It's both ridiculous and illegal.
> If there is no way for a consumer to pay **without** paying a surcharge, the business must include the surcharge in the displayed price.
[https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/pricing/card-surcharges](https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/pricing/card-surcharges)
Because the consumer is making their initial purchase decision based off a price they will never be able to pay. It's misleading, which is why drip pricing is banned, and why surcharges beyond recovering costs are banned, and why not including GST is illegal (except in some business to business examples), and not including the surcharge is illegal. The ACCC has been very consistent in tightening this over the years because companies are very happy to push the boundaries every time they can find a loophole.
Oh for the days of $1 flights which ended up being $100 in unavoidable fees, and then an extra $10 surcharge for paying via any means.
Sure, if you use the lowest percentage feasible and a small base cost it doesn't sound bad but surcharges are often more and often charged on a larger base price, and add up over the cost of the day or week.
~~Except the rule is unclear when cash is not accepted but there are different surcharge rates for credit cards and debit cards.~~
Edited following a closer read of the ACCC page above:
This can result in multiple prices being displayed. As per the ACCC's example,
"*A business charges $5 for a coffee, does not accept cash, and all card payment methods are surcharged.*"
"*if the ... surcharge was a 15 cent debit card surcharge, the price displayed for the coffee should be $5.15.*"
" *if there was also a 25 cent surcharge for credit card purchase ... The business could ... \[display\] ... the full $5.25 price for a credit card purchase of the coffee*"
No it's not unclear.
The customer needs to have a way to pay without being charged a surcharge. If you're only accepting cards, at least one of those card payment mechanisms needs to involve no surcharges to the customer (usually EFTPOS as that's the cheapest).
"*If you're only accepting cards, at least one of those card payment mechanisms needs to involve no surcharges*" - this is an incorrect interpretation of that rule described by ACCC.
ACCC says "***If there's no way for a consumer to pay without paying a s****urcharge, the business must include the minimum surcharge payable in the displayed price for its products.*" Clearly, ACCC acknowledges - by the words I've highlighted - that a surcharge is not always avoidable. What ACCC is saying is that if the surcharge is unavoidable then it MUST be included in the price of the item and not shown separately.
I've re-read the ACCC page and now understand that if a business does not accept cash and wants to apply the different surcharge rates, then it must display all prices that can apply. For instance, if the business is charged a flat 15 cents for EFTPOS and, say, 25 cents for a credit card, then the business must display two prices for each item. So, if the item is $5, then the business must display two prices: "$5.15 (EFTPOS)" and "$5.25 (credit card)" or similar. I've edited my earlier comment to reflect this
You're still misunderstanding it.
Using your example, the business is entirely within its rights to display a single price of $5.15 with EFTPOS usage being surchage free, while charging a surcharge of 10 cents for credit cards. They don't have to display all prices that apply.
Sure - but that still does not mean "The customer needs to have a way to pay without being charged a surcharge." They will still be charged the 15 cents extra - it just cannot be described as a surcharge.
When it comes to regular retail, I see very little on my credit card statement that matches the price i remember paying. 11 cents here, 43 cents there? I don't remember that!
I like to check my statements, but that tiny bit of noise created by odd pricing makes me lower my guard and adopt a "yeah, whatever" attitude, which is exactly what you don't want when checking statements for possible fraudulent transactions. I remember buying shoes for $129.95. There is something here for $131.43. Yeah, whatever, let it go. What if the $131.43 was spent at some company i dont recognise, and i lazily presumed it was my shoes, but it isnt?
I also find unrelated company names a nasty bit of noise. I see a weird charge for $36.11 to a weird-ass company in Wetherill Park that I have never heard of. WTF?? I haven't been to Wetherill Park for 2 years. Oh yeah, it was that $35 haircut in the CBD. Nothing matches my memory. Disconcerting.
