I'm not sure I'm understanding what just happened at the USSC and some ruling about credit card surcharges. But it sounds like it may complicate purchases.

I have a few cards but I only generally use one. The other ones are tied to store purchases (ie - prime or costco). So, I guess I'll find out what surcharges a store will require for the fruit card I generally use. That being said, except for online purchases, they may force me to just start using cash more.

We'll see - I'm not sure what happened and the implications at POS.

Background on Credit Card Surcharges
Credit card surcharges are additional fees that merchants can add to a customer’s bill when they pay with a credit card, typically to offset the interchange fees (2-3% per transaction) charged by card networks like Visa and Mastercard. Historically, these surcharges were restricted by card company contracts and state laws in about 10 states, including New York, California, and Texas. The debate centers on whether such restrictions regulate “conduct” (pricing) or “speech” (how prices are communicated to customers), with merchants arguing for First Amendment protections to label the extra fee as a “surcharge” rather than framing it as a cash discount.
The Key Supreme Court Decision: Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman (2017)
The most significant U.S. Supreme Court ruling on this issue is Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman, decided unanimously (8-0) on March 29, 2017.  In this case, five New York merchants challenged New York General Business Law § 518, which prohibited imposing a “surcharge” on credit card users but allowed equivalent cash “discounts.”
Key Facts
• Merchants wanted to post a single “sticker price” (e.g., $10) and add a surcharge for credit card use (e.g., +$0.30, labeled as a “credit card surcharge”).
• The law treated this as illegal but permitted posting two prices (e.g., $10 cash, $10.30 credit) without labeling the difference as a surcharge.
• Lower courts were split: A federal district court struck down the law as a First Amendment violation, but the Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld it as pure price regulation (conduct, not speech).
The Supreme Court’s Ruling
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the Court, held that § 518 regulates commercial speech, not just conduct, making it subject to First Amendment scrutiny.   The Court explained:
• The law doesn’t dictate prices themselves but controls how merchants communicate those prices to customers (e.g., forbidding the word “surcharge” while allowing “discount”).
• This distinction matters because the economic outcome is identical—credit users pay more—but the law polices the “relationship between a sticker price and the price charged to credit card users.” 
• Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Alito concurred in the judgment but emphasized the narrow scope: The ruling applied only to “single-sticker” pricing (one base price + surcharge), not “dual-sticker” pricing (two separate prices).
The Court did not decide if the law violated the First Amendment. Instead, it vacated the Second Circuit’s decision and remanded for further review under the appropriate speech standard (likely intermediate scrutiny for commercial speech).  
Impact
• This opened the door for challenges to similar laws in other states (e.g., the Court vacated rulings upholding bans in Texas and Florida). 
• It signaled skepticism toward surcharge bans, as all eight participating justices (Justice Gorsuch did not participate) agreed the law implicated speech rights. 
• Post-ruling, card networks relaxed their own no-surcharge rules, but state laws remained a patchwork.
Post-2017 Developments and “Recent” Context (Up to November 2025)
While the 2017 decision remains the landmark ruling, related litigation and state responses have evolved:
• New York Response: In 2018, the New York Court of Appeals clarified that merchants could post “dollars-and-cents” prices (e.g., $10 cash, $10.30 credit) without surcharges. However, in December 2023, New York enacted a new law (effective February 11, 2024) capping surcharges at 4% and requiring “two-tier” pricing with full disclosure—no single-sticker surcharges allowed.   This has sparked new First Amendment challenges, echoing the 2017 themes. 
• Other States: As of October 2025, surcharging is legal in most states but banned or capped in a few (e.g., Connecticut, Massachusetts, Puerto Rico). Oklahoma lifted its ban effective November 1, 2025.   California and Minnesota passed “drip pricing” laws in 2024 (effective 2025) banning hidden fees, indirectly affecting surcharge disclosures. 
• Related 2024 Supreme Court Case: In Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors (July 2024), the Court ruled 6-3 that challenges to federal debit card fee regulations (under the Durbin Amendment) aren’t time-barred if the plaintiff was recently harmed.  This indirectly aids merchants fighting card fees (including surcharges as a workaround) but doesn’t directly address surcharges. A follow-up district court ruling in August 2025 vacated parts of the Federal Reserve’s debit fee rules. 
• No new Supreme Court decision on credit surcharges has been issued since 2017, but the 2024-2025 term saw increased scrutiny of “junk fees” and consumer protections, with over a dozen states introducing surcharge bills in 2024.  
Why It Matters
This framework empowers merchants to recoup fees transparently but raises consumer protection concerns about “surprise” charges. The 2017 ruling shifted the battle to First Amendment grounds, leading to more permissive laws nationwide. For the latest state-specific rules, check resources like the National Conference of State Legislatures, as changes are ongoing (e.g., potential federal “junk fee” rules from the FTC). If you’re a merchant, consult legal counsel to ensure compliance with card network rules (e.g., surcharges ≤ interchange fees + processing costs).

It sounds like merchants want you to pay a penalty if you do not use cash. Surcharges significantly impact the merchant's bottom line.

Thanks.

All the jargon and "marketing of terms" and attempts to influence perceptions - lost on me.

All I see is a price for credit and a price for cash. What I don't get is different prices for rewards vs non-rewards CC - do credit card companies charge businesses a different fee rate for rewards cards vs non-rewards cards?

Sounds like business will charge different prices not just for CC vs Cash, but also depending on the type of CC (rewards vs non-rewards, etc).

Still, it'll likely boil down to two prices for me - fruit card price or cash price. Hope this doesn't make me switch to cash more but if the delta is more than, say, 2% I'm gonna go w/ cash. 2% over, say $20K in annual purchases, is $400 extra out of pocket unnecessarily. $400 is meaningful to me. (1 month of food, for example).

