By: Wanda Borges, Esq.
Borges & Associates, LLC
Those companies which are still following credit card anti-surcharging litigation know that the case of Italian Colors Restaurant v. Harris (as Attorney General of the State of California) has been sitting still before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals for more than two years. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, on March 23, 2015 ruled against the California statute which prohibits the pass-through of credit card surcharging. The pertinent statute (California Civil Code section 1748.1) says: No retailer in any sales, service, or lease transaction with a consumer may impose a surcharge on a cardholder who elects to use a credit card in lieu of payment by cash, check, or similar means. A retailer may, however, offer discounts for the purpose of inducing payment by cash, check, or other means not involving the use of a credit card, provided that the discount is offered to all prospective buyers.
The U.S. District Court found the statute to be unconstitutional and permanently enjoined its enforcement. The California Attorney General filed an appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and there the case has sat. It is this writer’s impression that the 9th Circuit was waiting to see what would happen with the New York case of Expressions Hair Design which was to be heard by the United States Supreme Court.
On March 29, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the decision of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals which left the New York statute to be deemed unconstitutional as District Court Judge Rakoff had determined. On August 17, 2017, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals finally heard oral argument on the Italian Colors v. Becerra (the current Attorney General of California substituted for Harris). What was most interesting was the Attorney General’s statement that California permits dual pricing as long as it is clear and conspicuous. He said that the statute means a merchant cannot post a single price and then add on a surcharge.
A strict reading of the statute would not agree with that statement. The 9th Circuit panel often referred to the Supreme Court decision in the Expressions Hair Design case and seemed to be leaning towards mimicking the Supreme Court in declaring the California statute to be unconstitutional and allowing a surcharge to be added provided it is clearly and conspicuously noticed. It was also interesting to note that both sides consistently argued that the surcharge prohibitions exist to protect consumers. This supports the opinion that the passing through of credit card surcharges is perfectly permissible for business-to-business transactions. It may take several months for a decision to be handed down but at least the 9th Circuit has moved forward on this matter.
WANDA BORGES, ESQ. is the principal member of Borges & Associates, LLC, a law firm based in Syosset,
New York. For more than thirty years, Ms. Borges has concentrated her practice on commercial
litigation and creditors’ rights in bankruptcy matters, representing corporate clients and creditors’
committees throughout the United States in Chapter 11 proceedings, out of court settlements,
commercial transactions and preference litigation. She can be reached at 516-677-8200.