On January 10, 2012, the Supreme Court issued its decision in CompuCredit Corporation v. Greenwood. At issue was the Credit Repair Organizations Act (CROA) and a so-called "harvester" credit card which typically come with a low credit limit (somewhere between three and five hundred dollars) and high up-front fees (typically more than one hundred dollars). Collectively, those features are likely to push the effective interest rate on purchases with the card far above one hundred percent per year. These cards have been the focus of FDIC action and the CARD Act of 2009. Nevertheless, regulatory hostility to such cards did not impact the Justices’ analysis. While Justice Ginsburg emphasized how the adhesive nature of credit card contracts made this a "take it or leave it" proposition that reflected no real consent to arbitration by the consumers who signed them, she received no support from the other eight Justices who did not feel that Congress had clearly sought to preempt the Federal Arbitration Act when it said that consumers "have a right to sue a credit repair organization that violates the [Act]." Commentators note that with this opinion, cheated consumers will be denied access to class action lawsuits that are essential to preventing credit provider corporations from defrauding consumers.