[Timshel]

I wish those transaction cost would be made visible. Imo the seller should not care which card the client use, if it's more expensive to use a "premium" card then it should be made visible to the client and he should be the one to pay the overhead.

[IshKebab]

Yes this is all that needs to happen. The EU should mandate that sellers can pass transaction costs on to consumers if they want (but no more than transaction costs, looking at you airlines).

[doikor]

> EU should mandate that sellers can pass transaction costs on to consumers

EU actually mandates the opposite. It is illegal to pass the transaction costs to the consumer. The price you see on an item has the be the final price you end up paying.

[concerned_user]

In many online shops in EU you can see "Administrative fee" if your order is too small for example. So while companies are not allowed to do "Credit card fee" they still do it indirectly in one way or another, those that don't impose extra fee usually have higher delivery fee.

[marcosdumay]

Brazil has a similar rule, but the price you see on an item is the largest one you may end up paying. So, the seller can still reduce it if you choose a cheaper payment means, and many of them do that.

[pancrufty]

I love them for it. When I don’t live in Europe it’s infuriating to see the price levitate after every checkout step. Thankfully it’s still not as bad as it used to be like 10-15 years ago.

[rightbyte]

It is important that the fee is printed on the receipt too no matter what since the card holder always pay one way or the other.

[chrismorgan]

Australia has exactly this rule.

One influence in the setting of this rule was that payment card processors had been throwing their weight around requiring that merchants not pass on cost, which was fairly clearly an abuse of their position of power. (For most in-person business, which was largely what was being dealt with at the time, cash is essentially costless, and so for some small businesses being forced to swallow payment card fees was genuinely an unreasonable burden.)

[woobar]

In US sales tax is made visible, i.e. it is not included in the listed price. And first thing foreign visitors do is complain about this.

[rootusrootus]

There is no US sales tax. You're thinking of state and local sales tax, which in most states (maybe all that charge a sales tax, I don't know) generally added on top of the sticker price. I wish it were included (when possible), because it can be frustrating -- especially to those of us who live in states that do not have a sales tax.

[Dayshine]

That's not what visible means. Visible means a breakdown. List price should always include all fees.

[devman0]

For taxes, in US eCommerce transactions at least, that generally isn't possible until checkout anyway you need to know where you are shipping the order to apply correct taxes. For brick and mortar shopping, I agree, taxes should just be included in the label price.

[boc]

A breakdown into what part of the price is set by the business and what part is set by the government seems to fit your provided definition of “visibility”.

[dahfizz]

I don't see transaction fees as fundamentally different than any other cost to the business. Do consumers also need to know how much the business pays in electricity, or the rent the business pays?

[pancrufty]

Not the same. The business can choose rent and electricity provider, but can’t choose a customer’s card (except maybe rejecting a whole circuit)

[woofcat]

I'll be the naysayer here. I very much disagree with this. A Visa is a Visa is a Visa. If you don't like it then don't take visa.

Charging me as the end user more money because I have a "Premium" card would be a very fast way for me to not shop with you.

[dmurray]

Let me guess, you do have a premium card that gives you 1% or more cashback on your purchases.