Judge blocks Biden administration rule capping credit card late fees at $8 | CNN Business
www.cnn.com
A federal judge in Fort Worth, Texas, on Friday blocked a new Biden administration rule that would prohibit credit card companies from charging customers late fees higher than $8.

A federal judge in Fort Worth, Texas, on Friday blocked a new Biden administration rule that would prohibit credit card companies from charging customers late fees higher than $8.

US District Judge Mark T. Pittman, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, granted a preliminary injunction to several business and banking organizations that allege the new rule violates several federal statutes.

These organizations, led by the right-leaning US Chamber of Commerce, sued the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau after the rule was finalized in March. The rule, which was set to go into effect Tuesday, would save consumers about $10 billion per year by cutting fees from an average of $32, the CFPB estimated.

  • Ranvier@sopuli.xyz
    148·
    7 months ago

    Infuriating thing was, this judge was clearly shopped for, but he kicked the case to the DC district Court instead of Texas. He himself even accused the banks of venue shopping in the ruling when he did so! Unfortunately the DC district court sent it right back and said he still had to take the case. He should have recused himself at that pont anyways given his stock holdings and things, but he now decides to reward the the banks for their venue shopping he’s clearly aware of. Judiciary is rotten.

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/texas-judge-moves-fee-case-232103686.html

    • breetai@lemmy.world
      33·
      7 months ago

      He just put an injunction in place which is common. It just means the case has to be decided first.

      If he’s accusing them of venue shopping. I suspect he’s going to rule against them.

      • Ranvier@sopuli.xyz
        20·
        7 months ago

        The legal standard for an injunction also includes a “likelihood of success on the merits.” The judge agrees with the banks in his ruling that they are likely to succeed on the case. So unfortunately the injunction is a signal there is a good chance he rules in the banks favor ultimately. Though he spends a bunch of the ruling just talking about how he’s mad this case was kicked back to him. He only spends like a page talking about if the legal standard for injunction has been met or not.

        https://www.consumerfinancemonitor.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2024/05/US_DIS_TXND_4_24cv213_d230938971e185_OPINION_ORDER_Before_the_Court_is_Plaintiffs_Motio.pdf

        • Billiam@lemmy.world
          17·
          7 months ago

          Not just likelihood of success, but also whether any irreparable harm could occur while the case is being decided, in the event the case favors the plaintiffs. In this case, if card companies are only allowed to collect $8 while the case is ongoing, and then a judge ruling they are allowed to collect more than that, means there’s a monetary loss that will have happened. Now I wouldn’t be crying if credit card companies are forced to stop ripping people off, and absolutely fuck the Chamber of Commerce, but that’s what it is.

          • Ranvier@sopuli.xyz
            6·
            7 months ago

            Yes I agree, but it doesn’t just have to meet some of those criteria to get an injunction, it has to meet all those criteria, including likelihood of success. They can’t just argue irreparable harm only if the judge thinks they’re unlikely to succeed. The judge seems to agree with them in that section of the ruling that he thinks that the rule is likely unconstitutional. And conservative judges have been pretty hostile to the consumer financial protection bureau in general. I’m not holding my breath, at least not for this judge, but maybe ultimately on appeal the cfpb will still succeed in the end.

            • Billiam@lemmy.world
              2·
              7 months ago

              Since credit card companies are currently allowed to charge outrageous fees, that would be akin to an ex post facto action so no they wouldn’t. Also while said fees are outrageous, the harm to consumers isn’t relevant because the suit is between credit card companies and the government.

                • Billiam@lemmy.world
                  1·
                  7 months ago

                  So keep in mind that harm as a legal concept is not the same as the general definition of harm. In the legal world, harm must be caused by the defendants to the plaintiffs. In this case, the government preventing card companies from collecting outrageous late fees does cause them monetary harm, so the question will be if the government has the right to do so.