12 ms·

Worth noting that here in NYC, the courts have gone back and forth on whether passing transaction fees onto consumer is legal: https://www.law.com/newyorklawjou

• lstodd 8y ago
  Absolutely support passing crap like this on to customers. Otherwise there is no incentive to lower them.
  • toomuchtodo 8y ago
    Conversely, we could regulate and treat card networks as utilities (allowing them to recoup reasonable operations costs) instead of for-profit concerns siphoning unnecessarily off of the flows of capitalism. It works for Europe. Customers regulating through voting with their wallet isn't going to work with how much power large financial firms wield. I contacted Elizabeth Warren's office (she's on the Senate Banking Committee); if this matters to you, I suggest you do too!
    • dragonwriter 8y ago
      > I contacted Elizabeth Warren's office (she's on the Senate Banking Committee); if this matters to you, I suggest you do too! Unless you've also got a plan to get a Democratic majority in the Senate, your plan probably needs to extend beyond Warren if you are relying on her role in the Banking Committee (if you are expecting her to win the Presidency in 2020, that's perhaps another story.)
      • toomuchtodo 8y ago
        > your plan probably needs to extend beyond Warren if you are relying on her role in the Banking Committee (if you are expecting her to win the Presidency in 2020, that's perhaps another story.) It does. No need to pollute this thread, email me if you want to chat about it.
      • deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
    • deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  • ip26 8y ago
    What's hypothetically supposed to happen is the payment vendors compete with eachother for traffic, and businesses negotiate deals and use the ones that give a good deal. Whether it's actually working that way in practice, of course, is a valid question.
    • AnthonyMouse 8y ago
      The problem is network effects. If you accept Visa or Mastercard then you lose business, because many customers have only one or the other. So you need both, which means you can't play them off each other for a better deal and they aren't actually competing with each other. Combine this with contract terms in many places preventing merchants from passing on fees and it gets even worse, because card networks can gain customers and increase their network size by offering rewards and then use the network effect to raise fees. If the merchant can't charge more to customers whose card network charges them higher fees, the cardholder has the incentive to use the card with the highest rewards (and thus the highest fees), so you get a ratchet of increasing processing fees despite an overall trend of falling underlying processing costs due to automation.
      • ip26 8y ago
        Speaking purely hypothetically, it's easy for a customer to carry both a Visa & MC, so if stores more frequently took only one or the other, customers would respond accordingly. Like they already do with AmEx, or when traveling internationally (where MC has a big leg up).
        • AnthonyMouse 8y ago
          But that's chicken and egg. Collective action problem. You can't stop accepting one or the other until the large majority of customers carry both, which they won't do while most vendors continue to accept both thereby allowing the cardholder to only need one.
          • CardFellow 8y ago
  • anonymous5133 8y ago
    Completely agree and it also punishes people who pay with cash because we all have to indirectly pay for the processing fees of others.
    • m-s 8y ago
      One could also say that the costs of using cash are being passed on to card-paying customers
  • ryandrake 8y ago
    Companies should feel free to not accept credit cards, but if they do accept them, it becomes a cost of doing business, and I, as a card user, expect to not be penalized for using one. Providing parking is also a cost of doing business. I don't see any arguments in favor of merchants charging car-driving customers more than walk-ins.
• sct202 8y ago
  It might be to accommodate business diners and really rich people who have those black cards. I've personally never had an Amex except for corporate cards.
  • protomyth 8y ago
    It has a bit of popularity for unbanked folks with the Bluebird Card from AmEx / Walmart. Free reloads at Walmart unlike the Walmart MoneyCard (Visa / Mastercard) which has a $3 fee.
    • metildaa 8y ago
      American Express also launched a discount prpgram for merchants, to make pricing comparable to Visa/Mastercard. If you have little volume, its easy to qualify.
• ahoy 8y ago
  I prefer that honestly, i feel like im getting a discount for paying in cash
  • howard941 8y ago
    Before the law changed discounts for cash were pretty common especially at gas stations. In my part of the world (Fla) I don't see them anymore, anywhere.
  • josu 8y ago
    Cash is pretty expensive too.
• balls187 8y ago
  Those transaction fees were originally prohibited by credit card merchant agreements, but eventually they relented.