I see dead people...

They are all on pieces of paper for legal tender.

fwbulldog,

If that long post is not your writing, can you post a link to it? Thanks.

Apple card

Companies charge wildly higher fees for reward cards than they do for regular cards/debit cards.

Hidden in this controversy is the ongoing desire of the Feds to regulate, track, and tax all cash transactions. Somebody is thinking ahead to how these ling rulings might affect these desires.

quote:

Originally posted by konata88:
Apple card

I call my wife's phone a fruit phone

I have no problem with merchants pricing their products any of 3 different ways ie:

Two prices on everything, cash/check and credit card, gas stations have been doing this for years.

Or a single price with "add 3% for credit card", or "deduct 3% if paying cash or check".

It would have been more fair if when credit cards first started they took their 3% by adding 1.5% to the customers CC invoice and deducting 1.5% from what they reimburse the merchants. But I doubt they would have gotten so many customers on board with that.

quote:

Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:
It sounds like merchants want you to pay a penalty if you do not use cash. Surcharges significantly impact the merchant's bottom line.

The merchants ARE and have been charged that penalty for customers that pay with a credit card since credit cards have been invented. The credit card companies take 2-4% from the merchant and then pay the merchant the balance. Now with inflation and tighter margains, the merchants are passing those fees onto the customers that use the credit cards.

The places in my town (dining establishments) have been doing this for years.
It means have the cash or pay the approx 3%.

Philosophically: it makes sense that there is a charge by the CC company when using their credit card. And earned interest on any balance when the product cost is not paid in full (currently, typically 1 month grace period?).

But who should pay this fee? The product provider? Or the consumer? Both derive benefit from the use of CC - share the cost? Does one derive a larger benefit over the other?

Business: May post a sale that otherwise wouldn't have occurred if the customer didn't have sufficient cash on hand. Doesn't have to keep large quantities of cash (increased risk of burglary / robbery). Doesn't have to worry about making exact change (I remember businesses having to go to the bank mid-day occasionally to get small denominations and coins). Don't have to worry about petty theft / embezzlement by POS employees. Don't have to worry about giving out wrong amount of change (higher than needed) by mistake. Less time spent accounting after close of business (matching cash to receipts).

Consumer: don't have to carry lots of cash around. Don't have to run to the ATM all the time. Can spend on credit (cash not available / cash flow limitations).

In the end, the fee is an increase to COGS but the business could potentially lose a sale otherwise. Seems like businesses have the most to lose w/ reduced CC use. Perhaps they should bear the cost of the fee.

Didn’t they do the same with the ATMs versus bank tellers. They get you used to using the ATMs and when you get in the habit, they charge you a fee they have been grooming you to use out of habit.

quote:

Originally posted by konata88:
In the end, the fee is an increase to COGS but the business could potentially lose a sale otherwise. Seems like businesses have the most to lose w/ reduced CC use. Perhaps they should bear the cost of the fee.

Who derives the larger benefit depends on the service or product being sold

None of the trades people coming to do work on my house (electrical, plumbers, HVAC) want to deal in credit cards...only the larger companies even accept them with an additional 3% fee. They don't really care if they don't get your business because they have customers backed up waiting for an opening in their schedule. I'm just happy that they accept Zelle as payment...although they
d be happier if i wrote them a check.

Businesses like restaurants find it more convenient for their customers who don't regularly carry cash...especially when traveling...and don't want to stop at an ATM before going to eat. Customers at markets like folks who pay with CC because it makes checking out faster when there's a long line waiting to check out. The most cash customers I've seen at at Big Box stores when small businesses buy large quantities of product to resell.

For gas stations, it is safer for the customer to use a card and not have to go inside. Gas stations/mini marts prefer that you go inside so you're more likely to buy something else. Costco and Sams gas stations don't accept cash at all. Costco has blended Membership and their house Visa cards to make swiping easier/faster and pay you back 5%...in addition to their already discounted price for gas.

The only businesses which I frequent which only accept cash are my hair cutter and my Chinese bakery

quote:

In the end, the fee is an increase to COGS but the business could potentially lose a sale otherwise. Seems like businesses have the most to lose w/ reduced CC use. Perhaps they should bear the cost of the fee.

I operate a small business our margin is extremely tight typically averages around 15%-18%. Credit cards cost us an average of 3-3.4% to accept. New firearms the margin is so tight 10% or less, to compete with online pricing. We do "eat" the fee for non firearms. However, when people use a CC for under $10 purchases it actually costs us to "sell" that product. Getting to the point that brick and mortar is almost not worth it. People will go to Cabela's and pay their damn near MSRP prices with no questions but come to us and state "what's my price?", " can you do any better?". I just don't get it

It affects smaller merchants, I pay about 3.5% for a credit card transaction. Larger merchants can get better deals, many cc companies are not gun friendly and that makes it harder. Most merchants offer a “cash discount”, which is the same as a higher cost for cc but it gets around stating they are charging more for CC transactions.

quote:

Originally posted by konata88:
In the end, the fee is an increase to COGS but the business could potentially lose a sale otherwise. Seems like businesses have the most to lose w/ reduced CC use. Perhaps they should bear the cost of the fee.

Or perhaps the business is the one who should decide since that's who is having to pay 3% of the gross sale.
Then there are the cash/check customers that may have been overcharged 3% for using our currency which is legal tender.

IMO the seller should have the choice of whether to absorb 3% or not. If they do, the 3rd party CC fee should be disclosed and only charged to those using cards, not cash or check. Consumers have the choice whether to buy from vendors that that won't absorb the fee or those that do. A good example is the State of WV. You can pay your taxes and fees with a card or check, if using a card the cost will be 2.5% more to cover what the card charges the State.