Court rules for Backpage against Visa and MC - GoFuckYourself.com

NKYKev · 12-11-2015, 08:23 AM

Article. So, if sexual materials and services are not supposed to be "High Risk" according to the FDIC Guidelines released in July of 2014, why are all adult sites still paying high risk fees? Wouldn't any such Visa or MC rule violate the rules of the FDIC now?

Here is the 7th Circuit Court Opinion.

celandina · 12-11-2015, 08:47 AM

Maybe there is a lawyer about who can read the 21 pages and give us a summary

I was harping on PayPal elsewhere here and the various "risk assessors" at Visa and MCh around here. Maybe this is the tide turning...???

potter · 12-11-2015, 08:51 AM

I'm not sure how you got that sexual materials aren't supposed to be high risk.

The court case and that entire article is about denying processing to high risk services. Unless I missed something there wasn't a single blurb about issue with higher service fees.

NKYKev · 12-11-2015, 09:05 AM

Potter,

While the Court case itself did not involve this issue, the article I referenced did. I will quote it below.

Quote:

Just a few months earlier, the FDIC went on record this clarifying its "high risk" guidance for banks, and guess what? Sex isn't in them, not even vaguely.

That's thanks to a federal mess called Operation Choke Point, launched in 2013 by the US Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force (FFETF). It targeted financial institutions working with third party processors (namely Paypal and Square) because they're bottlenecks for the flow of online payments.

Choke Point relied on a vague FDIC guidance document; this year, the House Oversight Committee found collusion between the FDIC and FFETF, stating "The Committee has obtained substantial evidence suggesting that as a result of coordinated actions by the FDIC and the Department of Justice, banks are terminating relationships with entirely legitimate and licensed businesses." This led to leading to hearings by the House Judiciary Committee and the House Financial Services Committee, and lawsuits against the FDIC.

Hence the FDIC's new, detailed guidance document for banks, one in which "reputational risk" is now omitted -- thus officially not enough a to deny or close an account. The FDIC's categories of "high risk" specify fraudulent goods and services, and tactics "such as aggressive telemarketing or enticing and misleading pop-up advertisements on Web sites."

While "unlawful Internet gambling and the illegal sale of tobacco products on the Internet" are singled out as FDIC "high risk" areas, PayPal's "items that are considered obscene ... [or] certain sexually oriented materials or services" are most definitely not.

celandina · 12-11-2015, 09:11 AM

Can anybody here speak in plain English ??? Quoting sections of that gibberish does not help

blackmonsters · 12-11-2015, 09:13 AM

Cliffs Notes : Doesn't say any of the shit OP is hoping for.

.

Barry-xlovecam · 12-11-2015, 09:31 AM

Quote:

[S]heriff Dart, his office, and all employees, agents, or others who are acting or have acted for or on behalf of him, shall take no actions, formal or informal, to coerce or threaten credit card companies, processors, financial institutions, or other third parties with sanctions intended to ban credit card or other financial services from being pro- vided to Backpage.com. Sheriff Dart shall immediately upon receipt of this order transmit a copy electronically to Visa and MasterCard and all other recipients of his June 29, 2015, letter (including therefore the directors of and investors in Visa and MasterCard), as well as to the Chief Inspector of the United States Postal Service. Backpage.com shall not be required to post a security bond.

REVERSED AND REMANDED , WITH DIRECTIONS

The case was reversed and remanded back to the lower court with the instant issue being the Sheriff’s conduct was in violation of the First Amendment ... Speech that threatens is not protected speech.

Credit card associations can choose what business and what terms they give as long as it is not illegal discrimination (race, creed. religion, etc..).

VISA and Mastercard are not ordered to change the way they do business -- the Sheriff is ordered.

NKYKev · 12-11-2015, 09:41 AM

BM,
The FDIC removing "reputational risks" from its High Risk Guidelines should change how sexual materials are judged, because they were automatically classified as high risk before based on that alone. And should remove some pressure on adult businesses that were being applied by the banks as well in reliance on this Guideline. I am sure you would have said that Backpage had no chance taking on Visa and MC either. Maybe when some company has the balls to test this in court we will get a real answer.

