- Ilya Shapiro on round II of Fisher v. University of Texas, the racial preferences case [Pope Center]
- “Supreme Court Endorses Tribal Courts; Bad News For Corporate Defendants?” [Daniel Fisher on Sixth Amendment case U.S. v. Bryant]
- “Is The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Unconstitutional?” [Susan Dudley]
- “Dueling perspectives on Lochner v. United States” [Andrew Hamm, SCOTUSBlog on Paul Kens vs. Randy Barnett debate, earlier]
- First Amendment and commercial speech: “Crazy Law Allows ‘Discounts’ for Cash but Not ‘Surcharges’ for Credit” [Ilya Shapiro on Expressions Hair Design case]
- Who ‘ya gonna call if you need a Third Amendment lawyer? [humor]
Filed under: CFPB, constitutional law, Indian tribes, racial preferences
3 Comments
I’m surprised that credit card surcharges are a matter of state law. Why can’t the credit card issuers simply ban surcharges as a matter of contract?
I found this with a quick Internet search:
“Pursuant to a settlement of the U.S. merchant class litigation, Mastercard will modify certain rules and business practices to permit U.S. merchants to apply an extra checkout fee, also known as a surcharge, to customers who pay with Mastercard-branded credit cards. The rule change permitting such surcharging will go into effect on January 27, 2013.”
So it looks like they can’t because of a lawsuit settlement.
Then it becomes plain that the credit card company has something to hide.
The whole point of regulatory capture (from the perspective of the regulated industry) is that favorable rules are generated, and the industry may still protest publicallypublicly how they chafe under the regulations.