In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court sides with American Express over Customers/Retailers

[Phokus]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/25/us/politics/supreme-court-american-express-fees.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/26/opinion/supreme-court-american-express.html

Unsurprising. Each and every one of us pays higher prices whenever we buy something because of bullshit like this. Did you know that credit card companies have rules in place where retailers can't offer lower prices to people who pay with cash instead of credit card? So even if you DO pay cash, you actually STILL end up paying for those credit card transaction fees! They are able to get away with things this because of their market power. A retailer simply can't stop using Visa, or Mastercard, or American Express or they will lose a large customer base. They are anti-competitive as hell, by their very nature. Republicans are idiots.

Edit: This ruling was in june... don't think i saw this posted b4 though.

 

[hal2kilo]

I'm so glad our government spends so much time looking out for the little guy. /s

 

[umbrella39]

I'm so glad our government spends so much time looking out for the little guy. /s

Soon enough the little guy is going to tire of the corporatist judges that have been stacked on the courts. Pitchforks and torches....

 

[FIVR]

How are they ruling 5-4 when Kennedy has stepped down from the court?

 

[MomentsofSanity]

How are they ruling 5-4 when Kennedy has stepped down from the court?

Easy. It was in June.

 

[hal2kilo]

How are they ruling 5-4 when Kennedy has stepped down from the court?

Good question.

 

[soulcougher73]

How are they ruling 5-4 when Kennedy has stepped down from the court?

I think they let Kav have a write in vote....

 

[Thebobo]

So where is Kennedy going to work for since the Republicans paid him off to leave early?

 

[fskimospy]

The 'two sides' rule that they invented out of thin air is a truly impressive act of right wing judicial activism that undermines a century worth of antitrust law. Basically before under antitrust law if the government could show you were engaging in anticompetitive behavior that was harming others engaged in trade that was enough. (that's the point, after all) Now, there is a new rule where ALL your trading partners must be simultaneously harmed for it to be anticompetitive. So in this case despite the fact that American Express was screwing over their merchant partners so long as they weren't also screwing over their cardholders it's apparently just fine. This means if a card company can devise a policy that costs merchants $100 a year, they keep $99 of it, and give $1 back to cardholders it's no longer an antitrust violation.

This decision also has little to do with the original intent or text of our antitrust laws, something conservatives claim is very important to them when it is convenient. Much like their periodic deficit hysteria, original intent is a doctrine to be applied or ignored, based on whether it is useful in achieving an outcome conservatives prefer.

 

[dainthomas]

Soon enough the little guy is going to tire of the corporatist judges that have been stacked on the courts. Pitchforks and torches....

Liberté, egalité, fraternité!

 

[13Gigatons]

The 'two sides' rule that they invented out of thin air is a truly impressive act of right wing judicial activism that undermines a century worth of antitrust law. Basically before under antitrust law if the government could show you were engaging in anticompetitive behavior that was harming others engaged in trade that was enough. (that's the point, after all) Now, there is a new rule where ALL your trading partners must be simultaneously harmed for it to be anticompetitive. So in this case despite the fact that American Express was screwing over their merchant partners so long as they weren't also screwing over their cardholders it's apparently just fine. This means if a card company can devise a policy that costs merchants $100 a year, they keep $99 of it, and give $1 back to cardholders it's no longer an antitrust violation.

This decision also has little to do with the original intent or text of our antitrust laws, something conservatives claim is very important to them when it is convenient. Much like their periodic deficit hysteria, original intent is a doctrine to be applied or ignored, based on whether it is useful in achieving an outcome conservatives prefer.

Some stores here don't accept Amex. I wonder at what point certain places start only accepting cash only.

 

[hal2kilo]

Some stores here don't accept Amex. I wonder at what point certain places start only accepting cash only.

Yep. If you are lucky like me, and the company gives you a corporate card for travel, you will then get the "we don't take American Express here" experience. Mostly gas stations, some eateries and so on. Never had that experience with MasterCard or Visa, other than they just don't take credit cards.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Pitchforks and torches....

Which they will undoubtedly buy at Walmart.

 

[Rifter]

Which they will undoubtedly buy at Walmart.

With their Amex cards.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Sorry but I agree with this ruling - You shouldn't be able to charge different amounts depending on the type of payment. We had a thread a while back about gas stations that are advertising cash prices - of which no one can actually see/read that it's a cash price until they pull in.

