mr. gupta. >> whether the state can -- this case is about whether the state can criminalize speech the most effect ive effective way. by design new york's law sup presses the message -- >> i'm sorry. you're two groups of petitioners. one wants to give cash price without any information about the sur challenge. the other one i thought wanted to give two separate prices. >> they want to do the same thing. i think what you're referring to is that some of them are doing different things now. one expressions hair design is charging two different prices, one for cash and one for credit. they're trying as hard as they can to describe that as a discount. right now, they're refraining from dual pricing all together. but if we win this case, all of the petitioners would like to charge two different prices for cash or for credit and they'd like to be able to characterize the price difference as a surcharge for using a credit card -- >> understood. your adversary can tell me. >> mr. gupta, what speech do y

mr. gupta, emily. >> thank you mr. chief justice. the solicitor general agrees with us this is restriction of speech the positively thing that's left on the table is a disclosure rationale that new york abandoned in the courts below and is barely pressing here, and the problem with that is that this is a criminal speech restriction. if your merchant is face with compliance, they've got to know, if you think this is a disclosure regime, what are we supposed to say? typically a disclosure regime does a leader in the dark about what you had to say. the government tells you precisely what to say. it said that rca's constitutional problems if you have disclosure regime that does not tell the merchant precisely what to say. zauderer isn't a free pass picked the government has hypothesized a regime that could exist but if it did exist it would still be subject to some first amendment scrutiny. you would have to ask other regime the question that chief justice roberts asked, which is, do you think people are too dumb to do math and why in th

mr. guptahether the state can -- this case is about whether the state can criminalize speech the most effect ive effective way. by design new york's law sup presses the message -- >> i'm sorry. you're two groups of petitioners. one wants to give cash price without any information about the sur challenge.