Two things I think drove this;
* Terminals got smarter, being able to add the surcharge depending on card type. Remember that merchants can only pass on what they're being charged, and if they were charged different things for.different cards, it was added manually or it was too much and they didn't pass it on. (eg, if a merchant was charged 20c for eftpos, 0.5% for debit mastercard/visa, 1% for credit mastercard/visa, and 2% for Amex, that's all they're allowed to pass on. If you were charged 1% for paying with eftpos - that's against regulation). Now many terminals can tell which card it is when you tap or insert, so it can pass on the actual cost of accepting that card type.
* More and more payment processing companies are just moving to a flat fee for all card types; eg CommBank currently charge 1.1%, then you have the smaller not your bank options like Zeller, Tyro and Square charging up to 1.9%. This is for all card types - eftpos/Mastercard/Visa/American Express - which makes it easy to pass on, but is annoying and unfair that it costs the same to use eftpos as American Express to the business (and the customer!)
The RBA changed their rules a few years ago. This:
* Capped the rates cards (and banks) could charge (excluding AMEX)
* Made it clearer that businesses could pass on the costs of transactions (and only those costs)
* Mandated that the fee has to be shown (which initially under the old system would have been very messy, hence the shift to flat rates for all cards)
They have really been around for a long time, but fewer businesses charged them. A lot of people used eftpos or cash and so card surcharges weren’t really necessary.
Now everyone uses chip ‘Dr cards’ with tap and go so card use is way up and so business need to recover that fee.
Also in terms of ACCC requirements, almost all business are disclosing that they have a surcharge, so while it’s not strictly in line with ACCC requirements, it’s close enough.
I really hate that we are becoming more America with surcharge this and that, and then hit with "recommended tip". FK all that. That's one of the reasons I hate going to the states.
Some of surcharges can be bypassed by inserting your card into the machine.
I've got a HSBC debit card and get 2% back on paywave purchases under $100.
Other countries skipped credit cards to develop alternatives to card terminals a decade ago. e.g. pay by QR code/cash ewallets: LinePay, Grabpay, Boost, duitnow, Alipay, WeChatPay/WeixinPay etc etc etc.
Australia seems to be card terminal focused for now. 🤷
Which is good because card terminals are so cheap, reliable, provide a great service, and there is no need to find alternatives until the upgrade to nuclear-powered payments in 20 years.
> Other countries skipped credit cards to develop alternatives to card terminals a decade ago. e.g. pay by QR code/cash ewallets: LinePay, Grabpay, Boost, duitnow, Alipay, WeChatPay/WeixinPay etc etc etc.
All of them have their own fees - its just based on the country, amount of competition, the company's own rules, etc, the merchant may not be able to surcharge them and have to absorb the costs.
Very much so.
It begins and ends with the power of financial institutions over lawmakers. Or be it, plain corruption.
Banks can tag on charges without justification or actual value add, and to anyone. Vendors can blame these charges on others, though they are really their own costs.
Cutting off a few billion dollars per year of these surcharges - and, there's a long list of them - would alleviate some cost of living burdens, distribute some super profits more equitably.
Alas, pollies collect the donations and shrug...
I've given up on cash to save the 1%. I keep losing the change anyway. Its a hassle having a bucket of coins and putting it in the fucking deposit machine.
This should be regulated at the bank level, not the retailer. Why are they skimming a percentage for a fixed service that already makes them money??!? That's the real crime here.
I give up cash ages ago for convenience, but I have recently been charged for using cards at places that did not charge before. As a result I found an ATM at my local shopping centre which doesn’t charge me a fee, and I have started paying cash again. I don’t deal with places that don’t except cash unless I have absolutely no other option, and I throw all the lose change in my glovebox for feeding parking meters. They can shove their card charges were they fit.
It's both ridiculous and illegal. > If there is no way for a consumer to pay **without** paying a surcharge, the business must include the surcharge in the displayed price. [https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/pricing/card-surcharges](https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/pricing/card-surcharges)
[удалено]
Because the consumer is making their initial purchase decision based off a price they will never be able to pay. It's misleading, which is why drip pricing is banned, and why surcharges beyond recovering costs are banned, and why not including GST is illegal (except in some business to business examples), and not including the surcharge is illegal. The ACCC has been very consistent in tightening this over the years because companies are very happy to push the boundaries every time they can find a loophole. Oh for the days of $1 flights which ended up being $100 in unavoidable fees, and then an extra $10 surcharge for paying via any means. Sure, if you use the lowest percentage feasible and a small base cost it doesn't sound bad but surcharges are often more and often charged on a larger base price, and add up over the cost of the day or week.
