In a surprise move, the Supreme Court will decide whether Amex may bar merchants from steering customers to less expensive card networks. The card issuer will have to prove the consumer gain from its practices outweighs the merchant pain.
While the courts have affirmed cities’ right to file predatory lending suits, they are also now holding them to a much higher standard in proving that banks knowingly steered minority borrowers into high-cost home loans.
Banks and other firms collecting defaulted debt originated by another company are not subject to the kinds of restrictions placed on third-party debt collectors, the Supreme Court ruled Monday in a unanimous decision.
The Trump administration is stepping away from the government’s 7-year legal fight with Amex that centers on retailers’ right to encourage the use of particular cards. The decision is good news for issuers of credit and debit cards, though it is hardly the last word on the case.
The city joins a growing list of municipalities that have filed similar lawsuits, just two weeks after the Supreme Court ruled that municipalities have standing to sue lenders under the Fair Housing Act.
Carol Hayles’ departure from CIT leaves us with one less female CEO-CFO team in banking; even Supreme Court justices get manterrupted; a Google doodle celebrates a microlender; and Sen. Elizabeth Warren strikes a pose.
Justices on the Supreme Court appeared exasperated with both sides for a case that would define whether companies that buy distressed debt are covered under a federal statute setting limits on their activities.
Banks have long been eager to see regulators knocked down a peg in the courts, but now that it might actually happen under President Trump, some are beginning to wonder if it might ultimately boomerang against the financial services industry.