This shouldn't change anything on the web where only payment methods with transaction fees were accepted all along. Why would you want to break out the fee into another line-item?
In the offline world, this settlement only offers a new label for an existing practice. Cash discounts were already legal, and a credit surcharge is just a cash discount by another name. I don't expect anyone that wasn't interested in advertising cash discounts to want to start advertising a credit surcharge. That sounds much more offensive to customers that want to give you their money but also want to use their credit card.
> Why would you want to break out the fee into another line-item?
It's not unusual in things like concert ticketing to have a headline price of, say, $30 then when you get to the checkout there's an extra $10 in processing fees and delivery charges. I assume companies think this makes them more money than being up front about the total cost.
> Cash discounts were already legal, and a credit surcharge is just a cash discount by another name.
In one case the customer pays less than the advertised price, in the other case more.
In the offline world, this settlement only offers a new label for an existing practice. Cash discounts were already legal, and a credit surcharge is just a cash discount by another name. I don't expect anyone that wasn't interested in advertising cash discounts to want to start advertising a credit surcharge. That sounds much more offensive to customers that want to give you their money but also want to use their credit card.