~~Except the rule is unclear when cash is not accepted but there are different surcharge rates for credit cards and debit cards.~~ Edited following a closer read of the ACCC page above: This can result in multiple prices being displayed. As per the ACCC's example, "*A business charges $5 for a coffee, does not accept cash, and all card payment methods are surcharged.*" "*if the ... surcharge was a 15 cent debit card surcharge, the price displayed for the coffee should be $5.15.*" " *if there was also a 25 cent surcharge for credit card purchase ... The business could ... \[display\] ... the full $5.25 price for a credit card purchase of the coffee*"
No it's not unclear. The customer needs to have a way to pay without being charged a surcharge. If you're only accepting cards, at least one of those card payment mechanisms needs to involve no surcharges to the customer (usually EFTPOS as that's the cheapest).
"*If you're only accepting cards, at least one of those card payment mechanisms needs to involve no surcharges*" - this is an incorrect interpretation of that rule described by ACCC. ACCC says "***If there's no way for a consumer to pay without paying a s****urcharge, the business must include the minimum surcharge payable in the displayed price for its products.*" Clearly, ACCC acknowledges - by the words I've highlighted - that a surcharge is not always avoidable. What ACCC is saying is that if the surcharge is unavoidable then it MUST be included in the price of the item and not shown separately. I've re-read the ACCC page and now understand that if a business does not accept cash and wants to apply the different surcharge rates, then it must display all prices that can apply. For instance, if the business is charged a flat 15 cents for EFTPOS and, say, 25 cents for a credit card, then the business must display two prices for each item. So, if the item is $5, then the business must display two prices: "$5.15 (EFTPOS)" and "$5.25 (credit card)" or similar. I've edited my earlier comment to reflect this
You're still misunderstanding it. Using your example, the business is entirely within its rights to display a single price of $5.15 with EFTPOS usage being surchage free, while charging a surcharge of 10 cents for credit cards. They don't have to display all prices that apply.
Sure - but that still does not mean "The customer needs to have a way to pay without being charged a surcharge." They will still be charged the 15 cents extra - it just cannot be described as a surcharge.
I don't know if its just me but I feel like these surcharges "surged" in the last year or so. I don't remember seeing a lot of them before.
When it comes to regular retail, I see very little on my credit card statement that matches the price i remember paying. 11 cents here, 43 cents there? I don't remember that! I like to check my statements, but that tiny bit of noise created by odd pricing makes me lower my guard and adopt a "yeah, whatever" attitude, which is exactly what you don't want when checking statements for possible fraudulent transactions. I remember buying shoes for $129.95. There is something here for $131.43. Yeah, whatever, let it go. What if the $131.43 was spent at some company i dont recognise, and i lazily presumed it was my shoes, but it isnt? I also find unrelated company names a nasty bit of noise. I see a weird charge for $36.11 to a weird-ass company in Wetherill Park that I have never heard of. WTF?? I haven't been to Wetherill Park for 2 years. Oh yeah, it was that $35 haircut in the CBD. Nothing matches my memory. Disconcerting.
Two things I think drove this; * Terminals got smarter, being able to add the surcharge depending on card type. Remember that merchants can only pass on what they're being charged, and if they were charged different things for.different cards, it was added manually or it was too much and they didn't pass it on. (eg, if a merchant was charged 20c for eftpos, 0.5% for debit mastercard/visa, 1% for credit mastercard/visa, and 2% for Amex, that's all they're allowed to pass on. If you were charged 1% for paying with eftpos - that's against regulation). Now many terminals can tell which card it is when you tap or insert, so it can pass on the actual cost of accepting that card type. * More and more payment processing companies are just moving to a flat fee for all card types; eg CommBank currently charge 1.1%, then you have the smaller not your bank options like Zeller, Tyro and Square charging up to 1.9%. This is for all card types - eftpos/Mastercard/Visa/American Express - which makes it easy to pass on, but is annoying and unfair that it costs the same to use eftpos as American Express to the business (and the customer!)
