Paper is here: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.....

Relatedly, I'm on the law school job market (for financial institutions, business ass'ns, contracts, regulated industries, and communications law). Would appreciate your help to spread the word (especially if you enjoyed the paper)! 8/8

Instead, I argue that a more promising approach is to regulate swipe fees. Payment networks are vital economic infrastructure, and we should treat them as such. Rate regulation is also not novel. We've done it before with debit cards (Durbin Amendment) and checks. 7/8

And merchants are heavily incentivized to bear these fees (rather than surcharge consumers or only accept lower-fee cards). Today, many people use high-fee cards and expect them to be accepted. Merchants don't want to dissuade those card users from spending at their stores. 6/8

Credit card networks are engaged in a rewards rat race (cash back, airline miles, and lounge access, oh my!). To attract more cardholders to use their cards over others’ cards, networks are incentivized to raise swipe fees to fund more rewards. 5/8

The "myth" is that more competition (e.g., surcharging, more networks, multi-routing) will reduce prices and regressivity. Many blame the legal doctrine for these solutions' inefficacy to date. But I argue the problem is more fundamental: More competition likely won't work. 4/8

In 2024, U.S. businesses paid $148bn in 💳swipe fees (on the same order of magnitude as Trump's additional tariff revenues👀). These fees are much higher than the cost of service and disproportionately borne by lower-income consumers and smaller merchants. 3/8

Every time you swipe your credit card to pay—whether to buy groceries, grab a coffee, or hail an uber—you pay a small, invisible tax called a "swipe fee." This fee is charged to the merchant, who in turn raises its prices to recover these fees. 2/8

Thank you for the shout out!

This appears to be the latest text (according to Punchbowl): www.commerce.senate.gov/services/fil...

If you're curious about why we shouldn't take too much comfort from the Court's "bespoke Federal Reserve exception" in Trump v. Wilcox, you can read more here:

papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

Ty and yes! Recognize the term “abundance” is broad and means diff things to diff ppl. But to your point, (at least w/r/t broadband) the debate felt myopically focused on “procedural barriers” for subsidies (and debating if duped dems, rapacious reps, corrupt capitalists, or a mix were responsible)

Thank you for the very kind words! And kudos are owed to @giladedelman.bsky.social (who was extremely helpful in making our ideas sharper and stronger)