SPGGC, LLC v. Blumenthal

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that Connecticut Gift Card Law prohibiting in-state sales of gift cards with inactivity fees and expiration dates did not regulate out-of-state commerce in violation of dormant Commerce Clause, even though out-of-state sellers necessarily incurred compliance costs
• recognizing that the court “must ask whether the regulation at issue actually affects the national bank’s exercise of any authorized powers or whether it limits only activities of the third party which are otherwise subject to state control.”
• rejecting dormant Commerce Clause challenge to state consumer protection law where vendor had near-perfect means of distinguishing between online consumers who resided within state and those who did not
• “The [statute] does not ... directly regulate sales of gift cards in other states. Nor does it prevent other states from regulating gift card sales differently within their own territories.”
• Connecticut Gift Card Law did not violate dormant commerce clause as having impermissible extraterritorial reach because it could not be shown that its effects were projected into other states

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).