ACCC Response to “Less for Cash” Inquiry

Subject: ACCC Response (Reference : REF#)

Dear John

Thank you for writing to us about the excessive payment surcharge ban and “less for cash” discounts. We can offer you information about the ban. We cannot confirm if “less for cash” discounts fall under the ban, as they do not appear to be mentioned in the legislation.

If you would like to see this practice included in future legislation, we suggest speaking to your local Federal MP.

Ban on excessive payment surcharges

In 2017, laws commenced that ban excessive surcharges for all merchants. These laws limit the amount businesses can surcharge customers for use of payment methods such as most credit and debit cards.

If a business chooses to impose a surcharge on its customers for making a payment using a credit, debit or prepaid card, the level of the surcharge must not be excessive. The limit is linked to the direct costs of the payment method such as bank fees and terminal costs.

The ban has no effect on businesses that choose not to impose a payment surcharge, such as the many businesses in Australia that incorporate payment system costs into their overall prices.

A payment surcharge is excessive if the amount of the surcharge exceeds the permitted surcharge in the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) Standard (link is external).

The ban does not alter a business’s existing Australian Consumer Law obligations. A business must not make false or misleading representations about pricing, or engage in component or partial pricing, where the upfront advertised price only constitutes part of the total price.

Check out our website for more information about excessive payment surcharges and other laws that apply to displaying prices.

We hope the information we have provided today will help you to resolve your dispute.

Yours sincerely
——
Public Information Officer | Infocentre
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission
23 Marcus Clarke Street Canberra 2601 | www.accc.gov.au
T: 1300 302502
@acccgovau ACCCConsumerrights

RETURN TO “LESS FOR CASH” ARTICLE