 Several authors have independently shown that completer approaches are unsatisfactory. Earman and Roberts (1999, 454f) provide arguments which show that an exclusive cp-law in the sense of Pietroski and Rey cannot escape the problem of vacuity. Their example is the alleged cp-law “cp, all spherical bodies conduct electricity”. Every failure of this law can be explained in terms of a factor, for which we have independent evidence, viz. the molecular structure of the body in question. Schurz (2001a) proves that Pietroski &amp; Rey’s exclusive cp-laws are not vacuous but almost vacuous. More precisely, the content of “exclusively cp, \(A\)s are \(B\)s” in the sense of Pietroski &amp; Rey’s definition (10) is equivalent to the claim that for every event of the form “\(d\) is an \(A\) and \(d\) is (or is not) a \(B\)” there exists a true strict completer \(C(d)\) such that either “All \((A\wedge C)\)s are \(B\)s” or “All \((A\wedge C)\)s are \(\neg B\)s” is a strictly true law. This means that conditional on \(A\), every \(B\)-event or not\(-B\)-event is assumed a deterministic and independently identifiable cause, whatever this cause may be. This presupposition of determinism is both too strong and too weak: It is too weak because it does not establish a relevant nomological connection between \(A\) and \(B\). It is too strong because in all areas involving random processes, determinism does not hold. Woodward (2002, §2) has demonstrated that a similar criticism affects Fodor’s account.