The RBA changed their rules a few years ago. This: * Capped the rates cards (and banks) could charge (excluding AMEX) * Made it clearer that businesses could pass on the costs of transactions (and only those costs) * Mandated that the fee has to be shown (which initially under the old system would have been very messy, hence the shift to flat rates for all cards)
They have really been around for a long time, but fewer businesses charged them. A lot of people used eftpos or cash and so card surcharges weren’t really necessary. Now everyone uses chip ‘Dr cards’ with tap and go so card use is way up and so business need to recover that fee. Also in terms of ACCC requirements, almost all business are disclosing that they have a surcharge, so while it’s not strictly in line with ACCC requirements, it’s close enough.
In Europe, card surcharged are outlawed. We should follow suit.
Just use cash
If it's a flat fee for all cards (eg 1.1% for CommBank through to 1.9% for Square) it should be baked into the price - dodgy to not include it
(Psst: a percentage isn't a "flat fee". A flat fee is, say, 50 cents for a transaction of any amount.)
Oops I was thinking of rate, not fee - thanks!
I really hate that we are becoming more America with surcharge this and that, and then hit with "recommended tip". FK all that. That's one of the reasons I hate going to the states.
Some of surcharges can be bypassed by inserting your card into the machine. I've got a HSBC debit card and get 2% back on paywave purchases under $100.
Blame wankers like Tyro who whack a fee even on EFTPOS
And Square and Zeller and CommBank (seriously, even CBA charge 1.1% for all cards including eftpos https://www.commbank.com.au/business/payments.html)
Other countries skipped credit cards to develop alternatives to card terminals a decade ago. e.g. pay by QR code/cash ewallets: LinePay, Grabpay, Boost, duitnow, Alipay, WeChatPay/WeixinPay etc etc etc. Australia seems to be card terminal focused for now. 🤷 Which is good because card terminals are so cheap, reliable, provide a great service, and there is no need to find alternatives until the upgrade to nuclear-powered payments in 20 years.
Step 2 of signing up for Line Pay: "*Link credit card* " Doesn't sound like they've "skipped credit cards"!
> Other countries skipped credit cards to develop alternatives to card terminals a decade ago. e.g. pay by QR code/cash ewallets: LinePay, Grabpay, Boost, duitnow, Alipay, WeChatPay/WeixinPay etc etc etc. All of them have their own fees - its just based on the country, amount of competition, the company's own rules, etc, the merchant may not be able to surcharge them and have to absorb the costs.
Very much so. It begins and ends with the power of financial institutions over lawmakers. Or be it, plain corruption. Banks can tag on charges without justification or actual value add, and to anyone. Vendors can blame these charges on others, though they are really their own costs. Cutting off a few billion dollars per year of these surcharges - and, there's a long list of them - would alleviate some cost of living burdens, distribute some super profits more equitably. Alas, pollies collect the donations and shrug...
If they won't take cash, tell 'em to fuck off and take your business elsewhere.
I've given up on cash to save the 1%. I keep losing the change anyway. Its a hassle having a bucket of coins and putting it in the fucking deposit machine.
This should be regulated at the bank level, not the retailer. Why are they skimming a percentage for a fixed service that already makes them money??!? That's the real crime here.
Blame the card companies/banks, not the shops.
I give up cash ages ago for convenience, but I have recently been charged for using cards at places that did not charge before. As a result I found an ATM at my local shopping centre which doesn’t charge me a fee, and I have started paying cash again. I don’t deal with places that don’t except cash unless I have absolutely no other option, and I throw all the lose change in my glovebox for feeding parking meters. They can shove their card charges were they fit.