Skip to main content

Are you a legal professional? Visit our professional site

Please enter a legal issue and/or a location
Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select

Surcharge for Swiping Credit Cards Violates Free Speech, 11th Rules

By Jonathan R. Tung, Esq. on November 06, 2015 5:59 AM

It's only been little more than a month since the Second Circuit decided the New York case of Expression Hair Design v. Schneiderman, ruling that the state's no-surcharge law is lawful. Serendipitously, the Eleventh Circuit ruled this week that no-surcharge laws violate the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech.

The Eleventh Circuit ruled that the state's applicable statute, which bans retailers from charging a surcharge to customers who elect to use their credit cards is nonsense when taken in conjunction with the state's express allowance of offering a discount for cash.The court said it may have the look of regulating conduct, but in reality, it regulates speech.

Background

A group of retailers brought suit against the state of Florida, alleging that Florida's "no-surcharge" law, Fla. Stat. sec. 501.0117(1)-(2), was a violation of free speech and was otherwise unconstitutionally vague. These retailers wished to give their customers a choice of two prices: a higher one associated with credit card purchases, and a lower one for cash. All plaintiffs wished to call this a credit card surcharge rather than a cash discount.

Don't Call It a "Surcharge"

Unlike the Second Circuit in Expressions, the Eleventh Circuit said that a credit card surcharge and a cash discount is basically the same thing -- except for the fact that calling it a surcharge can lead to fines or jail time. Do you want heads or not heads? Because calling tails is a crime.

The "Surcharges-Are-Fine-Just-Don't-Call-Them-That Law"

In the words of the majority, "a simple slip of the tongue" could lead to imprisonment, and is thus a clear regulation on speech. To assume that sec. 501.0117 regulated conduct only cast a "judicial Theseus into the depths of a lexical labyrinth." That's circuit speak for "nothing would make sense."

Incredulously, the court opined that sec. 501.0117 only targets speech and suggested that it should be called the "surcharges-are-fine-just-don't-call-them-that law."

Dissent

However, the Circuit's own Ed Carnes dissented, citing that SCOTUS itself had declared in Liquormart v. Rhode Island that the government can regulate prices -under the Commerce Clause -- without violating the First Amendment. Judge Carnes pointed out that this was the basic premise of the Second Circuit in Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman: "prices, although necessarily communicated through language, do not rank as 'speech' within the meaning of the First Amendment," thus not implicating First Amendment protection.

Related Resources:

You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help

Meeting with a lawyer can help you understand your options and how to best protect your rights. Visit our attorney directory to find a lawyer near you who can help.

Or contact an attorney near you:
Copied to clipboard

Find a Lawyer

More Options