cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/30909420

According to the linked leaflet, the EU’s payment services directive ensures that “You can no longer be charged extra costs by a merchant when you pay using a card issued in the EU.” But they neglect to extend reciprocity to cash payers.

Incidentally, this exacerbates adversely discriminatory treatment of Americans who face uniquely poor treatment by banks. Cash is the sole notable refuge from shitty banks.

Upcharging cash payers violates human rights. This is not only attributed to banks discriminating on the basis of nationality. We have a human right to:

  • self-determinism
  • autonomy
  • consumer protection
  • privacy

Penalising cash payers is an assault on any consumer who exercises their self-deterministic right to live autonomous and independent from banks.

No consumer protection is more important than the right to opt out of a transaction. It’s the only consumer protection that one can give themself without relying on others. Surcharging consumers who opt out of banking is an attack on that option. It puts a price on consumer protection.

Banking inherently entails abuse of privacy. The digital footprint is huge and undermins data minimisation rights.

  • activistPnk@slrpnk.netOP
    1·
    1 month ago

    This is a false conclusion.

    On what basis are you concluding the contrary? Neglect to extend reciprocity to cash payers is trivially verifiable. Find in the paper where the contrary is true (that there is a prohibition on cash surcharges). Can’t find it? Yes, indeed it’s not there. Because there is no statutory reciprocity in the statute the article refers to. It is therefore a true conclusion.

    Apparently, some merchants have done this in the past, and this is now prohibited. But they can never charge you more than the published price if you pay cash.

    You’re confusing cash with electronic payment. There is a new prohibition on surcharges for electronic payment. The same is not true of cash payment. Or do you have a source to cite proving the contrary?

    To be clear, proving the absence of law is non-trivial. But if there is a protection for cash payers, I would be very interested in seeing the citation because I will use it in legal actions. I will wait while you dig that up.

    • Sepia@mander.xyz
      1·
      1 month ago

      If a certain price is published -say, a price tag in a brick-and-mortar store or in a catalogue says item A costs 10 bucks - then they can’t charge you more than that price.

      • activistPnk@slrpnk.netOP
        1·
        1 month ago

        You’re talking about a different law for a different purpose. There is indeed truth in advertising laws and consumer protections that prohibit deceptive practices in the marketplace. Those laws predate the law I linked, which specifically bans the practice of surchaging electronic payers even when properly disclosed. At the same time, no law prohibits surcharging cash payers given proper disclosures that circumvent misleading prices. And so the reality that we see playing out is that cash payers are forced to pay surcharges and/or penalties. This is the case with rail, buses, utilities, etc.