NKYKev · 12-11-2015, 09:57 AM

BL,

While the direct action is against the Sheriff, the Court also held that the lower court erred in holding that Backpage had not been irreparably harmed by its abandonment by the credit card companies. If Visa and MC do not renew taking Backpage ads, do you think they would be upheld in a court action?

MakeMeGrrrrowl · 12-11-2015, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by socalkev

BL,

While the direct action is against the Sheriff, the Court also held that the lower court erred in holding that Backpage had not been irreparably harmed by its abandonment by the credit card companies. If Visa and MC do not renew taking Backpage ads, do you think they would be upheld in a court action?

Backpage is already taking payments again on a lot of accounts.

I thought the information said that backpage HAD been irreparably harmed by it's abandonment.

NKYKev · 12-11-2015, 10:52 AM

MMG,

I think we are saying the same thing. The Federal District Court that originally heard the case ruled that Backpage had not been irreparably harmed by being denied credit card processing; the 7th Circuit held that it had indeed suffered such harm and the lower court was in error. That is why this is such a huge opinion; U.S. courts almost never find in favor of the interests of sexually oriented materials or companies.

Barry-xlovecam · 12-11-2015, 11:23 AM

That is reasoning and not the instant issue.

You are reading what you want to read into the Appellate court's reasoning. You are speculating I guess.

'Shall' is the operative word.

VISA and Mastercard were not a party named in the action. Any reinstatement is a business decision up to them.

Quote:

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit
____________________
No. 15-3047
BACKPAGE.COM, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant ,
v.
THOMAS J. DART, Sheriff of Cook County, Illinois, Defendant-Appellee

** No business has a ''right'' to VISA or Mastercard. That is corporate policy vs. statutory law.
So long as corporate policy does not violate any statutory law it is sustained (allowed).

$money$ · 12-11-2015, 11:38 AM

I used to advertise there years ago

Barry-xlovecam · 12-11-2015, 12:19 PM

Quote:

irreparably harmed by its abandonment by the credit card companies,

That is a claim for damages and a separate claim but --- it is a claim that only the Sheriff has to defend if made in this case cause and effect.

Credit card processing, and in general banking relationships, are not a guaranteed 'right' per se. And only a right of freedom of commercial association when 'personhood' or public utility are in question. You have a right to the delivery of power to your home only contingent on a deposit (maybe -- as to creditworthiness) and/or payment monthly for the power used -- regardless of your standing or reputation otherwise, e.g.; crackhead or whoremonger.

To put it simply: If I own a private road and charge for passage I can set a total vehicle weight. If you cannot get to the other side because your truck is too heavy for my road -- too bad. It's my road, on my private property. If you have 4 naked whores in your van I can deny you passage as an undesirable -- that's my right on my private property.

NKYKev · 12-11-2015, 08:04 PM

Quote:

You are reading what you want to read into the Appellate court's reasoning. You are speculating I guess.

Actually, Barry, what I said regarding being "irreparably harmed by its abandonment by the credit card companies", as you quoted, is pretty much a direct quote from the actual Appellate Court opinion, if you had even bothered to read it. So I will quote it for you, from page 18 of the opinion.

Quote:

And when, finally, the judge denied that there was evi-
dence that Backpage had been irreparably harmed by its
abandonment by the credit card companies, he again con-
tradicted himself....

Moreover, the trial court made the EXACT same argument you are trying to make here, that Visa and MC have the right to process whomever they want and Backpage has no remedy for it. Quoting from the original opinion by Judge Tharp:

Quote:

Even if Backpage were correct, and it was not required to show that Dart's alleged threats had any coercive effect, the decision by the companies to terminate their relationships with Backpage because of the illegal and brand-damaging activity taking place in the adult section of Backpage.com is nevertheless relevant to show that injunctive relief is not appropriate here.

Obviously the Appellate Court disagreed with the District Court on this issue, as explained at length in the opinion. If Visa and MC simply had the right to process whomever they choose, as you argue, the issue would have been moot and the 7th Circuit would not have ordered the injunction. However, Visa and MC, and the banks they represent, are still subject to Federal law.

