It's still just semantics. The result is the same.

There is a difference.
A discount is supposed to be taken from the advertised/quoted price. A surcharge is applied to the advertised/quoted price.
(Some places try to claim "displayed prices include a 3% cash discount" or something similar, but that's not allowed by MC/Visa.)

A difference that makes no difference is no difference. The end result is the same - you pay more with a credit card than you do with cash.

And since the merchant already includes that 3% in the price in order to give that cash discount (I assume you're not gullible enough to think they didn't do that), how is that different?

Not sure I like all the new consumer "protection" laws we have been getting this year.

Yep, we should rely on the banks to protect us.

They have been doing such a great job.

But psychologically, there is a difference. Marketers well understand this.

If you are OK with a price, then a discount seems like a possibility, but you know you are already OK with the price.

If you get a price and then find there's a surcharge or add-on to actually pay for the item, you are furious, and often either strive to avoid it, or cancel the purchase entirely.

But, yes, of course, the net price is the same either way. It's the experience that's different.

If the government gets involved it will inevitably be bad for us the consumer!

All they are going to do is cause us to start paying a fee to the merchant to use our card disquised as discounts if we do something else. I remember Exxon doing that years ago. 5% discount for cash!

Government GET OUT OF BUSINESSES business!!!

If a consumer is TOO stupid to understand what they are doing, let them learn on by the school of hard knocks.

You've already dummed down our schools and our country is suffering for it.

I don't see this developing into much. Imagine the massive number and types of rewards cards that a retailer would need to be aware of and the various %'s that go with each. Short of some automated system which sets the price based upon the rewards, I don't see how it would be possible to adjust for each at the point of sale.

I think if a place takes visa they still going to take every card could you imagine the signs thatt would have to be posted with every card every created by the cc companies the list is so long. would slow down the payment part and end up hurting companies by slowing down the payment process thus the money they save on fees they would have to pay an emplyee to stand there trying card after card.

I don't know...to me, it's psychologically the same thing once the "discount" is institutionalized. In fact, I was so irritated by those bogus gas "discounts" that I avoided those stations whenever I had a choice - even if the "one price" station was a couple pennies more expensive.

Any restaurant that tries to cut me a deal to prevent my card usage might or might not get me to accept on that one meal (depending on the offer), but I'll likely avoid the experience in the future.

Agreed...

I think if a store attempted to do this, they wouldn't post a list (that'd be impossible)...they'd just swipe and tell you the fee automatically. If this ever happens to me, I'll respond by laying all 6 of the cards in my wallet on the counter, saying "Please price out all of these for me and then we can begin discussions on which one is the best overall value."

I honestly feel that it is not practical for the merchants to choose which cards to accept when all of them bear the same Visa / MC logo. This would only irate the customers and the time+effort together would not be worth it.

Dont forget the consumers who choose to get a reward card usually are customers who tend to be more educated consumers who want to make the most out of their spending which tend to be in the upper 50% of the $ spent among all consumers.

What I can see is the reward cards would eventually have LESS rewards and Annual Fee or Higher Annual Fee. It would be to a point that some may decide the net gain is not worth it after comparing the annual fee and not so valuable rewards.

Think about this for a moment from a merchant's perspective:

A customer is ready to pay. They hand you a Visa. You know there will be some "discount" taken by your bank, but you don't know how much, nor will you know until the end of the month, well after the fact.

Do you ever not know what something will cost when you commit to a transaction? That's the way it is all the time for merchants with credit cards. Seems nuts to me.

Would you eat at a restaurant, sign for the bill with a range - your dinner cost $90 to $100 tonight. We'll tell you how much in a month. And then you can't say anything about it.

These companies have merchants in a very awkward position.

+1

So there are only two choices?

Either 'banks' or 'government' can protect us? No other choices?

*Sigh*... No wonder the 2 party system is so successful here.

I'm all for the government using its powers to root out deceptive practices. Changing contract terms after-the-fact, using personal data against consumers that the affected consumer cannot freely access, etc.

That said, isn't today's ruling really a new freedom for merchants? e.g., The government isn't adding a new regulation or taking away a merchant's freedom. We're all talking about whether it makes sense for the merchant to exercise that freedom through a complicated variable-fee scheme, but I'm not really seeing this settlement as limiting choice or restricting commerce.

It's expanding choice...just not adding a choice that we think currently think merchants will embrace.

I wonder if any major online merchants will leverage it. In my "drop 6 cards on the counter" example above, I would think that Amazon could handle it and serve up six different price offers if they so chose.