Credit card company Visa is calling for a ban on the surcharge fee some merchants charge card-paying consumers at the point of sale.
The Commerce Commission was undertaking a review of card charges, and considering cutting the regulated interchange fee card companies can charge banks by as much as 75 percent, for example.
Card interchange fees were in turn passed on by banks to merchants at whatever rate the merchant can negotiate, meaning that some pay much more than others.
You must log in or register to comment.
Alternate title: “Visa, who has control over the contracts they have with banks to the point that our biggest bank ANZ doesn’t offer Mastercard as an option, complains that their gouging of consumers for using paywave has led to merchants passing on the cost if customers want to use that method, which is encouraging people to use EFTPOS which doesn’t charge for transactions. Visa proposes to go back to the gouging thing.”
Interestingly with the popularity of surcharges, I notice way more places accepting credit cards (if you’re willing to pay the fee).
Alternate, alternate headline.
EFTPOS still refuses to pull head out of own arse, won’t offer competition to price gouging Visa. Even though consumers would flock to their service in a heartbeat.
Online EFTPOS is now a thing. A small number of places but it’s pretty new.
Is paywave the only thing they don’t have feature parity on? Other than overseas stuff, which will be a lot trickier to do.
Online EFTPOS is only a thing for some banks. Not universal like card based.
Universal online EFTPOS and a version of paywave, and I’d almost never need a credit card.
The paywave one is an odd one. The technology is there, and they clearly already have agreements with banks. Is the only reason for not having EFTPOS paywave that the banks turn them down, whether due to user confusion (can paywave different cards at different places - seems not too different to using credit cards at some places and not others), or is it because they can’t get the big banks on-board due to their contracts with Visa, etc?
And if so, how come they managed to get online EFTPOS?
it’s not just about the free money they’re getting from people using cards, it’s also the customer shopping data points they collect. that information used to cost billions of moneys to market researchers–now you’re handing it over, also for free
Maybe they could try a pricing model that competes with EFTPOS then? Especially if they are getting valuable data points.
well it sounds like visa’s trying to force small businesses to take the hit to their bottom line instead. and visa’s got all the leverage–they’ll get whatever they demand
Yeah that’s what I’m afraid of.
I use eftpos in Australia because Aldi chargers a 0.5% credit/debit card surcharge.
So do I have this right:
EFTPOS is free to merchants and customers
VISA charges a fee for their services
Merchants pass the VISA fee on to their customers
VISA wants the fee removed by law
Merchants will be forced to raise prices to compensate
Customers using EFTPOS will end up paying part of the VISA fee ?
EFTPOS is free to merchants and customers
Not quite, but the EFTPOS pricing model is different. No interchange fees. It used to be there were no transaction fees at all, you paid per terminal (and it wasn’t much, like $20 a month) so long as you had internet access, but with more options like mobile phone connected stuff or wireless terminals it seems the pricing is a little more complicated. Still clearly a tiny fraction of the 2% or more of the price that you might see on Visa charges.
Here’s the EFTPOS NZ pricing: https://eftpos.co.nz/online-payments/pricing
But the rest, yeah pretty much.
So 20c per transaction, above $10 the fee is below the 2%.
But if you use a virtual terminal, there is no fee…so only the fixed $10+gst/month.
Come on Visa, that’s the sort of favour you’re supposed to quietly lobby governments for behind closed doors, you really shouldn’t let it get out in public like this.
Must not have bribed enough, government turned them down, now they are trying to get public support.
Visa can shove off, if they don’t like retailers charging transaction fees, they should charge less for their services.
Charging that fee is pure profit for the merchant. Sure VISA charges fees (and they probably should be made more transparent). However before you say those should be passed on you need to calculate the costs of the alternatives. How much does it cost to count and recount cash - 30 years ago I managed a fast food joint and just my time balancing all the tills cost more than 1% of our gross income. Add in the cashiers (who didn’t make much less than me in the worst case and some of the long timers made more than me) and you are getting close to VISA’s fees. Now add in the cost of the register, security systems, and whatever was lost from theft of cash (I never experienced a robbery, but I did see some clerks steeling money from their till in ways I couldn’t prove it was them).
