I know CC companies need to protect themselves. We live in a time where people have unrealistic, untamable lust for “stuff.” Everyone wants to live outside their means. Maybe those of us who pay off our CC each month are only encouraging the CC companies to seek out more clients (or victims). I know even though we pay ours off each month, I still feel the desire to spend more than necessary.

I suppose if your insurance company can check your credit rating to give you car insurance, then the CC company can fault you for shopping at certain places. It certainly does “reek of Bibg Brother.”

We have USAA for our bank, and they actually call us when there is a charge they think is fraudulent, rather than shutting off the card like Barclays. Our bank especially likes to call us if we go to Radio Shack!

I too am a big fan of individual responsibility, but deceptive and deceitful practices seem easier for the credit card companies than the individual.

However, we are both straying from the issue.

Let’s assume the original AMEX card holder is a sterling credit customer– then you would have to agree that the changes (based on merchant choice by AMEX’s own admission) implemented against him or her are nothing short of discrimination.

Furthermore, if we are talking free markets(which I believe in), let’s take this another step– If I were the CEO of Wal-Mart I might consider legal action against AMEX for damaging my business.

Perhaps, even more punitive, as CEO, I would discontinue accepting AMEX cards, make a special incentive promotion for AMEX cardholders to get a Wal-Mart card, and make a big public announcement about why I was doing it.

On the other hand, I’m a firm believer that “you reap what you sow”. Everyone knows that cc’s are out to make money. In many ways, if you have cc problems, you have no one to blame but yourself.

So…while “protection for the little guy” is sometimes necessary, I don’t want that protection standing in the way of a free market.

I am the first to admit there is too much litigation in this country, too much government, and that businesses have a right to conduct business as they wish– within the guidelines of the law.

However, these credit card companies prey upon people– it is like the wild west and the little guy needs some tiny bit of protection especially from discriminatory practices.

This situation strikes me as a company using a veiled approach to discrimination . . . I won’t be ay all surprised if one of the State Atty Generals, takes them on at some point because of this behavior.

My point is simply that the credit cards should have the right to add this factor into the equation if they want. I don’t think they should, but they should have the right to.

Credit and lending is supposed to be based on your creditworthiness (your ability to borrow and repay monies borrowed– effectively, how you handled credit in the past), not your purchase patterns and places you patronize . . .

Seriously, if you think about it and you will see my point.

And Cristi P. has the perfect solution – if you don’t like it, don’t use their card. Like @Boomer says, “Free market forces will prevail!”. If enough people rise up against this, then they’ll have to stop. If enough people don’t care, then it will continue.

Either way, stepping in with lawsuits or legislation here is totally inappropriate and unnecessary.