Full opinion text
MEMORANDUM & ORDER ERIC N. VITALIANO, District Judge. New York City has been involved in regulating debt collection since at least 1984, when it began requiring debt collection agencies to obtain a municipal license in order to practice in the city. In March 2009, New York City Council passed Local Law 15, which, inter alia, amended the debt collection ordinance to cover debt buyers and attorneys engaging in debt collection activities. Plaintiffs contend that these amendments are contrary to New York state law, violate the Commerce and Contract Clauses of the United States Constitution, and render the debt collection ordinance unconstitutionally vague. Both plaintiffs and defendants have now moved for summary judgment. For the reasons set forth below, plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as is defendants’. I. BACKGROUND A. Legislative History In 1984, New York City Council passed Local Law 65, which required debt collection agencies to obtain a license in order to practice in the city. In the prefatory legislative declaration, City Council stated that, “[wjhile the majority of those engaged in [the debt collection] business are honest and ethical in their dealings, there is a minority of unscrupulous collection agencies in operation that practice abusive tactics such as threatening delinquent debtors, or calling such people at outrageous times of the night.” N.Y. City Admin. Code § 20-488 (1984). In the Council’s view, “[t]hese actions constitute tactics which would shock the conscience of ordinary people.” Id. For this reason, Local Law 65 made it “unlawful for any person to act as a debt collection agency without first having obtained a license.” -Id. § 20-490. “Debt collection agency” was defined as “a person engaged in business the principal purpose of which is to regularly collect or attempt to collect debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due to another,” but specifically excluded “any attorney-at-law collecting a debt as an attorney on behalf of and in the name of a client.” Id. § 20-489. Agencies covered under this definition had to apply for a two-year license, at an application or renewal fee of $75, or else face penalties for failure to adhere to the licensing requirements. Id. §§ 20-491, 20-492, 20-494. In December 2007, the Council introduced Int. 660, a bill to amend the debt collection ordinance. As originally proposed, the bill made two changes to the ordinance. First, it amended the definition of debt collection agency to include “a buyer of debt who refers such debt to another for collection or to an attorney-at-law for litigation in order to collect such debt.” (Decl. of Nicholas Ciapetta in Support of Cross Motion for Summary Judgment (“Ciapetta Decl”), Ex. D.) Second, the exclusion for attorneys was clarified to cover “any attorney-at-law or law firm collecting a debt in such capacity on behalf of and in the name of a client ... through legal activities such as the filing and prosecution of lawsuits to reduce debts to judgments,” but not “any attorney-at-law or law firm who regularly engages in activities traditionally associated with debt collection, including but not limited to, sending demand letters or making collection telephone calls.” (Id.) In other words, under the proposed bill, “buyers of debt”— organizations that purchase debt from originating or other creditors and outsource debt collection to third-parties, including law firms — and attorneys or law firms regularly engaging in non-litigation debt collection activities would be required to apply for a debt collection license. In hearings on the bill in February 2009 before the City Council’s Committee on Consumer Affairs, witnesses discussed the growth in the debt-buying industry, a shift particularly evident in the explosion of debt collection-related lawsuits brought by these organizations. Relying largely on a 2007 study by the Urban Justice Center (“UJC”), City Councilmembers, the Director of Legislative Affairs for the New York Department of Consumer Affairs, and representatives of various advocacy groups testified that approximately 90% of the more than 300,000 consumer credit collection actions being filed in Civil Court annually were brought by debt collection organizations that did not originate the debt at issue. (See, e.g., id., Ex. E, at 13 (oral testimony of Andrew Eiler, Director of Legislative Affairs for the Department of Consumer Affairs).) The same witnesses expressed concern that these organizations have different incentives than originating creditors. In the words of the Director of Legislative Affairs, for example, “[w]hen the debt has been sold for the purpose of collecting it, the person buying it doesn’t care about any ongoing relationship. The only thing he cares about is collecting the money.” (Id. at 43-44.) Thus, while “[t]he originating creditor might have reasons for dampening the extent to which he pursues the claims that he may have,” a debt buyer “does not have these inhibitions.” (Id. at 44.) In addition to expressing continued concerns regarding the harassing practices that had motivated Local Law 65, many of the witnesses testified to the use of aggressive tactics by debt búyers and their lawyers in collection actions against vulnerable consumers. For example, of the consumer credit cases brought by debt buyers in 2006, the UJC found that 99% were submitted using invalid evidence. (Id., Ex. G, pt. 2, at 6-7 (written testimony of Harvey Epstein, Project Director of UJC Community Development Project); see also id. Ex. E, at 113 (oral testimony of Claudia Wilner, Senior Staff Attorney, Neighborhood Economic Development Advocacy Project (“NEDAP”)) (estimating that in cases brought by debt buyers in which NEDAP was involved, 40% were completely devoid of merit).) Thus, according to several legal services organizations that testified before the committee, in cases in which these organizations represented debtors against debt buyers, they rarely lost. (See, e.g., id., Ex. G, pt. 1, at 2 (written testimony of Legal Aid Society) (“In several years of representing clients against debt buyers in the Civil Court, we have never lost a case against a debt buyer — why? Because when put to the test, most debt buyers cannot prove their case.”); id. Ex. G, pt. 3, at 19 (written testimony of Claudia Wilner on behalf of NEDAP) (“If challenged, debt buyers are often unable to come up with any admissible evidence that the defendant owes any money at all.”); id. at 2 (written testimony of Carolyn E. Coffey, Staff Attorney, Consumer Rights Project, MFY Legal Services) (“[Ojver the past three years, not one consumer credit case handled by the Consumer Rights Project ... has gone to trial, chiefly because the debt buyer could not prove its case ... or could not prove that it actually owned the debt in question.”).) In the vast majority of cases, however, debtors were not represented or failed to appear, often because of inadequate notice. (See id., Ex. E, at 113 (Wilner oral testimony) (finding that in cases brought by debt buyers in which NEDAP was involved, 79% of debtors were not properly served with a summons and a complaint).) Indeed, of the cases sampled in its study, the UJC found that over 80% resulted in default judgments, allowing debt buyers to garnish the wages and freeze the bank accounts of defaulting debtors. (See id., Ex. G, pt. 2, at 7 (Epstein written testimony).) Over the strenuous objections of representatives from the debt collection industry that Int. 660 would violate the federal Constitution and New York state law, witnesses testified that the proposed amendments were necessary to address these problems and bring previously unlicensed debt buyers and their agents under the licensing aegis of the City. In the words of one witness, debt buyers that contracted collection activities to third parties were “among the worst perpetrators of abusive collection practices against city residents.” (See id., Ex. E, at 107 (oral testimony of Janet Ray Kalson, Chair of the Civil Court Committee of New York Bar Association).) However, because many debt buyers outsourced actual collection to other organizations and employed law firms to pursue legal action, they arguably were not covered by Local Law 65’s definition of “debt collection agency.” (See id. at 5 (introductory remarks of Leroy Comrie, Chair of Committee on Consumer Affairs) (“[Djebt buyers claim that since they outsource the collection duties to other parties ... they [are] exempt from the licensing requirements.”).) Int. 660 accordingly was drafted to require these organizations, as well as law firms regularly engaging in debt collection activities, to obtain a license from the Department of Consumer Affairs. (See id. at 8 (oral testimony of Council-member Dan Garodnick).). Obtaining a license would also subject them to the Department’s investigatory and sanctioning authority. (See id. at 30 (Eiler oral testimony) (“The most important thing is that the department, with respect to licensees, has hearing authority and the commissioner has the authority to award restitution for damages that a consumer suffers as a result of violations of the law.”); see also id., Ex. G, pt. 1, at 20 (written testimony of Robert Martin, Associate Director, District Council 37, Municipal Employees Legal Services) (“[T]he biggest single rationale for this amendment is to enable DCA to perform investigations of debt buyers and to bring cases against those who violate the law.”); id., pt. 3, at 24 (Kalson written testimony) (“While these issues can be raised in individual cases, litigants, almost all of whom are unrepresented, and overworked judges should not be the only enforcers of the law.”).) Following the February 2009 hearings, Int. 660 was amended as Int. 660-A. In March 2009, the Committee on Consumer Affairs published a report on the amended bill that echoed much of the testimony from consumer activists at the February hearings and extensively cited the UJC study. (See id., Ex. H.) The report noted that one-third of the bottom 20% of income-earners in New York City were saddled with high credit-card debts. (Id. at 2.) These debts increasingly were owned by debt buyers, not debt originators, who often relied on legal action to facilitate their collection efforts. (Id. at 4 (“While debt collection practices used to include such outreach to the debtor as phone calls and postal letters ... the new crop of debt buyers have opted instead to go directly to the New York City Civil Court.”).) The Report also pointed to debt buyers’ aggressive legal tactics and the large number of default judgments being obtained against debtors. (See id. at 5 (citing UJC finding that, of 600 sampled cases, 99 percent involved invalid evidence); see also id. at 4 (“Approximately 93.3 percent of defendants in consumer debt cases do not appear in court. Failure to appear in court, often the result of inadequate notice of the lawsuit, invariably results in a default judgment in favor of the plaintiff, which then allows the debt collector to acquire payment through such means as garnished wages or frozen bank accounts.”).) In addition, the Report noted that fewer than one-third of debt buyers bringing claims against New York City debtors were licensed by the Department of Consumer Affairs. According to the Report, “[m]any debt buyers have claimed that they are immune to licensing requirements of the DCA since they outsource the actual collection duties to other parties, such as debt collection law firms.” (Id. at 4.) Thus, “[b]y clarifying the definition of debt collection agency,” Int. 660 “seeks to address the debt buyers’ argument ... that once they contract collection of the debt to another party they are engaged in ‘passive’ collection and as such are not required to be licensed as debt collection agencies by DCA.” (Id. at 8.) For the same reason, the bill would require licenses for “those attorneys and/or law firms who engage in collection activities traditionally performed by debt collectors, such as contacting debtors through the mail or via telephone.” (Id.) Finally, the bill included additional regulatory requirements addressing debt collectors’ communications with debtors. (Id. at 8-9.) B. Local Law 15 and Associated Regulations Following further amendments and hearings, on March 11, 2009, the Committee on Consumer Affairs approved what would become Local Law 15 by a vote of 4-0. The same day, the City Council voted unanimously to pass the law, which was signed on March 18, 2009 by Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and became effective on July 16, 2009. As enacted, Local Law 15 did not alter § 20-490, which requires debt collection agencies to obtain a Department of Consumer Affairs (“DCA”) license and comply with “all other applicable laws, rules and regulations”; § 20^91, which provides that licenses for debt collection agencies are valid for two years and require an annual fee of $75; or § 20-492, which provides, inter alia, that applicants for a license must file a DCA application. The law did amend § 20-489, which defines which entities are considered debt collection agencies. As amended, § 20-489 reads as follows, with the new language underlined and omitted language bracketed: § 20-489: “Debt collection agency” shall mean a person engaged in business the principal purpose of which is to regularly collect or attempt to collect debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due to another and shall also include a buyer of delinquent debt who seeks to collect such debt either directly or through the services of another by, including but not limited to, initiating or using legal processes or other means to collect or attempt to collect such debt. The term does not include ... (5) any attorney-at-law or law firm collecting a debt [as an attorney] in such capacity on behalf of and in the name of a client solely through activities that may only be performed by a licensed attorney, but not any attorney-at-law or law firm or part thereof who regularly engages in activities traditionally performed by debt collectors, including, but not limited to, contacting a debtor through the mail or via telephone with the purpose of collecting a debt or other activities as determined by rule of the commissioner .... N.Y. City Admin. Code § 20-489 (2009). It is to these amendments to the definition of “debt collection agency,” bringing within its scope debt buyers and attorneys regularly engaging in activities traditionally performed by debt collectors, which plaintiffs’ suit is primarily addressed. Local Law 15 also added two new sections, §§ 20-493.1 and 20-493.2, setting out required and prohibited collection practices. The new § 20^193.1 mandates — in addition to any practices required under any federal, state or local law — that a debt collection agency (a) provide, in any permitted communication with the consumer, (i) a call-back number to a phone that is answered by a natural person, (ii) the name of the agency, (iii) the originating creditor of the debt, (iv) the name of the person to call back, and (v) the amount of the debt at the time of the communication, as well as (b) confirm with the consumer, in writing within five business days, any debt payment schedule or settlement agreement reached regarding the debt. Id. § 20-493.1. The new § 20-493.2 forbids — beyond any practices prohibited under any federal, state, or other local law — a debt collection agency from (a) attempting to collect or contact a consumer regarding a debt after the consumer requests verification of the debt, until the debt collection agency furnishes written documentation identifying the creditor who originated the debt and itemizing the principal balance of the debt and all other charges that remain or are alleged to remain due, or (b) contacting a consumer about, or seeking to collect, a debt on which the statute of limitations for initiating legal action has expired, unless the debt collection agency first provides the consumer such information about the consumer’s legal rights as the DCA prescribes. Id. § 20-493.2. Finally, Local Law 15 also amended § 20-494, creating additional penalties for violations. As amended, § 20-494 reads as follows: Any person who, after notice and hearing shall be found guilty of violating any provision of this subchapter, shall be punished in accordance with the provisions of chapter one of this title and shall be subject to a penalty of not less than seven hundred dollars nor more than one thousand dollars for each violation provided further, hoiuever, that any such person found guilty of having acted as a debt collection agency in violation of section 20-490 of this subchapter shall be subject to an additional penalty of one hundred dollars for each instance in which contact is made with a consumer in violation of such section. Id. § 20-494 (new language underlined). On April 24, 2010, the DCA promulgated regulations pursuant to Local Law 15. The regulations both amplify the requirement under § 20-493.1(a) that debt collectors communicating with debtors provide a call-back number to a phone answered by a natural person and clarify the documentation debt collection agencies are required to provide to debtors to comply with §§ 20-493.1(b), 20-493.2(a), and 20-493.2(b). See Rules of the City of New York, tit. 6, ch. 2 §§ 2-190, 2-191, 2-192, 2-194. The regulations also set out detailed record requirements for debt collection agencies to maintain for each debt that the agency attempts to collect and for each debtor the agency seeks to collect from, as well as record requirements relating to the agency’s operations and practices. See id. § 2-193. C. Procedural History On July 15, 2009, plaintiffs filed this lawsuit against the City of New York, New York City Council, the DCA, and Jonathan Mintz, in his official capacity as DCA Commissioner. Plaintiff Eric Berman P.C. (“Berman P.C.”), a New York professional service corporation with its principal place of business in New York, is a law firm engaged in the business of seeking to recover amounts due and owing on consumer debt portfolios held by debt buyers. Plaintiff Lacy Katzen, LLP (“Katzen LLP”), a New York limited liability partnership with its principal place of business in New York, is also a law firm engaged in the business of consumer debt recovery on the behalf of debt buyers. Plaintiff DBA Asset Holdings Corp. (“DBA”), a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business in Delaware, is a buyer of consumer debt. It does not contact debtors directly, either in New York City or elsewhere, but instead enters into contracts with debt collectors and law firms, which attempt to recover amounts due on DBA’s debt portfolio on DBA’s behalf. In their complaint, plaintiffs assert several challenges to New York City’s debt collection regulations. First, plaintiffs claim that these regulations are preempted under New York State law, both because New York State has demonstrated its intent to preempt the entire field of debt collection regulation — thereby assumedly rendering invalid all of New York City’s debt collection regulations — and because Local Law 15 is inconsistent with §§ 600, 601, and 602 of the New York General Business Law and §§53 and 90 of the New York Judiciary Law. Second, plaintiffs claim that the amendments violate the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution because they have the practical effect of regulating commerce that is wholly extraterritorial to New York State and, in the alternative, because the burdens imposed by these amendments on interstate commerce clearly outweigh their putative local benefits. Third, plaintiffs claim that the amendments violate the Contract Clause of the United States Constitution, insofar as they substantially impair the contractual obligations between debt buyers and originating creditors, debt buyers and debtors, and debt buyers and third-party debt collectors and law firms that attempt to recover on debt portfolios owned by the debt buyers. Finally,, plaintiffs claim that the amendments violate the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution, since the statutory phrases “solely through activities that may only be performed by a licensed attorney,” “regularly engages in activities traditionally performed by debt collectors,” and “other means to collect or attempt to collect such debt,” that have been added to § 20-489 are unconstitutionally vague. Accordingly, plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief as to the application to them of New York City’s debt collection regulations, as well as costs and attorneys’ fees. Now before the Court are the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. The Court will address each of the claims presented in turn. II. DISCUSSION A. Summary Judgment Standard A motion for summary judgment is granted only if “the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). The Court’s responsibility in assessing the merits of a summary judgment motion is thus not to try issues of fact, but rather to “determine whether there are issues of fact to be tried.” Sutera v. Schering Corp., 73 F.3d 13, 16 (2d Cir.1995). Accordingly, the moving party bears the burden of demonstrating that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, see, e.g., Jeffreys v. City of N.Y., 426 F.3d 549, 554 (2d Cir.2005), and the Court must resolve all ambiguities in the evidence and draw all permissible factual inferences in favor of the party opposing the motion, see, e.g., Sec. Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Old Dominion Freight Line. Inc., 391 F.3d 77, 83 (2d Cir.2004); Hetchkop v. Woodlawn at Grassmere, Inc., 116 F.3d 28, 33 (2d Cir. 1997) (“If, as to the issue on which summary judgment is sought, there is any evidence in the record from which a reasonable inference could be drawn in favor of the opposing party, summary judgment is improper.”). Where, as here, cross motions for summary judgment are filed, we “evaluate each party’s motion on its own merits, taking care in each instance to draw all reasonable inferences against the party whose motion is under consideration.” Byrne v. Rutledge, 623 F.3d 46, 53 (2d Cir.2010). B. State Law Preemption Claims In New York, as in other states, the lawmaking authority of a municipal corporation such as New York City, which is a political subdivision of the state, can be exercised only to the extent it has been delegated by the state. See Albany Area Builders Ass’n v. Town of Guilderland, 74 N.Y.2d 372, 376, 547 N.Y.S.2d 627, 546 N.E.2d 920 (N.Y.1989). The New York State Constitution “confers broad police power upon local government relating to the welfare of its citizens.” N.Y. State Club Ass’n v. City of N.Y., 69 N.Y.2d 211, 217, 513 N.Y.S.2d 349, 505 N.E.2d 915 (N.Y.1987). Under Article IX of the New York Constitution, every local government has the power, among others, “to adopt and amend local laws” relating to “its property, affairs or government” and “the protection, order, conduct, safety, health and well-being of persons or property” within its jurisdiction, so long as “not inconsistent with the provisions of the constitution or not inconsistent with any general law [enacted by the state of New York].” N.Y. Const, art. IX, § 2(c); accord N.Y. Mun. Home Rule Law § 10(1). As Article IX indicates, however, there are important limitations on the police powers of local government. See N.Y. State Club Ass’n, 69 N.Y.2d at 217, 513 N.Y.S.2d 349, 505 N.E.2d 915. For instance, a local government “may not exercise its police power when the Legislature has restricted such an exercise by preempting the area of regulation.” Id. Moreover, even if the State has not preempted the entire area or field of regulation, a “local government ... may not exercise its police power by adopting a local law inconsistent with constitutional or general law.” Id. These limitations “reflect the untrammeled primacy of the Legislature to act with respect to matters of State concern.” Albany Area Builders Ass’n, 74 N.Y.2d at 377, 547 N.Y.S.2d 627, 546 N.E.2d 920 (internal quotation marks omitted). Plaintiffs argue that Local Law 15 violates both of these limitations on New York City’s police powers. In their view, New York State has created a comprehensive regulatory framework governing debt collection practices, thereby evincing the Legislature’s intent to preempt the entire field of debt collection regulation. In the alternative, plaintiffs argue that Local Law 15 directly conflicts with New York General Business Law §§ 600, 601, and 602, as well as with New York Judiciary Law §§53 and 90. While the Court finds that plaintiffs’ field preemption and conflict preemption claims as to New York General Business Law §§ 600, 601 and 602 are without merit, it agrees with plaintiffs that Local Law 15’s amendments relating to attorneys are in direct conflict with New York Judiciary Law §§ 53 and 90. 1. Field Preemption Debt collection practices are regulated at both the federal and state levels. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“the FDCPA”) explicitly permits state regulation. See 15 U.S.C. § 1692n (“This sub-chapter does not annul, alter, or affect, or exempt any person subject to the provisions of this subchapter from complying with the laws of any State with respect to debt collection practices, except to the extent that those laws are inconsistent with any provision of this subchapter ....”); see also 28 U.S.C. § 3003(d) (noting that prescribed federal procedures for debt collection preempt state laws only to the extent that such laws are inconsistent with federal procedures). While the FDCPA is silent as to whether local regulation of debt collection is also permitted, the Supreme Court has held that substantively identical statutory language under other federal regulatory statutes does not preempt local regulation. See Wis. Pub. Intervenor v. Mortier, 501 U.S. 597, 605-08, 111 S.Ct. 2476, 115 L.Ed.2d 532 (1991) (holding that statute allowing states to “regulate the sale or use of any federally registered pesticide or device ... if and to the extent the regulation does not permit any sale or use” prohibited by the federal statute did not preempt local regulation, since “[m]ere silence ... cannot suffice to establish a ‘clear and manifest purpose’ to pre-empt local authority”) (quoting Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U.S. 218, 230, 67 S.Ct. 1146, 91 L.Ed. 1447 (1947)); accord City of Columbus v. Ours Garage & Wrecker Serv., Inc., 536 U.S. 424, 429, 432-33, 122 S.Ct. 2226, 153 L.Ed.2d 430 (2002). In light of the requirement that Congress evince a “clear and manifest purpose” to preempt local regulation, Mortier, 501 U.S. at 605, 111 S.Ct. 2476, the FDCPA should be construed to permit New York City’s debt collection regulations. Plaintiffs argue, however, that New York State has created a comprehensive regulatory framework governing debt collection practices, thereby rendering Local Law 15 — -and, assumedly, New York City’s entire regulatory regime governing debt collection — invalid. Under New York law, preemption of an entire regulatory field need not be express. Rather, “[t]he Legislature’s intent to so preempt a particular area can be inferred from a declaration of policy or from a comprehensive or detailed scheme in a given area.” Incorporated Village of Nyack v. Daytop Village, Inc., 78 N.Y.2d 500, 505, 577 N.Y.S.2d 215, 583 N.E.2d 928 (N.Y.1991) (citing N.Y. State Club Ass’n, 69 N.Y.2d at 217, 513 N.Y.S.2d 349, 505 N.E.2d 915; Consolidated Edison Co. v. Town of Red Hook, 60 N.Y.2d 99, 105, 468 N.Y.S.2d 596, 456 N.E.2d 487 (N.Y.1983)). If the state has preempted the entire field of regulation, any local law regulating the same subject matter will be deemed inconsistent with state law and will not be given effect. See id. (citing Jancyn Mfg. Corp. v. County of Suffolk, 71 N.Y.2d 91, 97, 524 N.Y.S.2d 8, 518 N.E.2d 903 (N.Y.1987); People v. Cook, 34 N.Y.2d 100, 109, 356 N.Y.S.2d 259, 312 N.E.2d 452 (N.Y.1974)). “This finding of preemption is justified by the belief that ‘[sjuch laws, were they permitted to operate in a field preempted by State law, would tend to inhibit the operation of the State’s general law and thereby thwart the operation of the State’s overriding policy concerns.’ ” Id. (quoting Jancyn Mfg. Corp., 71 N.Y.2d at 97, 524 N.Y.S.2d 8, 518 N.E.2d 903). Plaintiffs do not point to an express statement of preemption or a declaration of legislative policy to occupy the entire field of debt collection. Rather, they argue that New York State’s intent to occupy the field can be inferred from what they claim to be the state’s comprehensive regulatory scheme governing debt collection practices, as set out in New York General Business Law §§ 600, 601, and 602. Under these provisions, “principal creditors” — defined as “any person, firm, corporation or organization to whom a consumer claim is owed, due or asserted to be due or owed, or any assignee for value of said person, firm, corporation or organization,” N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 600 — and their agents are prohibited from undertaking a narrow enumerated set of practices, including (1) simulating a law enforcement officer or representative of a New York governmental agency; (2) knowingly collecting, attempting to collect, or asserting any right to a collection fee, attorney’s fee, court cost or expense not justly due or legally chargeable against the debtor; (3) disclosing or threatening to disclose false information “affecting the debtor’s reputation for credit worthiness”; (4) communicating or threatening to communicate the nature of a consumer claim to the debtor’s employer prior to obtaining a final judgment against the debtor; (5) disclosing or threatening to disclose information concerning the existence of a debt known to be disputed by the debtor without disclosing that fact; (6) communicating with the debtor or any member of the debtor’s family or household in an abusive or harassing manner; (7) threatening any action which the principal creditor does not normally take in the usual course of business; (8) claiming a right, or attempting or threatening to enforce a right, if the right does not exist; (9) using a communication that falsely simulates legal or judicial process or otherwise gives the appearance of being authorized, issued or approved by the government or an attorney; and (10) failing to keep complete records concerning all information subpoenas sent by the creditor if it sends more than fifty such subpoenas per month, see id. § 601. Any violation of these provisions is a misdemeanor, and the New York Attorney General or the District Attorney of any county has the authority to bring an injunctive action to restrain or prevent such practices. See id. § 602. Contrary to plaintiffs’ contention, these limited restrictions fall far short of situations in which the New York courts have found preemptory intent. See, e.g., Albany Area Builders Ass’n, 74 N.Y.2d at 377-80, 547 N.Y.S.2d 627, 546 N.E.2d 920 (finding state had enacted comprehensive regulatory scheme in the field of highway funding); Consolidated Edison Co., 60 N.Y.2d at 105-08, 468 N.Y.S.2d 596, 456 N.E.2d 487 (holding state had preempted local regulation regarding the siting of major steam electric-generating plants); People v. De Jesus, 54 N.Y.2d 465, 468, 446 N.Y.S.2d 207, 430 N.E.2d 1260 (N.Y.1981) (holding that New York Alcoholic Beverage Control Law preempted local law). The mere fact that New York State has chosen to impose some restrictions on debt collection activities does not in itself require a finding of preemptory intent. See Jancyn Mfg. Corp., 71 N.Y.2d at 99, 524 N.Y.S.2d 8, 518 N.E.2d 903 (“[T]hat the State and local laws touch upon the same area is insufficient to support a determination that the State has preempted the entire field of regulation....”)- Nor does the fact that the New York City ordinance, see N.Y. City Admin. Code §§ 20-493.1, 20-493.2, goes beyond New York State law in imposing additional limitations on debt collection practices. See Incorporated Village of Nyack, 78 N.Y.2d at 508, 577 N.Y.S.2d 215, 583 N.E.2d 928 (“[T]he test is not whether the local law prohibits conduct which is permitted by State law, because that test is much too broad .... ”); accord N.Y. State Club Ass’n, 69 N.Y.2d at 221, 513 N.Y.S.2d 349, 505 N.E.2d 915. Thus, the Court finds that the dictates of New York General Business Law §§ 600, 601, and 602 do not evince any attempt by New York State to preempt the field of debt collection. 2. Conflict Preemption with New York General Business Law §§ 600, 601 and 602 In the alternative, plaintiffs argue that Local Law 15’s new requirements for debt collection practices, N.Y. City Admin. Code §§ 20-493.1, 20-493.2, are directly inconsistent with those set out in New York General Business Law §§ 600, 601, and 602. The Court again disagrees. In New York, as noted earlier, a local government “may not exercise its police power by adopting a local law inconsistent with constitutional or general law.” N.Y. State Club Ass’n, 69 N.Y.2d at 217, 513 N.Y.S.2d 349, 505 N.E.2d 915; see also N.Y. Const, art. IX, § 2(c); N.Y. Mun. Home Rule Law § 10(1). Since the state has not preempted the entire field of regulation, there must be a direct inconsistency between state and local law for the latter to be held invalid; a mere showing that the local law prohibits conduct that would be permitted under state law is insufficient. See N.Y. State Club Ass’n, 69 N.Y.2d at 221, 513 N.Y.S.2d 349, 505 N.E.2d 915 (“‘If this were the rule, the power of local governments to regulate would be illusory.’ ”) (quoting Cook, 34 N.Y.2d at 109, 356 N.Y.S.2d 259, 312 N.E.2d 452); accord Jancyn Mfg. Corp., 71 N.Y.2d at 96-99, 524 N.Y.S.2d 8, 518 N.E.2d 903. Plaintiffs have not pointed to any such direct inconsistency between the dictates of §§ 20-493.1 and 20-493.2 and those imposed by New York law. Nor could they. The new provisions in Local Law 15 add only two required practices— namely, giving consumers (i) a call-back number, as well as information about the debt sought to be collected, and (ii) confirmation of any debt payment schedule or settlement agreement reached — and two prohibited ones — namely, attempting to collect on a debt or contacting a consumer (i) after the consumer requests verification of the debt or (ii) if the statute of limitations for initiating legal action has expired, unless the debt collection agency first provides the consumer required information about his legal rights. See N.Y. City Admin. Code §§ 20-493.1, 20-493.2. These provisions supplement the limited list of prohibited practices set out under New York General Business Law §§ 600, 601, and 602, but in no way directly conflict with them. Nor is there any direct conflict between the New York statutory provisions and the DCA regulations amplifying § 20^193.1(a)’s disclosure requirements, see Rules of the City of New York, tit. 6, ch. 2 §§ 2-190, 2-191, 2-192, 2-194, as promulgated pursuant to the DCA Commissioner’s authority to issue rules and regulations necessary to carry out the powers and duties of the department, see N.Y. City Charter § 2203(e). In the absence of any such conflict, the Court rejects plaintiffs’ conflict preemption claim insofar as it relates to New York General Business Law §§ 600, 601 and 602. 3. Conñict Preemption with New York Judiciary Law §§ 53 and 90 The Court agrees with plaintiffs, however, that Local Law 15 is in direct conflict with New York Judiciary Law §§ 53 and 90. As such, it exceeds the City of New York’s authority, and must be found invalid to the extent that it purports to regulate attorney conduct. The admission of attorneys to the New York bar, as well as their supervision and regulation, is vested with the judiciary. Section 53 of the New York Judiciary Law provides, in relevant part, that the New York Court of Appeals “may from time to time adopt, amend, or rescind rules ... regulating the admission of attorneys and counsellors at law, to practice in all the courts of record of the state,” including making provisions “it shall deem proper for admission to practice,” and “preserib[ing] rules providing for a uniform system of examination.” N.Y. Jud. L. § 53(l)-(2). Most importantly for purposes of this action, § 90 provides, in relevant part: The supreme court shall have power and control over attorneys and counsellorsat-law and all persons practicing or assuming to practice law, and the appellate division of the supreme court in each department is authorized to censure, suspend from practice or remove from office any attorney and counsellor-at-law admitted to practice who is guilty of professional misconduct, malpractice, fraud, deceit, crime or misdemeanor, or any conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice; and the appellate division of the supreme court is hereby authorized to revoke such admission for any misrepresentation or suppression of any information in connection with the application for admission to practice. Id. § 90(2). As the New York courts have recognized, the language of § 90 establishing that “[t]he supreme court shall have power and control over attorneys and counsellors-at-law and all persons practicing or assuming to practice law,” id., “broadly establishes judicial governance over the conduct of attorneys.” In re Wong, 275 A.D.2d 1, 5, 710 N.Y.S.2d 57 (1st Dep’t 2000); accord In re Roth, 127 Misc.2d 998, 487 N.Y.S.2d 710, 712 (Sup.Ct.1985) (noting that “the boundaries of permissible practice for attorneys is a matter for the State Legislature and the Supreme Court”), aff'd sub nom., Roth v. Turoff, 124 A.D.2d 471, 507 N.Y.S.2d 822 (1st Dep’t 1986). Pursuant to this statutory provision, attorneys are officers of the court, and “their professional conduct is subject to the supervisory and corrective powers” of the state judiciary. In re Zuckerman, 20 N.Y.2d 430, 439, 285 N.Y.S.2d 1, 231 N.E.2d 718 (N.Y.1967). Consequently, the regulation of attorneys’ conduct is not within the police power of municipalities. See N.Y. Mun. Home Rule Law § 11 (stating that municipalities “shall not be deemed authorized ... to adopt a local law which supersedes a state statute, if such local law ... [a]pplies to or affects the courts as required or provided by article six of the constitution”); cf. Roth, 487 N.Y.S.2d at 712 (“[N]o local legislature has the power to define new limitations on the practice of the law.”). In purporting to regulate attorneys and law firms that “regularly engage! ] in activities traditionally performed by debt collectors,” N.Y. City Admin. Code § 20-489 (2009), Local Law 15 is in direct conflict with the New York Judiciary Law. Under Local Law 15, no attorney or law firm may regularly represent creditors seeking to recover on consumer debts without first obtaining a DCA license and, having obtained a license, complying with DCA licensing requirements. But it is simply not within the DCA’s power to license attorneys or regulate their professional conduct. See N.Y. Mun. Home Rule Law § 11; see also N.Y. City Charter § 2203(c) (granting DCA commissioner control over “the granting, issuing, transferring, renewing, revoking, suspending and cancelling of all licenses and permits, except in the cases with respect to which and to the extent to which any of said powers are conferred on other persons or agency by laws ”) (emphasis added). Rather, when an attorney contacts a debt- or on behalf of a client, she acts as an officer of the court, and is subject to the supervision and control of the New York judiciary. With respect to attorneys authorized by state law to practice in the courts of New York, the DCA can have no role as gatekeeper. Seeking to avoid this conclusion, defendants argue that attorneys who regularly seek to collect on debts on behalf of creditors are attorneys in name only: in reality, they claim, these attorneys are acting as debt collectors, and may be regulated as such. In defendants’ view, only when there is “an inherently legal component” to an attorney’s activities, or the activities are “inexorably intertwined” with the practice of law, is the supervision of these activities left to the courts. No such limitation on judicial authority, however, is contemplated under New York law. To the contrary, the New York courts can and have set out standards regulating the provision of nonlegal services by attorneys. Indeed, when attorneys are providing nonlegal services to clients, they may be held to the same professional standards as when providing legal services. See N.Y. State Unified Court System, Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 5.7(a)(1) (stating that a lawyer or law firm that “provides nonlegal services to a person that are not distinct from legal services being provided to that person by the lawyer or law firm is subject to these Rules with respect to the provision of both legal and nonlegal services”); id. Rule 5.7(a)(2) (stating that a lawyer providing nonlegal services that are distinct from legal services being provided “is subject to these Rules with respect to the nonlegal services if the person receiving the services could reasonably believe that the nonlegal services are the subject of a client-lawyer relationship”). Not only do the courts possess the authority to regulate the nonlegal activities of attorneys once they are admitted to the bar, they may discipline attorneys for nonlegal activities conducted prior to their admission to the bar. See Wong, 710 N.Y.S.2d at 60 (noting the courts’ “inherent authority to discipline attorneys for misconduct”). Charitably put, defendants’ cramped view of the scope of the judiciary’s authority over attorney conduct is inaccurate. Even were defendants correct that only those activities that have “an inherently legal component” or are “inexorably intertwined” with the practice of law are within the exclusive regulatory purview of the judiciary, it is far from clear that the activities covered by Local Law 15 would fall outside defendants’ proposed parameters. For instance, as the code provision indicates, “activities traditionally performed by debt collectors” include “contacting a debtor through the mail or via telephone with the purpose of collecting a debt.” N.Y. City Admin. Code § 20-489(a)(5). In the course of contacting debtors, debt collectors may threaten or instigate legal proceedings, of. N.Y. City Admin. Code § 20^89 (listing “initiating or using legal processes” as one method debt collectors may use to collect on a debt), or attempt to negotiate settlement agreements or payment schedules for the outstanding debt, cf. Rules of the City of New York, tit. 6, ch. 2 § 2-192 (setting out regulations for debt payment schedules and settlement agreements). Yet these tasks — seeking to vindicate a client’s legal rights by contacting counter-parties, negotiating the fidfillment of clients’ contracts, and threatening or initiating legal action— are tasks routinely performed by attorneys. When an individual licensed to practice law performs these actions, it is impossible to say, as defendants would have it, that she is acting simply as a debt collector, and not as an attorney. In support of their argument, defendants analogize debt collection to driving a taxi cab: in their view, since collecting on a debt, just like driving a taxi cab, has no connection to the practice of law, New York City may require an attorney to obtain a debt collection license, just as it obviously may require the attorney to obtain a municipal taxi driver’s license. Supreme Court’s decision in Roth helps illustrate why this analogy is incorrect. In Roth, Supreme Court addressed whether New York City Council could require an attorney to obtain a license to act, not as a taxi driver, but as a taxi broker. In concluding that this requirement “impermissibly interfere[d] with an attorney’s right to practice law,” 487 N.Y.S.2d at 712, Supreme Court noted that the tasks a taxi broker performs are indistinguishable from those customarily performed by an attorney: The law defines a “taxicab broker” as one “who, for another ... acts as an agent or intermediary in negotiating the purchase or sale of a taxicab” (Administrative Code § 2325[a]). Taking this definition at face value it is clear that no attorney could possibly represent either the buyer or seller of a taxicab without first obtaining a license from the Commission and complying with the requirements of such licensing. Is it not a commonplace function of an attorney— in the sale and purchase of any property — real or personal — to participate in negotiations of all aspects of the prospective transaction including price, terms, security and a myriad of other issues between the parties? How could an attorney, not licensed by the Commission, but requested by a client to prepare a bill of sale and a security agreement in connection with the sale of a taxicab, do so without subjecting himself or herself to both civil and criminal penalties? It would appear that he or she could not. Id. The same is true of the tasks performed by debt collectors. Under Local Law 15, no attorney may regularly represent creditors seeking to collect debts without first obtaining a DCA license and complying with its requirements. These requirements, however, include limitations on activities that are commonplace functions of attorneys, such as communicating with adverse parties and seeking to vindicate clients’ contractual rights. See N.Y. City Admin. Code §§ 20-493.1, 20-493.2 (setting out required and prohibited debt collection practices); Rules of the City of New York, tit. 6, ch. 2 §§ 2-190, 2-191, 2-192, 2-194 (same). Without a DCA license, an attorney may not undertake these functions, creating an “impermissible] interfere[nce] with an attorney’s right to practice law.” Roth, 487 N.Y.S.2d at 712. Therefore, while the Court agrees with defendants that there may well be some activities, like driving a taxi cab or operating a fruit stand, that are so unrelated to the practice of law that they may be regulated by municipalities, even if performed by an attorney, there can be no material factual dispute that the activities Local Law 15 seeks to regulate lie far from this line. For similar reasons, Local Law 15 is also very far from the incidental regulations of attorney conduct that have been upheld by the New York courts. See, e.g., Forti v. N.Y. State Ethics Comm’n, 75 N.Y.2d 596, 615, 555 N.Y.S.2d 235, 554 N.E.2d 876 (1990) (upholding “revolving door” provisions of state law restricting professional activities of former governmental employees that had “merely incidental” effect on the practice of law); People v. Law Offices of Andrew F. Capoccia L.L.C., 289 A.D.2d 650, 651, 733 N.Y.S.2d 550 (3d Dep’t 2001) (holding that delegation of attorney regulation to judiciary did not prevent Attorney General’s prosecution of law for engaging in fraudulent business practices); Aponte v. Raychuk, 140 Misc.2d 864, 531 N.Y.S.2d 689, 692 (Sup. Ct.1988) (upholding application of New York City’s regulations restricting deceptive advertising to attorneys), aff'd 160 A.D.2d 636, 559 N.Y.S.2d 255 (1st Dep’t 1990). Unlike the regulations upheld in these decisions, Local Law 15 would directly regulate core aspects of the practice of law. Defendants’ reliance on these decisions, therefore, is unavailing. Finally, defendants note that several of the debt collection activities restricted by Local Law 15 — in particular, contacting a consumer about a debt on which the statute of limitations has run, or seeking to collect such a debt unless the debt collector first provides the consumer with certain information regarding his legal rights, see N.Y. City Admin. Code § 20-493.2(b); Rules of the City of New York, tit. 6, ch. 2 § 2-191 — are also prohibited by federal law. See 15 U.S.C. § 1692(e) (prohibiting debt collectors from threatening to take any action that cannot legally be taken); id. § 1692(f)(1) (prohibiting the collection of any debt unless permitted by law); cf. N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 601 (prohibiting attempts to enforce legal rights if such rights do not exist). They argue, correspondingly, that plaintiffs’ strident warning that Local Law 15 would require attorneys to violate their ethical duties to clients — by forcing an attorney seeking to collect a time-barred debt to inform the debtor of the running of the statute of limitations, an affirmative defense to litigation — is misplaced. But this argument misses the point. Unlike the New York City Council, the federal government is not obligated to draft its statutes so as to comport with New York law. Cf. U.S. Const. Art. VI, cl. 2 (establishing the supremacy of federal law). Rather, the federal government may — and does — regulate the conduct of attorneys acting as debt collectors. See Heintz v. Jenkins, 514 U.S. 291, 299, 115 S.Ct. 1489, 131 L.Ed.2d 395 (1995) (holding that FDCPA applies to attorneys who regularly engage in consumer debt collection activities). New York City Council, by contrast, may only regulate within the limits set out under New York law. See N.Y. Const, art. IX, § 2(c); N.Y. Mun. Home Rule Law § 10(1). In attempting to regulate attorney conduct, it has exceeded this authority, and the ordinance, along with its accompanying regulations, to that extent are without force and effect. C. Dormant Commerce Clause Challenge Plaintiffs next argue that, by requiring out-of-state debt buyers that do not directly engage in any in-state collection activities to obtain a DCA license or else be subject to penalties, the amendments to § 20-489 and § 20-494 violate the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. For the same reason, plaintiffs argue that § 20-493.1 and § 20-493.2, which require out-of-state debt buyers to undertake certain required collection practices and forego certain prohibited practices or else be subject to monetary penalties, also violate the Commerce Clause. Defendants contest these claims. For the reasons discussed below, the Court denies summary judgment to both plaintiffs and defendants on the Commerce Clause claims. Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution empowers Congress to “regulate commerce ... among the several States.” Although the Clause is phrased as an affirmative grant of congressional power, it is well-established that the Clause also contains a negative or “dormant” aspect that denies to the States “the power unjustifiably to discriminate against or burden the interstate flow of articles of commerce.” Or. Waste Sys., Inc. v. Dep’t of Envt’l Quality, 511 U.S. 93, 98, 114 S.Ct. 1345, 128 L.Ed.2d 13 (1994). This dormant aspect reflects “the Constitution’s special concern both with the maintenance of a national economic union unfettered by state-imposed limitations on interstate commerce and with the autonomy of the individual States within their respective spheres.” Healy v. The Beer Inst., 491 U.S. 324, 335, 336, 109 S.Ct. 2491, 105 L.Ed.2d 275 (1989). In its jurisprudence addressing the “dormant” Commerce Clause, the Supreme Court has indicated that at least three types of legislation may implicate these concerns: legislation that discriminates between in-state and out-of-state commercial actors, either on its face or in its intent or effect; statutes that regulate “wholly extraterritorial” commerce — -a category whose ostensibly clear boundaries are, in fact, extremely difficult to demarcate, as discussed in greater detail below; and statutes that— although they neither discriminate nor regulate wholly extraterritorial commerce — nonetheless unduly burden interstate commerce. Here, plaintiffs do not contend that Local Law 15 discriminates against out-of-state commercial actors, only that it unconstitutionally regulates wholly extraterritorial commerce and unduly burdens interstate commerce. When analyzing claims that legislation falls afoul of the dormant Commerce Clause in either of these manners, courts in this Circuit have adopted different approaches. Some decisions subject laws that regulate wholly extraterritorial commerce, as well as those that discriminate against interstate commerce, to a higher level of scrutiny than those that unduly burden interstate commerce. For instance, in Freedom Holdings Inc. v. Spitzer, 357 F.3d 205 (2d Cir.2004), the Second Circuit set out a tripartite test for evaluating statutes and ordinances under the dormant Commerce Clause. See also Selevan v. N.Y. Thruway Auth., 584 F.3d 82, 90 (2d Cir.2009) (following analysis set out in Freedom Holdings); Grand River Enters. Six Nations, Ltd. v. Pryor, 425 F.3d 158, 168 (2d Cir.2005) (same). First, “a statute that clearly discriminates against interstate commerce in favor of intrastate commerce is virtually invalid per se,” and may survive “only if the discrimination is ‘demonstrably justified by a valid factor unrelated to economic protectionism.’ ” Freedom Holdings, 357 F.3d at 216 (quoting, inter alia, Wyoming v. Oklahoma, 502 U.S. 437, 454, 112 S.Ct. 789, 117 L.Ed.2d 1 (1992)) (additional internal quotations and citation omitted). Similarly, a statute “will be invalid per se if it has the practical effect of ‘extraterritorial’ control of commerce occurring entirely outside the boundaries of the state in question.” Id. (citing Healy, 491 U.S. at 336, 109 S.Ct. 2491). If a statute does not discriminate against interstate commerce nor regulate wholly extraterritorial commerce, “it will nevertheless be invalidated under the ‘Pike balancing test’ if it imposes a burden on interstate commerce incommensurate with the local benefits secured.” Id. (citing, inter alia, Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U.S. 137, 142, 90 S.Ct. 844, 25 L.Ed.2d 174 (1970)) (internal quotations and additional citation omitted). In subjecting to heightened scrutiny statutes that discriminate against interstate commerce or regulate wholly extraterritorial commerce, these cases follow the Supreme Court’s decisions in Healy and Brown-Forman Distillers Corp. v. New York State Liquor Authority, 476 U.S. 573, 106 S.Ct. 2080, 90 L.Ed.2d 552 (1986). See Brown-Forman, 476 U.S. at 579, 106 S.Ct. 2080 (“When a state statute directly regulates or discriminates against interstate commerce ... we have generally struck down the statute without further inquiry.”); accord Healy, 491 U.S. at 336, 109 S.Ct. 2491 (explaining that the Commerce Clause prohibits the adoption of legislation that directly controls, or is applied to, “commerce that takes place wholly outside of the State’s borders”); see also 1 Laurence H. Tribe, American Constitutional Law § 6-8, at 1074 (3d ed. 2000) (“[T]he Court has articulated virtually a per se rule of invalidity for extraterritorial state regulations....”). Nonetheless, other cases in this Circuit have analyzed legislation that is claimed to regulate ex-traterritorially under the more permissive Pike balancing test, which requires only that the burden on interstate commerce not clearly outweigh the local benefits of the statute. See, e.g. Town of Southold v. Town of E. Hampton, 477 F.3d 38, 50 (2d Cir.2007) (noting that legislation regulating commercial activity “wholly beyond the state’s borders” may incidentally burden interstate commerce and consequently will be analyzed under Pike framework); Nat’l Elec. Mfrs. Ass’n v. Sorrell, 272 F.3d 104, 108-10 (2d Cir.2001) (analyzing claim that challenged legislation regulating wholly extraterritorial commerce under Pike framework). Other Courts of Appeals have encountered similar confusion, see, e.g., Int’l Dairy Foods Ass’n v. Boggs, 622 F.3d 628, 644-46 (6th Cir.2010) (addressing this question), no doubt due, at least in part, to the fact “that there is no clear line separating the category of state regulation that is virtually per se invalid under the Commerce Clause, and the category subject to the Pike v. Bruce Church balancing approach,” Brown-Forman, 476 U.S. at 579, 106 S.Ct. 2080. Still, the vast majority of circuits have followed the Healy/Brown-Forman analysis. See, e.g., Boggs, 622 F.3d at 646; Midwest Title Loans, Inc. v. Mills., 593 F.3d 660, 665-66 (7th Cir.2010); Quik Payday, Inc. v. Stork, 549 F.3d 1302, 1307 (10th Cir.2008); Carolina Trucks & Equip., Inc. v. Volvo Trucks of N. Am., Inc., 492 F.3d 484, 489-92 (4th Cir.2007); Philip Morris, Inc. v. Reilly, 267 F.3d 45, 62-63 (1st Cir.2001); A.S. Goldmen & Co. v. N.J. Bureau of Sec., 163 F.3d 780, 784-88 (3d Cir.1999); Cotto Waxo Co. v. Williams, 46 F.3d 790, 793 (8th Cir.1995). But see Pac. Nw. Venison Producers v. Smitch, 20 F.3d 1008, 1014-15 (9th Cir. 1994) (stating that impact on extraterritorial commerce is one consideration under Pike). The near-universal consensus among other circuits aside, in light of the different approaches followed in this circuit, it is not immediately evident which framework to use in analyzing plaintiffs’ claim that Local Law 15 unconstitutionally regulates extraterritorial commerce. Still, in at least two decisions, the Second Circuit has indicated that either approach may be appropriate. Freedom Holdings, 357 F.3d at 216 n. 11; accord Freedom Holdings, Inc. v. Cuomo, 624 F.3d 38, 64 n. 18 (2d Cir.2010) (“[A] court may analyze a claim that a state statute is invalid because it regulates commerce extraterritorially either as a disproportionate burden on commerce under the [Pike ] balancing test ... or ... independently....”). Indeed, the choice of analytical framework is not dispositive here: as discussed in greater detail below, under either framework, both parties’ motions for summary judgment must be denied. For the sake of thoroughness, the Court will first address plaintiffs’ extraterritoriality claim independently of the Pike analysis, and then will proceed to consider the extraterritoriality claim under Pike, along with plaintiffs’ other balancing arguments. 1. Extraterritoriality The prohibition on state and local laws regulating extraterritorial commerce has been developed in a line of Supreme Court cases stretching back to the 1930’s. See Healy, 491 U.S. 324, 109 S.Ct. 2491; CTS Corp. v. Dynamics Corp. of Am., 481 U.S. 69, 107 S.Ct. 1637, 95 L.Ed.2d 67 (1987); Brown-Forman, 476 U.S. 573, 106 S.Ct. 2080; Edgar v. MITE Corp., 457 U.S. 624, 102 S.Ct. 2629, 73 L.Ed.2d 269 (1982) (plurality opinion); Baldwin v. G.A.F. Seelig, Inc., 294 U.S. 511, 55 S.Ct. 497, 79 L.Ed. 1032 (1935). In Healy, the Court crystallized the principles embodied by these decisions as follows: Taken together, our cases concerning the extraterritorial effects of state economic regulation stand at a minimum for the following propositions: First, the ‘Commerce Clause ... precludes the application of a state statute to commerce that takes place wholly outside of the State’s borders, whether or not the commerce has effects within the State,’ Edgar, 457 U.S. at 642-43, 102 S.Ct. 2629 (plurality opinion); see also Brown-Forman, 476 U.S. at 581-583, 106 S.Ct. 2080, and, specifically, a State may not adopt legislation that has the practical effect of establishing ‘a scale of prices for use in other states,’ Seelig, 294 U.S. at 528, 55 S.Ct. 497. Second, a statute that directly controls commerce occurring wholly outside the boundaries of a State exceeds the inherent limits of the enacting State’s authority and is invalid regardless of whether the statute’s extraterritorial reach was intended by the legislature. The critical inquiry is whether the practical effect of the regulation is to control conduct beyond the boundaries of the State. Brown-Forman, 476 U.S. at 579, 106 S.Ct. 2080. Third, the practical effect of the statute must be evaluat