TCLGirls · 12-11-2015, 08:06 PM

You are making an inference based upon an inference. That has speculation written all over it

celandina · 12-12-2015, 07:19 AM

Its clearer to me: fuck the Sheriff now, but when he defends himslef he will take down Visa and Mch along with him...

Barry-xlovecam · 12-12-2015, 08:14 AM

VISA and Mastercard were not named as Defendants in the original action nor enjoined in the Appellate Court's ruling.

Hire a lawyer and sue VISA and Mastercard over this issue -- you will need provable damages -- cite this case if it's not further appealed ... Your torturous reading of this appeal won't get very far.

I like the idea but it's just wishful thinking.

It's unlawful to *knowingly* finance criminal activity -- the problem with Backpage is they were facilitating prostitution "escort service" yeah, right ... The instant issue was the Sheriff’s threats and coercion -- that was what the appeal was about.

VISA and Mastercard will allow transactions of most legal adult content. So, what is the real issue or cause you have?

NKYKev · 12-12-2015, 10:13 AM

Let me make this as clear as humanly possible to you, since you keep repeating the same arguments. Here is a link to the original trial court opinion: Opinion. In it, Judge Tharp agrees with every one of your arguments - Backpage is knowingly engaged in illegal activity by allowing prostitution ads, Backpage has no rights to credit card processing and thus has no remedy, so no need for an injunction - on and on. Like most courts, once it involves sexual materials or content, they find against them as hard as possible.

By a 3-0 opinion, written by a Conservative Judge who almost got appointed to the Supreme Court (was considered for the position Alito got), the 7th Circuit rejected every one of the District Court's arguments - which are the exact same positions you keep regurgitating. Yes, the US Supreme Court might decide to hear an appeal, and yes, they could reverse it. But who is making conjecture now?

What you seem incapable of realizing is that, even if Visa and MC are not parties to this appeal, their lawyers are smart enough to recognize that the 7th Circuit just made clear that Backpage suffered harm having their processing removed - but it seems you are comfortable with public officials engaging in, as one Visa executive called it, blackmail. Most would say that would violate "public policy" and be one of those exceptions you keep mentioning. It seems pretty clear the 7th Circuit would be a good place for Backpage to sue Visa and MC, if necessary. But no one wants to do that, or spend the money, if they can first make an example of the public official who caused the problem in the first place.

So if Sheriff Dart orders CCBill and Epoch to hereby cease processing for all adult sites because children have been known to buy memberships and the process to ensure that only adults buy memberships is not 100% reliable, no matter what steps the billers take, you are okay with that? I mean after all, Backpage should be responsible for someone breaking the law, regardless of how many safeguards they employ, right? So why not CCBill and Epoch as well? Of course, Google and Bing deserve "safe harbor" protections because they are vanilla companies that just happen to allow adult sites to be listed on them....

NKYKev · 12-12-2015, 10:29 AM

Quote:

You are making an inference based upon an inference. That has speculation written all over it.

TCL,

That is a fair criticism. And maybe I am being too hopeful about this. But I do think it is huge for sexually related businesses to be judged based on the actual risks involved, just like other businesses, and not automatically be called "High Risk" because of the FDIC Guidelines. Even being less of a "High Risk" would be great.

If you read the original District Court opinion, then read how the Appellate Court rips it apart, you have to be hopeful that maybe adult businesses are finally capable of getting a fair shake in the court system. Yes, it is only one opinion, but it is a start.

Barry-xlovecam · 12-12-2015, 10:31 AM

Hire a lawyer
You are hurting my head already

candyflip · 12-12-2015, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

Hire a lawyer
You are hurting my head already

Maybe you should stop pretending to be one yourself.

MiamiBoyz · 12-13-2015, 06:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by $money$

I used to advertise there years ago

I get all of my "dates" from that site.

potter · 12-13-2015, 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by socalkev

Potter,

While the Court case itself did not involve this issue, the article I referenced did. I will quote it below.

