decided: November 23, 1970.
ARNOLD TOURS, INC., ET AL
CAMP ET AL.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT.
Author: Per Curiam
[ 400 U.S. Page 45]
Petitioners are 42 independent travel agents doing business in Massachusetts. They ask for declaratory and injunctive relief against the Comptroller of the Currency and the South Shore National Bank. They seek to invalidate a ruling by the Comptroller that, incidental to their banking services, national banks may provide travel services for their customers.*fn1 Petitioners allege that as a result they have lost substantial business and profits and stand to lose even greater business in the future. They contend the Comptroller exceeded his authority when he authorized national banks to provide travel services.
[ 400 U.S. Page 46]
The District Court dismissed the complaint for lack of standing and the Court of Appeals affirmed. 408 F.2d 1147 (CA1 1969). Following our decisions last Term in Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150, and Barlow v. Collins, 397 U.S. 159, we vacated and remanded the case for reconsideration (397 U.S. 315) and the Court of Appeals reaffirmed its previous decision.
Here, as in Data Processing, we are concerned with § 4 of the Bank Service Corporation Act, 76 Stat. 1132, 12 U. S. C. § 1864.*fn2 In Data Processing we did not rely on any legislative history showing that Congress desired to protect data processors alone from competition.*fn3 Moreover, we noted a growing trend "toward enlargement of the class of people who may protest administrative action." 397 U.S., at 154. We held that § 4 "arguably brings a competitor within the zone of interests protected by it." Id., at 156. Nothing in the opinion limited § 4 to protecting only competitors in the data-processing field. When national banks begin to provide travel services for their customers, they compete with travel agents no less than they compete with data processors when they provide data-processing services to their customers.*fn4
[ 400 U.S. Page 47]
Accordingly the writ of certiorari is granted, the judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE and MR. JUSTICE HARLAN would set the case for argument.
Certiorari granted; 428 F.2d 359, reversed and remanded.