The Ito Yokado I usually do my grocery shopping at does give you points regardless of your payment method. Also, technically under Japanese law you can’t carry a balance on a credit card. For this reason, many retailers will offer to split big charges into two monthly installments.
Not quite true. Although the minimum part is between the Merchant and his CC Issuer, yes, here is CA you can’t charge add’l fees- well to be precise you may only charge the marked price. If a widget is marked $1.00, you can’t charge $1.05 because it is a CC sale. It gets a bit fuzzy if you have a sign that mentions the add’l fees, as charging an extra 25cents to use an ATM card is legal- IF it is clearly posted.
Was there an answer to the question of why schools and the IRS are allowed to charge an additional fee for taking a credit card? Have they just negotiated a different deal with Visa/MC than other institutions?
Ohhh, I’m mad now :mad:. I was just at McDonald’s yesterday and I handed the girl a credit card to pay. She handed me the little keypad and told me to enter my PIN. I told her it wasn’t an ATM card, it was a credit card. She stared at me like an idiot for a few seconds and finally said “enter your pin.” After trying and failing to explain to her what a credit card was, I just used an ATM card. Bam, $0.75 fee.
I didn’t realize they would charge for ATM cards and not credit cards, or else I would have asked for a manager.
They may have negotiated a specific, different deal with Visa/MC. The other thing I’ve seen is the situation in which, say, a county government doesn’t actually have an agreement with Visa/MC, but with a third-party processor, who collects fees on the county’s behalf. That processor charges the county a fee for his services, and the county passes it on to you, the bill-payer.
Actually, when bankruptcy is declared, the first thing C/C companies do is send inquiries out on all transactions in the last x amount of days. They look for the proper paperwork to not be there. If it’s not, the merchant is caught holding the bag. I have a feeling its the “throw it on the wall and see what sticks” theory. Any loss mitigation works in their (bank or C/C company) favor.
The merchant agreement I am currently working under expressly states that preferential treatment via price between one card or another is prohibited. Also, we can’t say “Use Visa(or Amex or cash or Discover etc) and get 100 reward points” No incentive of any kind for one card over another. The only agreement that doesn’t expressly say this is JCB. Make of that what you will.
I love a plus-plus story like this one. The clerk won the arguement (and kept her job) and you got your $0.37 stamp. 
Peace,
mangeorge
MasterCard accepts complaints about merchants that require a minimum charge or a surcharge here.
Btw, it’s also against the merchant agreement to require photo ID (unless the card is unsigned), but filing a complaint every time that happens nowadays is like fighting a forest fire with a bucket of water.
You mean California codified what is already part of a civil contract? I can’t imagine what possible good that would do. Of course, CA is a different animal…
Have these agreements been challenged in court? The CC companies have wilflully created a situation which they force the merchant into. The stores must accept credit cards to remain in business, and the contracts force them to operate at a loss. Sounds like coercion to me. On top of that, many CC issuers give rebates to customers for using the card instead of cash.
That’s what having a strong lobby in DC will do for you, I guess.
No, what CA has said is that a business can only charge for an item what the listed price is, not tag on "extras’’. This is mainly to prevent an item having a tag that says $2 and having it rung up as $3. As a nice side benefit, this effects CC transactions. Even when businesses charge to use an ATM card, it has to be a flat fee and clearly posted.
Those who went to McD’s- are you sure they accepted Credit cards? I know some businesses accept ATM cards- but NOT CC.
Well, as pointed out, its not part of the contract for all CC companies. I agree with you though, its pretty stupid.
One Cal law I ~do~ agree with is that merchants cant demand to see a credit card if paying by check. In the early 80s that was getting totally out of hand. Which was about the last time I paid for anything by check rather than check card.
It may sound like coercion to you, but it is not coercion in any meaningful legal sense of the word.
Nor is a “strong lobby in DC” of any real effect here, unless you imagine that this lobby is STOPPING the government from stepping in to regulate private contracts between businesses.
There was a class-action lawsuit, headed most notably by Wal-Mart, against Visa and Mastercard. I believe it had something to do with debit cards. I think it was settled out of court. I do remember asking my boss about whether or not he had joined the class or not, and I think that he said that he did, and got peanuts.
The best discussion of the Wal-Mart lawsuit was here:
http://www.payingwithplastic.org/index.cfm?gesture=wmViewpointsPrinter&category=Wal-Mart
Visa has a page about that here:
http://www.visamediacenter.com/walmart_quotes.html
Basically, both Visa and MC settled. Wal-Mart essentially won.
Because they’re not imposing a fee on the credit card transaction, per se, but the transaction with them, which they, in turn, turn over as a fee for transaction to the company which handles CC payments for them. What it boils down to is that the schools and IRS are unwilling to set up CC merchant accounts of their own, they instead deal with “expediters” who make their money by charging exponentially higher fees per transaction than the CC companies with which they, in turn, do business.
It’s a certain amount of semantics games and sleight-of-hand, but it’s not violating anyone’s merchant agreements. Yet.
For those who use debit cards, btw, watch when you use your cards. Wal-Mart, for instance, will immediately bypass the credit/debit choice screen, and take you to the screen that demands your PIN. Walgreens will also do this. By doing so, they don’t pay the 2.2% to MC or Visa, but you pay a transaction fee if your card issuer demands it. (Currently, these retailers don’t charge a fee for using a debit card at point of purchase, but some banks continue to charge transaction fees, especially if you exceed a pre-determined number of transactions per month.) They are passing the costs on to consumers, thereby maximizing their own profits. I’m not sure, at the moment, if there’s a way to back Wal-Mart’s system up to force it to treat your debit card as a credit card; I haven’t needed to because I never get charged for transactions. If you face transaction fees, however, it behooves you to be aware and to do what you can to avoid those problems wherever they may occur.
You can back out of the PIN screen at Wal-mart and tell it to use it as a credit card. I don’t normally do it, because my bank isn’t charging me a transaction fee, but I had to do it once when there must have been some sort of trouble in the ATM network. It wouldn’t accept my PIN, but I was able to back out and use the card as a credit card.
Maybe so, Bricker, but it does seem corercive to me. I’m certainly not a lawyer. I assume that essense has no place in law, same as “fair”, right? But the CC sellers are essentially telling the merchants “Use our products and play by our rules, or go out of business”.
And sure, lobbies do convince the government go easy on business.
Now I’m off to read Jonathan Woodall’s links.
Its not the CC companies that force merchants to accept CCs, its consumers.
Merchants are free to accept only cash. Many of them do that today.
If you want the benefits, and added business, of a merchant account, you have to meet certain standards and abide by the rules of the card issuer. I often read complaints about charge-backs and rates. I don’t read many complaints about the additional sales generated by accepting credit cards.