"For example, a retailer could charge $102 for a product and give a $2 discount, but could not charge $100 and impose a $2 surcharge, despite the situations being mathematically equivalent. Thus, the statute restricts how this $2 price difference is presented to the consumer," England wrote.
You aren’t explaining anything. I know the ruling. He’s a DOPE, and so is anyone else who thinks this is a “free speech” case.