Well then it's good I literally copied the part of the law that includes payment processors and gave a link to the law, right?
The effectuous wording of this bill makes no reference to political or social risk considerations, but makes it a civil cause of action for any bank to deny financial services (which are defined to include lending!) to anyone at all unless the bank can PROVE, affirmatively, that both 1) the denial is justified by objective, "quantitative [and] impartial" standards
What do you think "quantitative and impartial standards" are supposed to exclude? Could it possibly be the the decidely non-impartial standards in section 5?
Also, anything in a bill that makes it a legally binding instrument is "effectuous wording", regardless who is supposed to enforce it or whether it is optional or compulsory. If you feel the need to quibble over details, at least do it correctly.
(I'd also argue that just pressuring the banks would also indirectly put pressure on the payment processors, since the banks will quickly realize that they only have this headache due to Visa and Mastercard ******* around again.)
credit scores are determined by three federally recognized entities which are not banks, so a judge can easily conclude that any denial based on credit scores — for just one example! — is "in coordination with [...] others", without even having to reach the question of whether they are quantitative and impartial
Ah, so we can add banks to the list of things you don't understand.
You realize that credit scores do not automatically result in an acceptance or a declination of a loan, right? The determination of whether the loan is granted or not is still with the bank. (At least you skipped the request part in your argument, so I don't have to explain to you that credit scores are not a request to grant or refuse a loan.)
This is also where your argument falls apart. The portion "
may not deny, in coordination with or at the request of others," is important, since the credit bureau makes no statement one way or another if a loan should be granted or not, particularly since they might not even give the credit score directly but only provide the credit data to the banks, who can calculate the score themselves (and do, if they like to set different standards).
Your argument would be legally coherent (if still incredibly asinine, since no information save what the bank procures personally could be used) if the credit bureaus made an actual statement saying "Yes, you should grant this loan" or "no, you shouldn't grant this loan", but they don't.
It gets even worse if you remember that how sufficient a credit score is in the eye of the bank depends on the requested loan. A low loan might be granted even with a lower score, while a higher one will likely be rejected.
all it does is authorize the Comptroller of the Currency to levy a fine of up to $10,000, not exceeding 10% of the value of services impacted, if he feels like it.
The "shall" in "shall be assessed a civil penalty" states that the assessment and penalty is compulsory.
Forget reading legal bills, I'm having doubts about your ability to read a dictionary.
so, while it's true that the language applies even if Visa indirectly tells your bank (presumably a member institution of the network) that you're not allowed to have a Visa card, that fine can still only be levied on Visa, not the bank.
Considering the problem at hand is caused by Visa, this is a problem how?
That's chump change if it even gets assessed in practice at all.
I'm sure Steam and Co would be very eager to tell the relevant authorities exactly how much they're losing out on due to this policy. In fact, let's add just about every single crowdfunding website to that too, since they'd also be covered. The individual fine for each incident might be comparatively small, collectively it would be quite a bit since the limit only applies to each individual case and not collectively, and that ignores any other effects of the bill. Who wouldn't want a piece of Visa's wallet?
I'm sure Visa and Co would just be absolutely thrilled to have their legal departments constantly deal with the administrator of the federal banking system putting fine after fine on them. This wouldn't bog them down at all.
I do complain about those, but I don't want to add even more loopholes for them either.
I'm really curious how this law might be used in your case, without the example running afoul of any other legislation. How could you reach that conclusion without just pretending that the judge in question is as legally illiterate as you seem to be and doesn't get overruled before the ink on the order is dry? Because your loophole only exists so long as the judge in question is insane, and no law ever crafted can help you against that.
Honestly, I'm surprised you can read well enough to even use this website. I guess your reading disability is just very selective?
