商業管制與言論自由──以美國聯邦最高法院Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman案為探討核心

Issues on Commercial Regulation v. Freedom of Speech: Focusing on Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman

在美國，信用卡消費收取刷卡手續費的問題長久以來成為商家與信用卡產業間之戰役，2017年美國聯邦最高法院之Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman案即關涉州法禁止額外收取信用卡刷卡手續費，然卻允許商家對於同一商品以現金消費之消費者收取較低之訂價，假使最高法院認為州法僅規制「行為」，則Expressions案在憲法上被認知之價值可能較低，惟如果最高法院認定州法所規制者構成「言論」，Expressions案之影響恐怕將無遠弗屆，因可能有數以千計之商業規範將受到挑戰。美國憲法增修條文第1條賦予言論自由之保障傳統上架構在兩道基礎之界線：言論與行為、自由與效用，採取司法最小主義路徑者認為本案就僅關涉行為──商業規範，而非言論，而迴避掉憲法增修條文第1條之爭議，然站在其對立面者，則必然承認本案所規制者為言論，不但包含商家說的自由，還涵蓋消費者接收言論之權利，雖外界認為不管商家或信用卡公司對於前開Expressions案均不會欣然接受，只是讓相關訴訟拖延而已，然而Expressions案要求司法實務區辨訂價資訊之溝通與經濟行為，不但對於商業性言論理論帶來重要之衝擊，亦確實開啟了諸多商業性規範在憲法增修條文第1條上遭到挑戰之大門。本文爬梳Expressions案之脈絡，將重點放在言論v.行為之議題，並傍論消費者接收訊息之權利，希冀能給予我國司法實務若干啟發。

Merchants and credit-card networks have battled for years over “surcharges” in U. S. A. Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman case involves state laws that prohibit imposing credit card surcharges, but allow merchants to charge lower prices for customers who pay cash. If the Supreme Court agrees that the statue regulates only conduct, then Expressions case will be of limited interest. But a ruling that the statue impermissibly regulates speech would have wide ramifications. Finding that transacted prices constitute protected speech would force government to meet heightened standards of review. The First Amendment guarantee of free speech traditionally has rested two fundamental boundaries: speech versus conduct and liberty versus utility. A minimalist approach would simply hold that the case is only about conduct-economic regulation, and not speech. In contrast, an expansive approach would acknowledge the case involves not only the right of merchants to speak but also the rights of consumers to receive speech. This case has the potential for opening the door to First Amendment challenges to many other forms of commercial regulation that affect speech. This article analyze Expressions case. Hope to gain something for us to learn.