It is a form of price discrimination. In a nutshell, price discrimination is always better for the producer and results are mixed for consumers -- sometimes it

It is a form of price discrimination. In a nutshell, price discrimination is always better for the producer and results are mixed for consumers -- sometimes it leaves them better off, and sometimes worse off. The claim that this is not economically efficient isn't so straightforward. In particular, your counterfactual isn't "at no additional cost." It would reduce revenue to the card-maker as no one would pay the higher price for the more expensive cards. If the producer can only charge one price, then it would be somewhere in the middle, which would hurt the consumers buying the low end card. Worst case it would make the entire card unprofitable and it would never get produced in the first place.