I'm so shocked that this isn't simply about certification (aka, you can't give out some sort of officially accepted slip of paper without a license, which I would at least be able to come up with arguments for), that I am really curious as to how this is an issue.

In particular:

1. It seems you can exchange knowledge for money as long as you don't have a physical presence in the state. Do you think this is an unfortunate loophole that in an ideal world would be "fixed"? If I create a new framework or technology and live in Bolivia, do you believe that ideally before I can offer a course on it online that accepts payments I should first be licensed in the state of the person taking the course? Should random people who happen to live in the state have a leg up on me teaching the technology I invented simply since they live there already and it is probably easier/in-their-means to get registered?

2. It doesn't seem to have anything in particular to do with "bad knowledge", as there are plenty of people willing to teach bad things for free (you can define bad however you want here). And separately, as far as I can tell, no one is really checking the courses are good or anything. Using the example above, would California have the capability to know that my React course is up to snuff?

So what is the registration for? Why is the sale of knowledge different than the sale of t-shirts?

1. Is the only goal to have these places on file for easier class-action lawsuits later? That might make sense?

2. Is it because tuition is particularly expensive, so it is known to attract more scams? So, merely a consequential result and not anything inherent to knowledge itself.

3. Is it because this sort of "institution" qualifies for government assisted funding/scholarships? In that case I could certainly understand it.

Any of those reasons could make sense, but none lead me to the feeling that the sale of knowledge, of all things, should of course necessarily be licensed/registered outside any other variables.