And again, they were referencing that per the court case basis of denying processing. Nothing they were discussing was referring to higher fees. This was all about denying processing.

There are rules and regulations in place by these institutions about what they define as high risk. Some of those rules and regulations are used when defining what the processing fees will be.

This case was about vendors being denied processing, and that case referenced the rules and regulations on what institutions defined as high risk. There is literally no issue or circumstance here about higher processing fees based on risk evaluation.

NKYKev · 12-13-2015, 02:06 PM

potter,

By the FDIC amending their High Risk Guidelines, at least now sexual based businesses should be evaluated based on actual risks, and while other factors, like the webmasters who still bang cards and use popups, etc, are still in play, at the least, there should be the potential for certain types of sexually based transactions to get better rates now. Banks want to make money and if they view these transactions as a lesser risk, they could offer better rates. The fact that Visa and MC are saying they do not pressure companies based on sexual content is what I found the most interesting part.

Brian mike · 12-13-2015, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by socalkev

The fact that Visa and MC are saying they do not pressure companies based on sexual content is what I found the most interesting part.

Very Interesting

, Look promising!

Barry-xlovecam · 12-13-2015, 06:09 PM

https://www.fdic.gov/regulations/exa...h19.html#2sub6
FDIC US law and banking regulation
Products and Marketing:

Quote:

The merchant's line of business and/or the products offered as well as its marketing practices are key factors for management to consider when it evaluates the credit quality of a merchant. The Associations segment merchants according to activity because the type of activity often is a good indicator of risk. Thus, it stands to reason that examiners may expect acquiring banks to continually analyze their merchant portfolios along similar guidelines. Acquiring banks typically compile a prohibited or restricted merchant list which includes the types of merchants they are unwilling to sign or are willing to sign only under certain circumstances.

While the extent of product and marketing evaluations varies, considerations normally include review of the merchant's business plans, merchandise, and marketing practices and materials (for example, catalogs, brochures, telemarketing scripts, and advertisements). In addition, shipping, billing, and return policies can be reviewed for unusual or inappropriate practices (for instance, customers being billed long before merchandise is shipped). These considerations can help determine, among other things, if: the business is of a type that typically has high charge-back rates; the merchant is selling a legitimate product; sales methods are legitimate and not deceptive; product quality and price are consistent with projected sales and charge-back rates; and customers will be satisfied with products ordered. Merchants offering low-quality products or services tend to incur more charge-backs, thus dissuading many banks from signing them.

The merchant's sales volume and time frame within which product delivery is completed are other considerations to evaluate risk. Generally, the greater the sales volume and the longer the time between transactions and product delivery, the greater the risk. For example, when a restaurant closes, an acquiring bank typically has less exposure to charge-backs for undelivered goods and services. In contrast, the failure of a travel agency could expose an acquiring bank to substantial charge-backs due to the high volume of reservations common in the travel agency business.

Certain types of merchant businesses can present increased risk. Although there are many reputable merchants whose sales transactions occur without a credit card being present (card-not-hapresent merchants), these merchants generally present higher charge-back risks for acquiring banks. In particular, mail order and telemarketing (MO/TO) merchants and adult entertainment services merchants, in aggregate, tend to display elevated incidents of charge-backs. Merchants without an established storefront (for example, door-to-door salesman and flea market vendors) also typically pose greater risk for charge-backs. The risk of charge-back is also higher if the merchant sells products for future/delayed delivery, such as airline tickets, health club memberships, travel clubs, or internet purchases. The increased risk associated with future delivery of products results, in part, because customer disputes are normally not triggered until the date of delivery. High charge-back rates are also generally associated with certain selling methods, such as sales pitches involving gifts, cash prizes, sweepstakes, installment payments, multi-level marketing, and automatic renewals unless the consumer opts out. Association regulations define certain broad business categories as high-risk merchants. These categories in general present higher risk, but each individual merchant in the category may not necessarily be high risk. Appropriate procedures and risk controls for high-risk merchants generally include:

Criteria for determining the types of merchants the bank is or is not willing to sign and under what circumstances.

Increased emphasis on underwriting considerations regarding products and marketing in evaluating the merchants.

Limitations on the volume of high-risk merchant transactions processed relative to the bank's total merchant portfolio.

Criteria for determining the appropriate level of holdback or reserve accounts to sufficiently cover the level of credit risk.

Appropriate pricing of these merchants in relation to the charge-back risk and any costs associated with increased monitoring.

Heightened monitoring and problem resolution. For example, for charge-back monitoring, banks may set lower charge-back thresholds for required remedial action and/or a shorter timeline for problem resolution for those merchants exceeding acceptable charge-back thresholds.

Compliance with bankcard regulations regarding registration of certain high-risk merchants and assigning proper Merchant Category Codes (MCC) to merchants.

Now WTF are you trying to say?

Barry-xlovecam · 12-13-2015, 06:20 PM

Same URL^

Risks Associated with Merchant Processing

Reputation Risk

Quote:

Reputation risk arising from negative public opinion can affect a bank's ability to establish new relationships or services or to continue servicing existing relationships. This risk can expose the bank to litigation, financial loss, or damage to its public image. The bank's business decisions for marketing and pricing its merchant processing services can affect its reputation in the marketplace. Reputation risk is also associated with the bank's ability to fulfill contractual obligations to merchants and third parties. Most notably, the outsourcing of any part of the merchant processing business easily increases reputation risk. Decisions made by the acquiring bank or its third-parties can directly cause loss of merchant relationships, litigation, fines and penalties as well as charge-back losses. Concerns normally arise when the acquiring bank does not maintain strong processes for performing due diligence on prospective merchants and third-parties or perform ongoing evaluations of existing merchant and third-party relationships.

These are the FDIC Manual recommendations to Acquiring Banks. e.g.; "working rules"

And that was why VISA and Mastercard were not joined as Defendants nor enjoined parties by the orders of the Appellate court.

NKYKev · 12-13-2015, 07:03 PM

Barry,

Let me quote again from the Engadget article:

Quote:

Hence the FDIC's new, detailed guidance document for banks, one in which "reputational risk" is now omitted -- thus officially not enough to deny or close an account. The FDIC's categories of "high risk" specify fraudulent goods and services, and tactics "such as aggressive telemarketing or enticing and misleading pop-up advertisements on Web sites."

While "unlawful Internet gambling and the illegal sale of tobacco products on the Internet" are singled out as FDIC "high risk" areas, PayPal's "items that are considered obscene ... [or] certain sexually oriented materials or services" are most definitely not.

Here is a link to the FDIC Guidelines as revised after the House hearings on Operation Chokepoint. Please find anything regarding "reputational risk" in this document. https://www.fdic.gov/regulations/exa.../managing.html. And again, the District Court SPECIFICALLY held that Backpage suffered no damage because Visa and MC could deny them processing based on them taking "illegal and pornographic" advertising and the "repuational risks" involved - which the 7th Circuit OVERRULED 3-0. So, once again, your exact argument was rejected by a unanimous panel of Federal Appellate Court Judges.

Barry-xlovecam · 12-13-2015, 09:35 PM

This case is very limited in scope to coercion and prior restraint of speech by governmental "color of authority." It was about a shakedown by a Sheriff and confers no guaranteed right to credit card processing to anyone.

NKYKev · 12-13-2015, 10:34 PM

Then explain why the 7th Circuit would find irreparable harm from Backpage losing their credit card processing and grant an injunction if Visa and MC could just cut it off at their whim, as you keep arguing. Why did the 7th Circuit override the District Court, which found for the Sheriff BECAUSE it held that Visa and MC could do just that? I will be waiting for your reply. Perhaps you can educate the Judges on the 7th Circuit about the law.

MikeAMS · 12-14-2015, 02:02 AM

Interesting article indeed. But lot of guys here are trying to look for just 1 simple answer.
Unfortunately I think it does not work like this...
Just like all the other businesses and industries out there, this industry consist out of many different supply chains and new business models are being launched almost daily.
Furthermore we have to keep in mind that this is a very international industry so it also means many different laws will apply.
And to make it even worse, on top of this there are a lot of exceptions.. (eg: in case the company has an extremely high turnover some banks are willing to take more risks, but I guess this is within every industry).

