We see it everywhere:
gas stations list a cash price and another
higher price for credit card purchases.
But in ten states, that is illegal.
They can charge more for using a debit card,
but not for using a credit card.
But they do it anyway
That is why arco charges 35 cents for using a
debit card but doesn't accept credit cards in most cases.
They are one of the very few retailers
that isn't breaking the law in these states.
So along comes judges from ... you guessed it,
the 9th circuit who says the law is unconstitutional
because it violates the merchant's 1st amendment
rights of free speech.
Yep, they said that making it illegal to charge
more for using a credit card violates their free speech.
Bizarro world, wonder who paid off those judges?
This will soon spread across the country.
But if enough people make enough noise and
bring it out into the open, the judges, law makers
and law enforcement will no longer be able to turn
a blind eye to this illegal practice.
Then we can go after the BS about them using 9/10s
added onto the advertised price of a gallon
but that's another thread
Ten states prohibit credit card surcharges and convenience fees: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, New York, Oklahoma and Texas. It is illegal for merchants to add any surcharges to credit card transactions or charge convenience fees to nontraditional payment methods in these states.
Quote:
Extra charges for using a credit card at the cash register took another step forward this week, as a California appeals court ruled against the state’s no-surcharge law.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said in its Jan. 3 decision that the state’s ban on surcharges conflicts with merchants’ constitutional rights to recover the costs of card transactions.
“We hold that the statute as applied to these plaintiffs violates the First Amendment,” the opinion by the three-judge panel stated.
Credit card fees and free speech
What do fees have to do with free speech? Since discounts for using cash are allowed, and the resulting price is identical to a surcharge, banning surcharges is a restriction on how the price is communicated, the court ruled. The reasoning echoed a U.S. Supreme Court decision against New York’s no-surcharge law in 2017.
The California decision was limited to the small businesses who filed the lawsuit – including a restaurant, dry cleaner and web designer – but opened the door to broader surcharging by other merchants who use the same method. The companies may post a single price, then charge an extra fee when you pay with a credit card.
California had suspended enforcement of the no-surcharge law during the court challenge. Attorney General Xavier Becerra’s office did not respond to a question on whether the state will fight the decision or drop its defense of the law.
|