The judge claims that this is not a serious threat to the basic operation of our financial system because this case is "special" in two ways - the business visa

The judge claims that this is not a serious threat to the basic operation of our financial system because this case is "special" in two ways - the business visa was providing monetary services to had been accused of wrongdoing in a news article, and was so seriously concerned about visa pulling it's payment processing that it would take drastic measures to get them back. I do not see how either point is in any ways special. Any company can be accused by private journalists of wrongdoing, and an extremely large fraction of companies probably are guilty of some wrongdoing at some point or another, and I think you'd be hard pressed to find any company engaged in commerce which didn't care if a payment processor on the scale of visa stopped recognizing them. So by that logic, anyone who can allege wrongdoing by a company that has payments processed has standing to sue payment processors as well. > It is simply being asked to refrain from offering the tool with which a known alleged criminal entity performs its crimes. That is not a tall order and does not spell out an existential threat to the financial industry. In a society where innocence is presumed, "known alleged criminal entity" is an oxymoron as far as the law is concerned. If anyone can be an alleged criminal entity, how could this not be an existential threat?