Contact me or my buddy Jason if you would like to know more concerning your personal situation..

MetaMan · 12-14-2015, 05:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

This case is very limited in scope to coercion and prior restraint of speech by governmental "color of authority." It was about a shakedown by a Sheriff and confers no guaranteed right to credit card processing to anyone.

Why do you talk like a wannabe lawyer? You sound like an ASSHAT!

"scope to coercion and prior restraint of speech by governmental "color of authority.""

Please stop! I can't take the hilarity!

Barry-xlovecam · 12-14-2015, 05:56 AM

I won't respond to an rude Argumentum Ad Hominem. Fuck off

kkkkkk · 01-07-2016, 11:26 PM

drriley · 07-28-2016, 09:56 AM

I'd describe Backpage.com as one of the biggest rackets out there, and I'm surprised that there hasn't been a Class Action proceeding against them yet.

They routinely and randomly delete paid advertising - claiming that it is up to individual reviewers whether an ad meets Backpage's policies regarding adult advertising content, but then Backpage management says there are no WRITTEN policies and that it is up to any individual reviewer to pick and choose at their discretion - and this explains how and why sometimes the identical ad runs without issue, and other times it is deleted; or sometimes an ad is deleted because it is "obscene," but 5 ads immediately surrounding it that have far more extreme content are deemed suitable.

I have previously sought chargebacks against Backpage when paying with Visa. Visa's position was that as long as they RUN the ad then they are deemed, by Visa, to be in compliance. They can immediately delete the ad, and they can undertake arbitrary actions of any nature and type they wish, but if the ad ran for a few seconds then it ran, and Visa will not chargeback.

JFK · 07-28-2016, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by celandina

Can anybody here speak in plain English ??? Quoting sections of that gibberish does not help

mikesouth · 07-28-2016, 10:05 AM

I had a University of AL law professor who has done this kind of thing totally ready to file a class action against VISA/MC over the "high risk fees"

When I brought it up (here as well) the consensus was that nobody wanted to do it because they could piss off VISA/MC into no longer taking payments for porn.

Bottom line is it wrong...yes

Can they do it anyway yes

Bladewire · 07-28-2016, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikesouth

I had a University of AL law professor who has done this kind of thing totally ready to file a class action against VISA/MC over the "high risk fees"

When I brought it up (here as well) the consensus was that nobody wanted to do it because they could piss off VISA/MC into no longer taking payments for porn.

Bottom line is it wrong...yes

Can they do it anyway yes

The key is to sway public opinion, then litigate. When you're the target of a case, and you try to sway public opinion, you're already behind the 8 ball.

12-11-2015, 08:23 AM	#1
NKYKev Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 283	Court rules for Backpage against Visa and MC Article. So, if sexual materials and services are not supposed to be "High Risk" according to the FDIC Guidelines released in July of 2014, why are all adult sites still paying high risk fees? Wouldn't any such Visa or MC rule violate the rules of the FDIC now? Here is the 7th Circuit Court Opinion.

12-11-2015, 08:51 AM	#3
potter Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Denver Posts: 6,559	I'm not sure how you got that sexual materials aren't supposed to be high risk. The court case and that entire article is about denying processing to high risk services. Unless I missed something there wasn't a single blurb about issue with higher service fees. __________________

12-11-2015, 09:13 AM	#6
blackmonsters Making PHP work Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: 🌎🌅🌈🌇 Posts: 20,247	Cliffs Notes : Doesn't say any of the shit OP is hoping for. . __________________ Make Money with Porn

12-14-2015, 02:02 AM	#32
MikeAMS Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2015 Location: Amsterdam Posts: 364	Interesting article indeed. But lot of guys here are trying to look for just 1 simple answer. Unfortunately I think it does not work like this... Just like all the other businesses and industries out there, this industry consist out of many different supply chains and new business models are being launched almost daily. Furthermore we have to keep in mind that this is a very international industry so it also means many different laws will apply. And to make it even worse, on top of this there are a lot of exceptions.. (eg: in case the company has an extremely high turnover some banks are willing to take more risks, but I guess this is within every industry). Contact me or my buddy Jason if you would like to know more concerning your personal situation.. __________________ E: [email protected] Skype: mikedejong22 W: http://www.islive.com , http://www.twero.com "Money often costs too much." Ralph Waldo Emerson