  • chimeracoder 8y ago
    > Those transaction fees were originally prohibited by credit card merchant agreements, but eventually they relented. They were prohibited by federal law until a few years ago. That was repealed, but now they're still prohibited by state law in a number of states. In addition, some merchant agreements still prohibit it, particularly if the merchant accepts American Express.
• maxxxxx 8y ago
  With all the talk about "free markets" and stuff it seems very un-american that the restrictions the credit card companies are imposing are legal. These companies have enormous power and they are allowed to use it.
• huhtenberg 8y ago
  AmEx is not widely accepted, because the fees are higher and the cardholders usually also have a Visa or an MC card. Saying as a merchant ;)
  • Johnny555 8y ago
    For this reason, I don't understand how Amex keeps attracting customers - you can't count on it being accepted everywhere, so you need to carry a MC/Visa backup card. I used to tell myself that it was superior customer service, but I once disputed a charge at an overseas hotel and was sure it would be a fast/easy process - I paid for the room through Expedia and the merchant charged me for the room after I checked out. I contacted the merchant and they agreed and said they'd refund the charge. They never did. I sent all of the information to Amex including the Expedia booking and the email from the merchant saying they'd refund me. It took them 3 weeks to "investigate" the charge and then they came back and determined that the charge was legitimate and I was not due any refund. I spend an hour on the phone with them and got escalated to a supervisor who said she would re-open the investigation and 20 days later, they decided that I was due a refund and a week later they refunded it. That's when I realized that there's no reason to have an Amex, so I replaced my Amex Gold Card with a Chase Sapphire card - I had to dispute one charge on the Sapphire and I didn't even have to talk to anyone, just did an online dispute and had my money back in less than a week.
    • Malician 8y ago
      I think it's as simple as - twenty years ago, there was no CSP/CSR, Amex was just a different experience. People's views/frame gets ingrained deeply. Younger people go Chase, in my experience.
    • tyre 8y ago
      Amex is accepted almost everywhere online, anywhere Square/Revel/Clover is used, any large retailer, and most 2+-dollar-signs-on-Yelp restaurants. As you said, users should still carry a backup, but most places accept it. As for customer service etc., their platinum cards are where they shine.
  • 8y ago
• altmind 8y ago
  while its true for amex, i dont think discover fees are any higher than visa/mc. square lists discover fee 1.56% – 2.3% and visa fee at 1.43% – 2.4%. of course, fees are negotiable and much less for the physical retail. durbin amendment sets the limit on /debit/ fees at 0.05%+$0.21
  • kec 8y ago
    It's been a while (~10 years) since I've had to deal with credit processing, but at least back then, discovers terms were pretty abusive for small businesses. In any month where we processed 1 or more discover transactions we had to pay a minimum fee of (iirc) $50. Given how relatively unpopular discover is the risk was just too high.
    • sjjshvuiajhz 8y ago
      Wow, sounds like a clearly anti-growth policy. I wonder if they have some expensive accounting in the backend or something.
• post_break 8y ago
  It's really annoying when trying to buy guns. They tack that 3% fee on there, and then say you can pay for cash or check. Ever bought anything online with a check? It's annoying, doubt anyone does it. Any site that is selling a gun I want that tries to pull that I avoid.
• adrr 8y ago
  They shouldn't charge extra but offer discounts. It is bait and switch if they are charging arbitrary fees. Ryan air is notorious is for this practice. Advertise a low-cost flight but after you go through the sales funnel, unless you have Visa Electron. You pay an extra 5%.
  • dingaling 8y ago
    Which is at least more favourable to the customer than Easyjet's approach which is to tack a £16 ( $20 ) 'administration fee' onto each booking regardless of how one pays. I don't have any love for Ryanair but recently booked with them because the ticket cost less than Easyjet's fixed fee.
• theshortofit 8y ago
  IMO, If surcharging really takes off, I think it will make Visa and MasterCard more accountable for their rate increase or at least think twice about it. I say this because with surcharging the merchants will pass the rate increases on to the customers and point the finger at Visa/MC. You might see the consumers then going to his or her Congress people both state an federal saying WTF! That's when the shit might hit the fan. That's why Visa and MC fought surcharging in courts they don't want to be held accountable. Stay tuned