Can a merchant charge you more in the US if you want to use a credit card?
"This isn't so much a legal issue, the prohibition on giving discounts was written into the merchant agreements that most of the major credit card companies enforced on businesses that accepted their credit cards. That is, until the recent Financial Reform Bill (2010) passed Congress. It changes everything. (The logic on this is a little convoluted, so read carefully) Credit card companies can no longer prohibit merchants from requiring a minimum purchase amount to use a credit card. Meaning: That if merchants want to, they can now stop taking credit cards for a $4 latte. Credit card companies can no longer prohibit merchants from giving discounts for cash. Here is an article with a lot more detail: Financial Reform Bill Good News for Credit Card Holders Here is a link to the actual bill details and content: HR 4173 - Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act Here is the relevant part: This subsection is supposed to take affect ""at the end of the 12-month period beginning on the date of the enactment of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010."" In other words, July 21st, 2011." I'm not sure about the laws in specific states. However it's part of their merchant agreement that they can not charge a fee for a customer paying with credit card. It's also against merchant agreements to require a minimum purchase to use a credit card, although this is less commonly enforced. Apparently (http://fso.cpasitesolutions.com/premium/le/06_le_ic/fg/fg-merchants.html) merchants can offer a cash discount. Offering payment by credit card, though practically a requirement in todays retail environment, is a privilege for the merchant. It's a way of making buying convenient for the customer. As a result, penalizing the customer in any way is not just against their agreement, but rather disingenuous as well. edit: here's a bit more information about what they can and can't do. Amex prohibits discrimination, so if a merchant can't do something to a Visa/MC customer they can't do it to an Amex customer either. http://fso.cpasitesolutions.com/premium/le/06_le_ic/fg/fg-merchants.html
"Yes, merchants may charge a fee for using a credit card. For a credit card transaction, interchange fees flow from the merchant to the card issuer. This is why Australians are seeing a boom in ""Debit"" MasterCard/VISA cards - the issuing banks make income when you select ""Credit"".  These costs can be passed from the merchant to the customer as a ""Credit Card Fee"". For an EFTPOS transaction, the interchange flows the other way, from the card issuer to the acquiring bank (The merchant's bank).  As an aside, the setup of these fees is why some large supermarket chains in Australia restrict you from selecting ""Credit"" with a scheme debit card (MasterCard and VISA are 'schemes').  They are 'acquirers' in the payments networks and they make interchange fees when you hit ""Savings"" and pay if you hit ""Credit"" - therefore where you can hit either ""Credit"" or ""Savings"" they prefer (and may force) you to press ""Savings""." "Wait a minute, this is a huge clickbait statistic.  From the article:   &gt;  Total overdraft fees totaled $33.3 billion in 2016, just shy of the $33.8 billion financial institutions collected in credit-card interchange fees  They're comparing the _total_ sum of overdraft fees to the _total sum_ of interchange fees.    While interchange fees have gone up over time, all the statistic in the story tells us is more people are using credit cards for transactions than ""before"".    Merchants also have a huge choice in what sort of fees they pay, the processor they use (it's a surprisingly large market), and the rates vary by processor, type of merchant, risk to the merchant, type of business, type of card, and so on.  As a note, the ""type of card"" is not just ""visa"" or ""amex"", but different cards from different issuers can have different interchange fees.  That airline rewards card has a higher fee than that ""rebuild your credit"" secured (read: backed by a deposit) card.    In short, this is a nonsense article that provides no useful comparison." Intellectually and logically, it shouldn't bother me for a second to charge something for a buck.  It's a losing proposition for the merchant, but their immediate business costs should be of little concern to me.  (They're making a choice to sell that item to me at that price and by accepting that means of payment, right?)  but the more I charge as opposed to paying cash, the more cash back I get. In my old-ish age, I've gotten a little softer and will pay cash more often for smaller amounts because I understand the business costs, but it's not a matter of caring what other people think. Accepting credit cards, or not, is a business decision.  It's usually a good one.  But with that decision come the rules, which up until about a year ago, meant that merchants couldn't set a minimum charge amount.  Now that's not the case; merchant account providers can no longer demand that their merchant clients accept all charges, though they are allowed to set a minimum amount that is no lower than $10.00. In the end, it's a matter of how much you're willing to pay in order to influence people's thinking of you, because the business/financial benefits of doing one or the other are pretty clear. The banks don't have to pay for credit card rewards. The merchants end up footing the bill. The merchants that accept credit cards pay from 2-4% in fees on the credit card purchase. Those fees go to support the rewards programs. The merchants also take on most of the risk during a credit card transaction (although the credit card companies would have you believe otherwise).  If a thief uses a stolen card to purchase a camera from Mike's Camera Shop for instance, any funds the merchant received will be taken away from the merchant. In addition, the merchant will be hit with a chargeback fee (usually around $20-$60). Finally, since the card was stolen, the merchant will never get their merchandise returned, so Mike's Camera is out the camera as well. No camera, no funds, and a $60 fee to boot. The credit card issuers make $60 on the chargeback fees and have no liability. This is very much possible and happens quite a lot. In the US, for example, promotional offers by credit card companies where you pay no interest on the balance for a certain period are a very common thing. The lender gains a new customer on such a loan, and usually earns money from the spending via the merchant fees (specifically for credit cards, at least). The pro is obviously free money. The con is that this is usually for a short period of time (longest I've seen was 15 months) after which if you're not careful, high interest rates will be charged. In some cases, interest will be charged retroactively for the whole period if you don't pay off the balance or miss the minimum payment due. When you give your credit card number and authorize a merchant to charge your credit card, the merchant then gives the information to their merchant processor which in turns bills the bank that issued the card (it's a little more complex and it all happens instantly unless the merchant is using the very old fasion imprinting gizmos). It is possible for a merchant to attempt to charge you more than you authorized but if they do they risk a fine ($25-$50 for a chargeback) from their processor, the legitimate portion of the charge as well as increasing the processing fees charged by their processor or even the possibility of loosing their merchant account entirely and being permanently blacklisted by Visa/Mastercard. In short no legitimate business is going to intentionally over charge your credit card.  There really isn't significant risk in using a reputable online retailer's order forms. There is the possibility that their database could be compromised but that risk is lower than the risk of having an employee steal your credit number when you give it to them in person. Besides in the US at least the most you can legally be held liable for is $50 assuming you notice the discrepancy within 60 days of statement the charge appears on and most banks limit liability to $0.  Over the years I have had a number of different credit card numbers stolen and used fraudulently and I have never had to pay any fraudulent charges. I don't know about India, but here in the US banks, and more friendly institutions such as credit unions, use to offer the option of a 'secured' credit card where the card was secured by placing a lock on money in a savings account equal to the credit limit on the card. So for example, if you had $1500 in savings, you could have them lock say $1000, which you would not be able to withdraw from savings, in return for a credit card account with a credit limit of $1000.  Typically you still earned interest on the full amount of the savings, you were just limited to having to maintain a minimum balance in that account of $1000. Jesus this is a horribly written and unnecessarily long article. Could be summed up in 3 paragraphs, and honestly, credit card processing fees isn't some conspiracy. I'd guess that most people who use credit cards are aware this is how visa and MasterCard make money.   This article is written like it's for 14 year olds.