Viaje al Pasado Legal: Una Reclamación en Piedra
Exploring the Potential of Georgia's Merchant Acquirer Limited Purpose Bank Charter — Payments Pros: The Payments Law Podcast
Analyzing the Credit Card Competition Act of 2023 - Payments Pros: The Payments Law Podcast
One of the questions that remains uncertain among looming federal and state “junk fee” and “drip pricing” bans in 2024 concerns the impact these rules will have on credit card surcharges. Surcharges are added to sale...more
As the Kansas City Chiefs were winning the big game, New York made a big change to its law governing credit card surcharges. While definitions of the term may vary, a "surcharge" is generally understood to mean a higher...more
On February 11, 2024, a new law went into effect in New York, establishing important limits and rules for surcharging. Enacted in December 2023, the new statute has a price disclosure component, detailing how surcharge prices...more
On December 13, 2023, New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed into law Assembly Bill 2672, which has significant implications for merchants in that it imposes disclosure requirements with respect to credit card surcharges for...more
On December 13, 2023, the State of New York enacted Assembly Bill No. 2672 (Act), which modifies New York’s ban on credit card surcharges. The revised law takes effect on February 11, 2024....more
The State of New Jersey has passed a new law limiting the amount of a credit card surcharge by a seller on a purchase of goods or services. New Jersey joins 12 other states and territories that have had laws on their books...more
New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy on Aug. 18, 2023, signed into law a bill that limits the surcharges that merchants may charge their customers who choose to pay for goods or services using a credit card and requires disclosure of...more
Colorado recently became the latest state to eliminate a statutory ban prohibiting merchants from imposing a surcharge on customers who elect to pay for a transaction via credit or charge card. The Credit Transaction Charge...more
The U.S. District Court, District of Kansas recently ruled in CardX, LLC v. Schmidt, that Kansas Statute Annotated § 16a-2-403, which prohibits merchants from imposing a surcharge on customers who elect to pay via credit...more
On February 10, 2021, legislation was introduced to repeal Kansas’s ban on surcharging. A mere two weeks later, a federal judge essentially ensured its end by declaring the statute unconstitutional....more
On February 25, 2021, the United States District Court for the District of Kansas issued an opinion granting summary judgment in favor of CardX, LLC (CardX), and found unconstitutional “a Kansas law that prohibits sellers...more
The U.K. Payment Systems Regulator has revised the timeline for its work on the market review into the supply of card-acquiring services. The PSR will publish its interim report for consultation in Q1 2020, instead of by the...more
The U.K. Payment Systems Regulator has launched a consultation on the PSR's proposed approach to assessing the profitability of card-acquiring service providers for U.K. merchants and consumers. The Consultation Paper may be...more
The NY Attorney General and the plaintiffs in Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman have filed a joint motion with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit asking the court to vacate the district court’s final...more
On November 15, 2018, the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice settled a two-and-a-half year long lawsuit against Atrium Health, a North Carolina hospital system formerly known as the Carolinas HealthCare...more
As we reported on in 2013, 2015, and 2016, there has been much legal confusion as to how New York merchants can pass on the credit-card “swipe fees” to their customers. In the case of Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman,...more
The New York Court of Appeals has issued an opinion in Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman interpreting the state’s law that prohibits merchants from imposing a surcharge on credit card purchases (Section 518 of the...more
The U.S. Supreme Court has decided its first antitrust case in almost three years, establishing a new rule that in the two-sided credit card network market, a plaintiff must analyze both the merchant services side and the...more
A divided U.S. Supreme Court sided with American Express Company and American Express Travel Related Services Company (Amex) over Ohio, sixteen other states and the United States based on the Court’s application of the theory...more
In a 5-4 decision in Ohio v. American Express, the Supreme Court affirmed that the anti-steering provisions of American Express’s merchant agreement do not violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act....more
The Supreme Court delivered a big win to American Express last week, finding that the anti-steering rules AmEx imposes on merchants do not violate the federal Sherman Act....more
On June 25, 2018 the Supreme Court ruled, in a 5-4 decision, that American Express’s antisteering rules do not violate federal antitrust laws. In reaching this conclusion the Court determined that, for two-sided markets like...more
In Ohio v. American Express Co., the United States Supreme Court held that American Express Co. (Amex) did not violate Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by including “antisteering” provisions in its agreements with...more
The Supreme Court steered its way through high-profile antitrust litigation by the Department of Justice challenging payment industry restrictions. Our Antitrust and Financial Services & Products teams consider the wider...more
On June 25, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision by Justice Thomas, held that provisions in American Express Company’s (“American Express”) and its operating subsidiary’s contracts with merchants that restricted...more