision eleven of section four of the state finance law."
Fraud is defined in this statute as "any device, scheme or artifice to defraud and any deception, misrepresentation, concealment, suppression, false pretense, false promise or unconscionable contractual provisions."
Nothing in the statute supports your claims that it's limited to "false advertising" and (in your words) "not intended to apply to a one-on-one transaction where two parties negotiate."