The problem with this question is it varies wildly from country to country.
Firstly, there is the general point that people who pay for woo services usually believe in woo services, and many are very happy customers, because they believe they get something from their woo. So they have no reason to bring a case, unless blatantly ripped off - and then they will, but the humiliation may hold them back.
Ironically the UK Spiritualist Churches do support strongly at times people who wish to bring fraud cases, and Spiritualists are in my experience outspoken in making allegation of fraud against psychics - both because of their concern with "evidence" and because obviously cheats make them all look bad. This means however that Spiritualist Church members are often involved in bringing such cases to public attention.
Now in the UK we have the Fraudulent Mediums Act (1956) which can be used to prosecute - but it requires the permission of the Director of Public Prosecutions (or I believe the home Secretary) on any given case, as "in te public interest". This is partly historical as a response the nototrious Helen Duncan case, but also contextual.
The UK has an established Church, the Church of England, but respects freedom of religious belief. Where does woo end and religion start? How does one suppress woo legally and allow liberty of conscience? The Mediumship Act replaced the relevant provisions of the 1756 Witchcraft Act, and throughout the 60 and 70s 'everybody knew' that witches has suffered in a vast holocaust called by their purported descendants "the Burning Times", and while this has been seriously revised by modern historians, its still a potent cultural mythology. So you persecute fraudulent psychics, you raise the spectre of the witchcraft persecutions - plain and simple...
So we do have prosecutions in the UK (I think they are increasing, but I have no data so that is just a worthless subjective impression) but they are of only the really blatantly criminal cases - and are often brought under other laws pertaining to the actual criminal offence such as "obtaining money by deception", "fraud", or "making threats".
Then there is the "what it says on the box" problem. Many woo services like the ones you cite are clearly marked in the UK "for entertainment only". I was watching last night TV when an ad came on that offered to text me the initial of my future husband (well I suppose gay marriage is legit here now - I'm male, but this assumed the audience was female clearly...). Harmless fun? It was extremely expensive i thought, but marked "for entertainment only". D'oh! How could anyone conceivably believe otherwise? What made me laugh though was they would continue to text a future initial of one of my future husbands each week till I unsubscribed. How many future husbands are the kids who do this planning? Listen girls, you need an apple, a mirror, and wait till Halloween - ok, before you JREF chaps lynch me, at least its free! Anyway it's hard to prosecute as fraud what says its "for entertainment only"
Now the greater problem - can we tell people how to spend their money, or what to believe? Can we shut down the psychics? I would personally prefer not to, but instead try to educate people not to participate in these things. I am not at all authoritarian - the problem is that some sections of the community are vulnerable, and hence will always be susceptible.
Final thought, and a very subjective and politicallly biased one: with the decline of communitarian values and a more atomistic, individualist society, institutionalised religion and the peering over the neighbours fence blinds twitching moral consensus have maybe declined, with an increase in personal freedom, and hence personal responsibility. I personally think its worked well, but it has resulted in a generation or two who seek individual religious or psychic experiences, and a spiritual "me" generation who talk about what God has done ion their lives, read "Self Help" books thinly veiled with religion be it Jesus or Buddhism or whatever, and seek out mystical experiences and the "psychic" without any development of their critical faculties in addressing these experiences. Unsurprisingly woo has therefore, and will continue to, proliferate. This may be a moral evil - but would coercion or repression be any better?
I think not!
Sorry I whittered on a bit - these things interest me. Be interested in any comments on my analysis
cj x
