- CBA on
- CBA Media
Join Trade Reply Brief, Motion for Leave to Participate in Oral Argument, Debit Interchange
Amici respectfully submit that their motion for leave to participate in oral
argument should be granted. Appellees’ arguments in opposition are meritless.
1. Appellees (“the merchants”) do not dispute that amici’s members
have a direct, unique stake in this litigation. Opp. 1-2. Nor could the merchants
dispute the point. Amici’s members are the very parties regulated by
Regulation II. The regulation specifies the amount of the interchange fees that
amici’s payment-card-network members may charge and that amici’s debit-cardissuer
members may receive. The regulation also specifies the number of networks
that amici’s debit-card-issuer members must support.
The merchants argue that amici fail to satisfy this Court’s Rule 34(e)
because, in the merchants’ view, “almost any amici could argue that their interests
were ‘unique’ enough to warrant participation.” Opp. 2. But that is plainly wrong.
This is not a case where an amicus claims that this Court’s decision will indirectly
affect its interests. To the contrary, amici’s members are the regulated parties;
they will be directly affected by this Court’s decision. The potential impact is
extraordinary. The merchants’ lawsuit seeks to force a multibillion dollar
reduction in the interchange fees amici’s members receive. The lawsuit also seeks
to impose additional affirmative obligations on amici’s members regarding the
networks available for electronic debit transactions on amici’s members’ debit
cards, which would require massive, disruptive change in the electronic debit-card
To read the full Comment Letter, download the PDF.