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.

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

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

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.

Potter,

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

Can anybody here speak in plain English ??? Quoting sections of that gibberish does not help:2 cents:

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

.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
** 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).

I used to advertise there years ago

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.

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.

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:

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.

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

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?

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....

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.

Hire a lawyer
You are hurting my head already

Maybe you should stop pretending to be one yourself.

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

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.

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.

Very Interesting :thumbsup , Look promising!

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

Now WTF are you trying to say?

Same URL^

Risks Associated with Merchant Processing

Reputation Risk
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.

Barry,

Let me quote again from the Engadget article:
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.

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.

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.

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..

Why do you talk like a wannabe lawyer? You sound like an ASSHAT! :1orglaugh

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

Please stop! I can't take the hilarity! :1orglaugh

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

:thumbsup

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.

:1orglaugh:thumbsup

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. :2 cents: