4 ms·
> The poster was noting there is historic precedent for parties to charge punitive fees to the point it’s defacto banned Obviously, the answer is to disallow t
by stale2002 3y ago
> The poster was noting there is historic precedent for parties to charge punitive fees to the point it’s defacto banned
Obviously, the answer is to disallow that.
And if people break the law, and do it anyway, by trying to be "clever" then a judge and jury can punish them.
This punishment works especially well, with this thing called "discovery", in which the legal system can parse through your internal communications, to see if you are intending on defacto banning it.
> It would be challenging to stop without mandating some explicit formula too
No it wouldn't be.
Just do it, like we do many other laws. Give a vague description of whats not allowed, and let the jury figure it out. And give a large fine if they lose the court case.
That's enough deterrence to stop people from gaming the system. Just give them a huge fine if they try to do that.
- lazide 3y agoThe reason that it is the way it is now is because people want it that way. So good luck with that.
- kelnos 3y agoWell, what do you mean by "people"? If you mean "a majority of voters", then I doubt that's actually true, for quite a few types of businesses and transactions that are currently banned from payment networks. If you mean "those in power who can and do make decisions that a majority of voters wouldn't actually support", then sure, I think that's the case, but that doesn't make it right, and that doesn't make it inevitable, either.
- lazide 3y agoThe current financial climate around card processing has been largely true since at least the late 90’s. Since Clinton. YMC/AML has been this way since shortly after 9/11 (aka 2001). The level of outrage from the voters is…. Tepid. Will it change at some point? Sure. Not seeing it happen anytime soon though.