Because of the costs of cash I find Visa’s fees at least close to reasonable.
But is that a fair comparison? Merchants aren’t picking between Visa and cash, they are comparing Visa and EFTPOS.
It used to be that most places had EFTPOS and a smaller number had credit. Now it seems everyone has credit, but with a surcharge. I suspect if Visa gets their way they will be available at fewer places again.
Is it still the case in NZ that you have to accept cash as payment as well? If so, even if you have VISA as well you’d still have some overhead for balancing up the till etc anyway.
In Wellington there are many places that aren’t accepting cash at all. The whole Mojo coffee chain is one. I’ve seen other places with signs also saying NP cash.
Mojo dropped cash during the pandemic and never went back.
@Dave @TagMeInSkipIGotThis , I’m wondering about the legality of that as well plus I would tell them that I boycott them because of it.
As for surcharges, imho they’re a blatant rip off, any business surely has all their costs already calculated into the price of their wares.I presume such a large outfit (Mojo has maybe… 20 stores? More?) they would have got legal advice.
I see surcharges differently. Credit cards are an easily calculable cost to the business, and a service they are not required to offer.
It’s a service. I think it’s perfectly reasonable to charge for it, given it’s an actual and easily calculated cost to the business.
Not that long ago, credit was not available in as many places. It was very common for smaller places to accept EFTPOS and not credit. These days, I go to the local farmer’s market and can pay with a credit card if I choose to accept the surcharge. If we ban surcharges, we aren’t going to go to a world where it’s built into prices, we will go back to a world where credit is not as widely available. I’d argue that this world where people can use it if they accept the higher cost is a better model.
Seemingly large doesn’t necessarily mean well run. A long time ago I worked for an outfit that had around a dozen shops in one city and near half a dozen or so in others and given some of the things going on I can’t imagine they bothered getting legal advice for much other than loans :)
For this specific case of cash, I’m curious as to if it were ever a (legal) problem to not accept cash.
As far as I can tell, you legally have to take cash for payment of debts. Someone owes you money, you can’t refuse to take their payment in cash (yes I’m curious what happens if you show up with a million $1 coins to pay off your mortgage).
When going to a shop, the shop is making a proposal (say, they will give you coffee if you give them $5) and you can accept or decline that offer (or negotiate by making your own offer). If the shop’s proposal is that you give them $5 paid for by EFTPOS/credit, and they will give you coffee, then I can’t see how that would break any laws so long as you are free to decline their offer.
As a merchant, that’s a decision you’re free to make as you see fit.
deleted by creator
fair enough but don’t be surprised when visa makes the choice to cut you off.
Good riddance
Hey I have an idea. Why don’t we invite some competition to the marketplace. Maybe Alipay or Wechat. Even better why don’t we start using premined crypto coins. Even better why doesn’t the government mint it’s own premined crypto and set up some servers to handle the transactions.
The mere threat of any of the above should get Visa to back off.
Fuck off with the crypto.
It’s just technology. It’s just a kind of a database. There is no reason the government can’t create it’s own currency and run it’s own transaction servers. It’s all open source so it could literally be done in a week if we really want to.
Its a very poor, and overtime increasingly inefficient database.
Not for premined crypto coins. For them you don’t need proof of work.
But each transaction is still significantly more expensive in processor (and thus electricity) and slower than a normal database is right? Don’t get me wrong alternatives to VISA & MasterCard are more than welcome, I just don’t think crypto is it.
They could do it but there be no benefit and huge costs.
Cost would be minimal and the benefit would be very low transaction costs for vendors and customers and not needing Visa to conduct every day financial transactions.
Yeah. Bro had me until the crypto shill.