Everything has a cost - just like accounting for and accruing cash. You think it's a drop in the bucket to have armed guards come and collect the cash to take to the bank? That's not a cost that I have to pay for when I pay for plastic - so I should get a discount over the cash price.

Whats next?

Cash price
Pay with a check: +$0.25
Pay with a debit: +$0.50
Pay with a credit card: +$2.00

Ultimately if you don't like it - don't accept AMEX. It's that fucking simple. If enough follow suit then AMEX will change their tunes.

 

[Phokus]

Sorry but I agree with this ruling - You shouldn't be able to charge different amounts depending on the type of payment. We had a thread a while back about gas stations that are advertising cash prices - of which no one can actually see/read that it's a cash price until they pull in.

Everything has a cost - just like accounting for and accruing cash. You think it's a drop in the bucket to have armed guards come and collect the cash to take to the bank? That's not a cost that I have to pay for when I pay for plastic - so I should get a discount over the cash price.

Whats next?

Cash price
Pay with a check: +$0.25
Pay with a debit: +$0.50
Pay with a credit card: +$2.00

Ultimately if you don't like it - don't accept AMEX. It's that fucking simple. If enough follow suit then AMEX will change their tunes.

When you pull in, you can see that it's cash or credit prices then you can pull out. Besides that, there are apps that tell you in advance what the actual price is for each gas station like Gasbuddy. Big deal. I'd rather have lower fucking prices. Apparently, CC companies charge something like 3% on every purchase here in the US, while in the EU it's like .3% because it's regulated. That's outrageous.

I think all prices should be cash prices and retailers should have visible signs for added fees for different forms of payment. That would give merchants more power and lower prices for the consumer.

 

[1prophet]

Soon enough the little guy is going to tire of the corporatist judges that have been stacked on the courts. Pitchforks and torches....

As long as they keep getting their steady diet of bread and circuses, (processed food, beer, liquor, reality tv, sports, drugs legal and illegal, celebrity news, facebook, twitter, etc), they may grumble about the injustice of it all, but I don't think they will getting off the couch anytime soon in any significant numbers for pitchforks and torches.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

The 'two sides' rule that they invented out of thin air is a truly impressive act of right wing judicial activism that undermines a century worth of antitrust law. Basically before under antitrust law if the government could show you were engaging in anticompetitive behavior that was harming others engaged in trade that was enough. (that's the point, after all) Now, there is a new rule where ALL your trading partners must be simultaneously harmed for it to be anticompetitive. So in this case despite the fact that American Express was screwing over their merchant partners so long as they weren't also screwing over their cardholders it's apparently just fine. This means if a card company can devise a policy that costs merchants $100 a year, they keep $99 of it, and give $1 back to cardholders it's no longer an antitrust violation.

This decision also has little to do with the original intent or text of our antitrust laws, something conservatives claim is very important to them when it is convenient. Much like their periodic deficit hysteria, original intent is a doctrine to be applied or ignored, based on whether it is useful in achieving an outcome conservatives prefer.

I don't follow how this is a monopolistic issue? What stops a vendor from not accepting a form of payment?

And like I said, accepting cash has indirect costs that credit cards don't have - so arguing that cards are more expensive is a bullshit argument when cash has their own costs as well.

 

[Phokus]

I don't follow how this is a monopolistic issue? What stops a vendor from not accepting a form of payment?

And like I said, accepting cash has indirect costs that credit cards don't have - so arguing that cards are more expensive is a bullshit argument when cash has their own costs as well.

Because CC companies entice customers with generous rewards so they sign up for those cards. If 1/3 of your customers use VISA, are you going to cut off 1/3rd of your customers? No.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Because CC companies entice customers with generous rewards so they sign up for those cards. If 1/3 of your customers use VISA, are you going to cut off 1/3rd of your customers? No.

Doesn't matter - no one is putting a gun to your head saying you have to accept it.

Also majority of consumers utilize debit cards (not credit) which ARE regulated

 

[Phokus]

Doesn't matter - no one is putting a gun to your head saying you have to accept it.

Also majority of consumers utilize debit cards (not credit) which ARE regulated

Apparently Merchants disagree with you. The overwhelming majority of retailers/restaurants accept most forms of CC's. And i'm pretty sure they aren't happy about having to pay those high fees.

