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.

  • forrgott@lemm.ee
    372·
    6 months ago

    That’s a terrible argument. And love how you blame the obstructionism on the one being obstructed from accomplishing their goals.

    So, no, we have already seen the action. He did something. Will the sociopathic fascist a-holes in government overturn the action ALREADY TAKEN is what remains to be seen.

    • Reyali@lemm.ee
      74·
      6 months ago

      First off, I totally agree the argument you responded to is bad and that Biden is driving toward the right goal.

      However, if we disambiguate the specific circumstance here, there is sometimes an argument to be made that the one being obstructed is the problem. Think about how many obviously illegal laws Republicans have pushed through. A recent example would be DeSantis’ “Stop WOKE” act trying to eliminate DEI training in companies. It so clearly goes against federal law about protected classes and was deemed unconstitutional because of the first amendment. I don’t think there’s any chance DeSantis actually believed this act was legal or would be allowed, he just wanted the brownie points of “hurr durr, own the libs.”

      There are so many cases of that kind of thing, and I think it’s absolutely fair to be critical of those whose laws are being obstructed when they initiate them in bad faith.

      However, like I said, that doesn’t apply in this situation; this law was not made in bad faith, and the Texas court is definitely the problem here. I only bring it up because “blaming the obstructionism on the one being obstructed” can sometimes be a legit argument.