X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Credit Cards

In a temporary victory for New York merchants over credit card companies, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that a state law preventing retailers from telling shoppers they are imposing a “surcharge” on credit card purchases amounts to a speech regulation that could be unconstitutional.

Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., writing for a unanimous court, said the New York law was not just a commercial regulation but a speech regulation. “What the law does regulate is how sellers may communicate their prices,” Roberts wrote. “In regulating the communication of prices rather than prices themselves, [the law] regulates speech.”

But the high court remanded the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit with instructions to examine the law in that light. The Second Circuit ruling had upheld the state law without addressing the First Amendment speech issue raised by merchants. Roberts added, however, that the law was not vague—an assessment that will affect how the Second Circuit ultimately rules on the First Amendment point.

The case Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman came to the court as a test of whether New York can dictate what merchants say to their customers about the different prices they charge for credit card and cash payments. Ten other states, including California, Connecticut, Florida, Massachusetts and Texas, have similar laws that prohibit merchants from imposing surcharges to cover the “swipe fee” they pay credit-card companies, laws which in some cases have been interpreted to prevent merchants from using the word “surcharge.”

The credit-card industry has lobbied for such laws since the 1980s, fearing that describing the higher price as a “surcharge” would discourage shoppers from using credit cards.  But merchants have fought back, claiming that the laws keep them from making it clear that credit card purchases are more costly than cash and cut into their profits.

“Rather than increase prices across the board to absorb those costs, the merchants want to pass the fees along only to their customers who choose to use credit cards,” Roberts wrote. “They also want to make clear that they are not the bad guys—that the credit card companies, not the merchants, are responsible for the higher prices.”

Deepak Gupta of Gupta Wessler argued on behalf of a group of New York challenging the law, while deputy New York solicitor general Steven Wu defended it as a “pricing practice” without free speech implications.

Though the outcome was unanimous, Justices Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Samuel Alito Jr., wrote in a concurrence that the entire case should have been remanded, rather than ruling on only one aspect. “The court addresses only one part of one half of petitioners’ First Amendment challenge to the New York statute at issue here,” Sotomayor wrote. “This quarter-loaf outcome is worse than none.”

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at customercare@alm.com

Lean Adviser Legal

Think Lean Daily Message

"A legal project is like a journey. I like to think of it as a plane journey, rather than say a road trip. On a road trip, you can change the destination midway, so resource planning is less important. A plane journey is not like that and neither is a legal project. It all starts with planning, meticulous planning."

Learn More

 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2018 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.