 

[fskimospy]

I don't follow how this is a monopolistic issue? What stops a vendor from not accepting a form of payment?

And like I said, accepting cash has indirect costs that credit cards don't have - so arguing that cards are more expensive is a bullshit argument when cash has their own costs as well.

You don't need to be a monopoly to engage in anticompetitive behavior. In fact, the majority did not say it was not anticompetitive, they simply made up a new rule out of thin air where what would otherwise be anticompetitive behavior was okay so long as at least one party benefits. They are freely acknowledging that under the old antitrust laws this behavior would be illegal as after all, AMEX was instituting what amounts to a gag order preventing businesses from being transparent about their costs. In short, AMEX was requiring merchants conceal the true costs of a customer's decisions from them, preventing a well functioning marketplace.

There are 2 scenarios:

1) AMEX engages in behavior that benefits AMEX, hurts merchants, and hurts customers. This would apparently still be illegal.
2) AMEX engages in behavior that benefits AMEX, hurts one of the two and helps the other. (even if the help is a tiny fraction of AMEX's benefit) This is now legal.

So basically as long as a business is not screwing over even ONE of its business partners it is free to engage in limitless anticompetitive behavior against the others. This is a blatant violation of antitrust law as it has existed since Teddy Roosevelt. The conservatives on the court just invented new antitrust law that has nothing to do with the original intent, which is ironic considering their stated desire to follow original intent.

 

[spacejamz]

Because CC companies entice customers with generous rewards so they sign up for those cards. If 1/3 of your customers use VISA, are you going to cut off 1/3rd of your customers? No.

The reason that many of these companies have reward programs now were to keep competitive with AMEX. Originally, AMEX was known for their reward programs while Visa/MC were not (albeit with higher annual fees but their customers thought it was worth the higher fee)...

The other side of the coin is that Amex tends to have higher income individuals who spend more. Merchants have to weigh whether or not they want to 'cut off' these customers...

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

You don't need to be a monopoly to engage in anticompetitive behavior. In fact, the majority did not say it was not anticompetitive, they simply made up a new rule out of thin air where what would otherwise be anticompetitive behavior was okay so long as at least one party benefits. They are freely acknowledging that under the old antitrust laws this behavior would be illegal as after all, AMEX was instituting what amounts to a gag order preventing businesses from being transparent about their costs. In short, AMEX was requiring merchants conceal the true costs of a customer's decisions from them, preventing a well functioning marketplace.

There are 2 scenarios:

1) AMEX engages in behavior that benefits AMEX, hurts merchants, and hurts customers. This would apparently still be illegal.
2) AMEX engages in behavior that benefits AMEX, hurts one of the two and helps the other. (even if the help is a tiny fraction of AMEX's benefit) This is now legal.

So basically as long as a business is not screwing over even ONE of its business partners it is free to engage in limitless anticompetitive behavior against the others. This is a blatant violation of antitrust law as it has existed since Teddy Roosevelt. The conservatives on the court just invented new antitrust law that has nothing to do with the original intent, which is ironic considering their stated desire to follow original intent.

I still don't quite follow - how is this different than airlines having status and reward programs, ultimately? Or any company that has a rewards program? In the end all those benefits, extra points, etc... that are earned with status and mass flying come at the cost of higher ticket prices and baggage fees for the poor folks that don't travel often.

I still stand by the statement that merchants shouldn't be able to charge different prices for products based on a method of payment. The argument that it costs more when it's a card is bullshit as can be argued with the costs of cash management.

 

[Phokus]

I still don't quite follow - how is this different than airlines having status and reward programs, ultimately? Or any company that has a rewards program? In the end all those benefits, extra points, etc... that are earned with status and mass flying come at the cost of higher ticket prices and baggage fees for the poor folks that don't travel often.

I still stand by the statement that merchants shouldn't be able to charge different prices for products based on a method of payment. The argument that it costs more when it's a card is bullshit as can be argued with the costs of cash management.

You're comparing apples to orange. There airline is offering the rewards directly to you, not some middle man like a credit card company. The one who offers the rewards is also the one who delivers the end product to you and charges you whatever the price is.

In what world is keeping prices opaque a GOOD thing? If prices were made public, the cost of credit card fees would go down drastically. The ONLY reason why credit card companies charge these high fees is because the prices are hidden in an anti-competitive manner. I would happy give up the credit card rewards system for transparent pricing because i save more money in the long term.