07-28-2016, 10:05 AM	#38
mikesouth Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: My High Horse Posts: 6,334	I had a University of AL law professor who has done this kind of thing totally ready to file a class action against VISA/MC over the "high risk fees" When I brought it up (here as well) the consensus was that nobody wanted to do it because they could piss off VISA/MC into no longer taking payments for porn. Bottom line is it wrong...yes Can they do it anyway yes __________________ Mike South It's No wonder I took up drugs and alcohol, it's the only way I could dumb myself down enough to cope with the morons in this biz.

12-11-2015, 08:47 AM	#2
celandina Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 11,394	Maybe there is a lawyer about who can read the 21 pages and give us a summary I was harping on PayPal elsewhere here and the various "risk assessors" at Visa and MCh around here. Maybe this is the tide turning...???

12-11-2015, 09:11 AM	#5
celandina Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 11,394	Can anybody here speak in plain English ??? Quoting sections of that gibberish does not help

12-11-2015, 09:41 AM	#8
NKYKev Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 283	BM, The FDIC removing "reputational risks" from its High Risk Guidelines should change how sexual materials are judged, because they were automatically classified as high risk before based on that alone. And should remove some pressure on adult businesses that were being applied by the banks as well in reliance on this Guideline. I am sure you would have said that Backpage had no chance taking on Visa and MC either. Maybe when some company has the balls to test this in court we will get a real answer.

12-11-2015, 09:57 AM	#9
NKYKev Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 283	BL, While the direct action is against the Sheriff, the Court also held that the lower court erred in holding that Backpage had not been irreparably harmed by its abandonment by the credit card companies. If Visa and MC do not renew taking Backpage ads, do you think they would be upheld in a court action?

12-11-2015, 10:52 AM	#11
NKYKev Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 283	MMG, I think we are saying the same thing. The Federal District Court that originally heard the case ruled that Backpage had not been irreparably harmed by being denied credit card processing; the 7th Circuit held that it had indeed suffered such harm and the lower court was in error. That is why this is such a huge opinion; U.S. courts almost never find in favor of the interests of sexually oriented materials or companies.

12-11-2015, 11:38 AM	#13
$money$ So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2015 Posts: 1,416	I used to advertise there years ago

12-11-2015, 08:06 PM	#16
TCLGirls Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: California Posts: 3,068	You are making an inference based upon an inference. That has speculation written all over it

12-12-2015, 07:19 AM	#17
celandina Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 11,394	Its clearer to me: fuck the Sheriff now, but when he defends himslef he will take down Visa and Mch along with him...

12-12-2015, 08:14 AM	#18
Barry-xlovecam It's 42 Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Global Posts: 18,083	VISA and Mastercard were not named as Defendants in the original action nor enjoined in the Appellate Court's ruling. Hire a lawyer and sue VISA and Mastercard over this issue -- you will need provable damages -- cite this case if it's not further appealed ... Your torturous reading of this appeal won't get very far. I like the idea but it's just wishful thinking. It's unlawful to knowingly finance criminal activity -- the problem with Backpage is they were facilitating prostitution "escort service" yeah, right ... The instant issue was the Sheriff’s threats and coercion -- that was what the appeal was about. VISA and Mastercard will allow transactions of most legal adult content. So, what is the real issue or cause you have?

