fraud
How would the law in US handles private investigation like this?
<p>I saw video where there is evidence beyond any doubt (reasonable or not) that a company is committing fraud</p>

<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-avpx8UTakI" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-avpx8UTakI</a></p>

<p>How would US laws handles this?</p>

<p>Is it legal to document or record people against their consent?
Is the owner sent to jail because of this video?
What happens next?</p>

<p>It will depend on the actual state. </p>

<p>But generally, if you know someone is about to commit a crime, you can record them (even if you're in a two party/all party recording state). </p>

<p>In any case, the video doesn't prove that the owner committed fraud, only that his employees committed fraud. You could throw those people in jail, but since the business seems to have the money, you could just give the business a very large fine. </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>How would US laws handles this?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>It depends on each state's legislature, as the other answer mentions. In Michigan, one of the applicable statutes (or perhaps <em>the</em> only applicable statute) is <a href="http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(ekmyv0haepk4guc04q3kh4v5))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&amp;objectName=mcl-445-903-amended" rel="nofollow noreferrer">MCL 445.903</a>. The fraud reported in the video would fit items including [but not limited to]:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>(j) Representing that a part, replacement, or repair service is needed
  when it is not.</p>
  
  <p>(q) Representing or implying that the subject of a consumer
  transaction will be provided promptly, or at a specified time, or
  within a reasonable time, if the merchant knows or has reason to know
  it will not be so provided.</p>
  
  <p>(bb) Making a representation of fact or statement of fact material to
  the transaction such that a person reasonably believes the represented
  or suggested state of affairs to be other than it actually is.</p>
</blockquote>

<p><a href="http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(ekmyv0haepk4guc04q3kh4v5))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&amp;objectName=mcl-445-911" rel="nofollow noreferrer">MCL 445.911</a> states that when such deceptive practices occur, a person "<em>may bring an action to recover actual damages [...] together with reasonable attorneys' fees</em>".</p>

<p>Other legislatures seem more up-to-speed (at least in appearance) regarding fraud. For instance, New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act entitles a plaintiff to the award of <em>treble damages</em>, and '<em>the court shall also award reasonable attorneys' fees, filing fees and reasonable costs of suit</em>". See <a href="https://www.leagle.com/decision/innjco20090219359" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Bosland v. Warnock Dodge, Inc.</em>, 964 A.2d 741, 747-748 (2009)</a> (citing N.J.S.A. 56:8-19).</p>

<p>Because of the doctrine of <em>respondeat superior</em>, the business owner might be responsible for the damages. That is especially true if preponderance of the evidence indicates that he instructed his staff to engage in those fraudulent practices.</p>
