Supreme Court sides with American Express in antitrust case

[Dalmus]

I imagine it's a combination of things... I'm sure high-minded folks who know the rules might tattle on the merchant as part of their tantrum.
That's also probably an algorithm that shows Amex if a merchant is below a statistically "normal" number of swipes for their business type and geographical location.

[EW800]

I had this happen at an auto repair garage about a year ago or so.  It was a bill of about $700 and I presented my Amex ED.  The owner of the shop just said that he gladly (probably not the word he meant to say...) takes Amex, but was wondering if there was any way I would be willing to pay with a Visa or MC.  He said Amex kills him with fees.  He said again that he absolutely would take the Amex, was just wondering if another card would be possible.  I felt that they had treated me very fairly by eating some labor cost, soI had no problem honoring his request and used another card.  

[Anonymous]

---

@pipeguy wrote:

Yeah I saw this, can't say I agree, but that's life. Frankly, if any merchant asked me to use a MC/V instead I would gladly comply.  

---

You shouldn't. The business doesn't usually have your best interest in mind, so why have theirs? 

They don't have to accept American Express if they don't want to. I don't understand why businesses accept AMEX and then complain about the fees. 

[Anonymous]

The Supreme Court was wise to rule in favor of AMEX here. 

Lately I've seen many cases where either civilians or businesses have complained that their constitutional rights are violated in non-government situations. A business agreement between a merchant and AMEX does not involve government interference to free speech. The U.S Constitution consists of bylaws to prevent government corruption, and not corruption in business matters. Free speech does not apply to private matters between two private parties; therefore, the merchant's complaint that their free speech rights are violated does not exist. In fact, I'll even go as far as saying the Durbin Amendement embedded within the Dodd-Frank Act is a violation of free speech because the government is limiting the banks to how much they can charge merchants; thus, making them look like the bad guys when they begin charging customers monthly maintenance fees and other fees. 

The funny part about all this is they're quick to complain about free speech violations with another party, but they'll fire an employee who supposedly doesn't have "free speech" rights while on the job. A merchant can't have it both ways. Free speech does not exist when you're not dealing with the government.