12-12-2015, 10:13 AM	#19
NKYKev Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 283	Let me make this as clear as humanly possible to you, since you keep repeating the same arguments. Here is a link to the original trial court opinion: Opinion. In it, Judge Tharp agrees with every one of your arguments - Backpage is knowingly engaged in illegal activity by allowing prostitution ads, Backpage has no rights to credit card processing and thus has no remedy, so no need for an injunction - on and on. Like most courts, once it involves sexual materials or content, they find against them as hard as possible. By a 3-0 opinion, written by a Conservative Judge who almost got appointed to the Supreme Court (was considered for the position Alito got), the 7th Circuit rejected every one of the District Court's arguments - which are the exact same positions you keep regurgitating. Yes, the US Supreme Court might decide to hear an appeal, and yes, they could reverse it. But who is making conjecture now? What you seem incapable of realizing is that, even if Visa and MC are not parties to this appeal, their lawyers are smart enough to recognize that the 7th Circuit just made clear that Backpage suffered harm having their processing removed - but it seems you are comfortable with public officials engaging in, as one Visa executive called it, blackmail. Most would say that would violate "public policy" and be one of those exceptions you keep mentioning. It seems pretty clear the 7th Circuit would be a good place for Backpage to sue Visa and MC, if necessary. But no one wants to do that, or spend the money, if they can first make an example of the public official who caused the problem in the first place. So if Sheriff Dart orders CCBill and Epoch to hereby cease processing for all adult sites because children have been known to buy memberships and the process to ensure that only adults buy memberships is not 100% reliable, no matter what steps the billers take, you are okay with that? I mean after all, Backpage should be responsible for someone breaking the law, regardless of how many safeguards they employ, right? So why not CCBill and Epoch as well? Of course, Google and Bing deserve "safe harbor" protections because they are vanilla companies that just happen to allow adult sites to be listed on them....

12-12-2015, 10:31 AM	#21
Barry-xlovecam It's 42 Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Global Posts: 18,083	Hire a lawyer You are hurting my head already

12-13-2015, 02:06 PM	#25
NKYKev Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 283	potter, By the FDIC amending their High Risk Guidelines, at least now sexual based businesses should be evaluated based on actual risks, and while other factors, like the webmasters who still bang cards and use popups, etc, are still in play, at the least, there should be the potential for certain types of sexually based transactions to get better rates now. Banks want to make money and if they view these transactions as a lesser risk, they could offer better rates. The fact that Visa and MC are saying they do not pressure companies based on sexual content is what I found the most interesting part.

12-13-2015, 09:35 PM	#30
Barry-xlovecam It's 42 Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Global Posts: 18,083	This case is very limited in scope to coercion and prior restraint of speech by governmental "color of authority." It was about a shakedown by a Sheriff and confers no guaranteed right to credit card processing to anyone.

12-13-2015, 10:34 PM	#31
NKYKev Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 283	Then explain why the 7th Circuit would find irreparable harm from Backpage losing their credit card processing and grant an injunction if Visa and MC could just cut it off at their whim, as you keep arguing. Why did the 7th Circuit override the District Court, which found for the Sheriff BECAUSE it held that Visa and MC could do just that? I will be waiting for your reply. Perhaps you can educate the Judges on the 7th Circuit about the law.

12-14-2015, 05:56 AM	#34
Barry-xlovecam It's 42 Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Global Posts: 18,083	I won't respond to an rude Argumentum Ad Hominem. Fuck off

01-07-2016, 11:26 PM	#35
kkkkkk svp get banned svp Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 1,628

07-28-2016, 09:56 AM	#36
drriley Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 263	I'd describe Backpage.com as one of the biggest rackets out there, and I'm surprised that there hasn't been a Class Action proceeding against them yet. They routinely and randomly delete paid advertising - claiming that it is up to individual reviewers whether an ad meets Backpage's policies regarding adult advertising content, but then Backpage management says there are no WRITTEN policies and that it is up to any individual reviewer to pick and choose at their discretion - and this explains how and why sometimes the identical ad runs without issue, and other times it is deleted; or sometimes an ad is deleted because it is "obscene," but 5 ads immediately surrounding it that have far more extreme content are deemed suitable. I have previously sought chargebacks against Backpage when paying with Visa. Visa's position was that as long as they RUN the ad then they are deemed, by Visa, to be in compliance. They can immediately delete the ad, and they can undertake arbitrary actions of any nature and type they wish, but if the ad ran for a few seconds then it ran, and Visa will not chargeback.