The plaintiffs Expressions Hair Design, Five Points Academy, Brooklyn Farmacy & Soda Fountain, Brite Buy Wines & Spirits, and Patio.com commenced a lawsuit in federal court against the Attorney General of New York and three District Attorneys.

1- Expressions Hair Design
2-Five Points Academy
3-Brooklyn Farmacy & Soda Fountain
4-Brite Buy Wines & Spirits
5-Patio.com

Commenced a lawsuit in federal court

AGAINST:

1- The Attorney General of New York: Eric Schneiderman.
2- three District Attorneys.
***********************
Expressions Hair Design versus Schneiderman.

OR

Single-sticker-price scheme.

************************************
Court of Appeals of New York.

EXPRESSIONS HAIR DESIGN, et al., Respondents, v. Eric T. SCHNEIDERMAN, & c., et al., Appellants.

OPINION

General Business Law (GBL) section 518 states:  “No seller in any sales transaction may impose a surcharge on a holder who elects to use a credit card in lieu of payment by cash, check, or similar means.”  Few statutes have provoked such diverse interpretations.  Our task is to answer a certified question from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit concerning the meaning of the statute:  “Does a merchant comply with New York's General Business Law § 518 so long as the merchant posts the total dollars-and-cents price charged to credit-card users?”  The parties agree that GBL § 518 permits differential pricing, in which a merchant offers discounts to customers who pay by cash, so that customers pay a higher price, for the same item, if they use a credit card, than they would if they paid cash.  What the statute prohibits is a more difficult inquiry.  For the reasons explained below, we answer the Second Circuit's question in the affirmative.

I.

Credit card companies charge merchants transaction fees or “swipe fees” for customer payments made by credit card.  Merchants may pass those fees onto customers, in different ways.  A merchant may distribute the cost to all customers, regardless of the means by which they pay, or a merchant may charge those using credit cards more than those who pay by cash, check, or the like.  The latter is called “differential pricing.”

II.

In 2013, plaintiffs Expressions Hair Design, Five Points Academy, Brooklyn Farmacy & Soda Fountain, Brite Buy Wines & Spirits, and Patio.com commenced a lawsuit in federal court against the Attorney General of New York and three District Attorneys, challenging GBL § 518.  Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the enforcement of the statute on the grounds that it violates the First Amendment and is unconstitutionally vague.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the District Court's judgment (see Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman, 803 F.3d 94 [2d Cir. 2015] ), interpreting the statute to prohibit the plaintiffs' desired single-sticker pricing scheme but reasoning that the statute is merely a price regulation that does not implicate First Amendment concerns (see id. at 106–110).  The Second Circuit also rejected plaintiffs' vagueness challenge (see id. at 117–119).3

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ny-court-of-appeals/1901407.html
****************
In contracting with credit card companies, retailers are typically assessed a fee whenever a credit card is used.[2] In order to compensate for these losses in revenue, merchants are given two options: either charge the customer a surcharge based on their use of credit cards, or provide a discount to customers paying with cash. In regards to the former option—charging the customer a surcharge—the New York Legislature enacted a law, §518, which banned this practice, in that, "[n]o seller in any sales transaction may impose a surcharge on a holder who elects to use a credit card in lieu of payment by cash, check, or similar means."[3] Additionally, the New York Legislature was not the only legislative body which had banned surcharges before. Congress passed a law in 1981 that banned the use of surcharges in pricing goods, but this ban expired in 1984.[4]

The Attorney General of New York, Eric Schneiderman, argued that because price controls prohibit conduct—not speech—then there is no reasonable claim to a violation of free speech.[5] On January 10, 2017, one-hour of oral arguments were heard, where Deepak Gupta appeared for the hairdressers, an assistant to the Solicitor General of the United States appeared as an amicus curiae is support of neither party, and a deputy solicitor general of New York appeared for that state.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expressions_Hair_Design_v._Sch...
******************
والله أعلم