I would. Interchange fees are like any other universal business expense, and they are passed on to the customer. Businesses don't pay fees and taxes, their customers do.

I think that if end consumers got protections, then merchants who are also customers of the credit card companies should have gotten some sort of protection. The logic behind the credit card act was that if lenders made sane decisions about who to offer credit to, they wouldn't need to indulge in such shady practices to cover the bad bets.

With their hands tied on some shady practices, that leaves the middlemen wide open to shouldering the burden caused by poor decisions on the end of the credit card companies.

I did 2 weeks ago. I like my local 7-11 and it seems fair enough that they'd want to keep their money in their pocket.

I would in a heart beat. I sometimes feel a little guilty buying a 50 cent fountain drink, and knowing that they are going to loose a good portion of that to fees. But at least I get some points.
Until they cut out the interchange fee, and then we'll loose the rewards programs.

@sven.kirk: IIRC, ALL of that went to fees. An interchange fee is a flat amount plus a percentage. Bearing in mind that the cup alone costs the 7-11 $.50, not including the soda, and adding in the fee, that drink may have cost them more than what they paid for it.

@3DaysTillTheState_GitEmSteveDave: A cup costs them $.50? Uh, that doesn't seem right. It should be several pennies in cost to them at the most. A paper cup doesn't cost me $.50 to buy at a grocery store.

I do agree though that credit fees ate up what profit 7-11 made. I always pay in cash if something is under $5 (and usually under $10) too.

Free slurpees today, BTW. Just ask.

I try not to abuse the "no minimum purchase limit" when using my card. Still, $5 or $6 is fine. Merchants can either raise their prices, or not take cards. Then it's a commercial decision. Non-card-using whiners ("why make me pay more?") can shop someplace else in the case of the former, or I can shop someplace else in the case of the latter.

As it is now, I don't see that this is a problem worthy of additional government interference into contract law or commercial relationships. If we get to the point where there's a legitimate problem of a mass scale, then we can worry about calling out the big guns.

I wouldn't even consider signing this unless 7-11 started reducing the prices of items in their stores for cash-paying customers. They pass these fees on to me regardless of my payment method and then want to cry about it?

Here's my feeling about this - A) a crappy article - what is the fee as a percent of sales? That's what really matters - has that increased? Was it outrageous to begin with? B) retailers don't have to accept credit cards (7-11's might have to due to their franchise agreement, but that was still a business decision by the franchisor). The place I worked at in high school just got a credit card machine this past spring. Is she happy paying a fee? No. But she made a business decision that the amount of additional money she would bring in was more than the fees she would have to pay. C) It's a cost of business. Would you sign a petition 7-11 had to try to get the cost of Pepsi down? The cost of a bag of chips? The cost of the rent the 7-11 is paying?

By accepting credit cards, you also keep your cash in the store low - less money for a thief to steal and for your employees to steal. You also don't have to count the money, handle the money, bring it to the bank, make change. There is a benefit to all that, however small, that I don't think many people consider when looking at these fees. (When I sell something on eBay, I'd much rather get paid via Paypal than by some other form, as with Paypal I don't have to worry about fake money orders, bogus checks, or worry about someone claiming to mail a payment that gets lost).

I can understand that 7-11 owners are upset that THEY can't make a decision not to accept credit cards, as I'd bet that the franchisor forces them to. But at the same time, I doubt any of the 7-11 owners would stop accepting them if they had the choice - they'd lose too much money.

@wrjohnston19283: I agree. Not a very informative article. If the fee is a percentage of sales, then why does it matter if we buy a pack of gum or fill the SUV with $60 in gas? I waste of time reading

As loathe as I am to consider 7-11 a Mom & Pop business, what they say has merit. If creditors say that they can't live with lower fees without hiking minimums to, say, $20, call their bluff.
If it's true then fine: consumers will relearn the ancient folk custom of carrying a tenner & two fivers in their pocket when leaving home. I'd imagine the extra weight could cause some knees to buckle and perhaps a couple spines to snap, but we'll survive as a species. Assuming our ears don't burst from the incessant whining of those against carrying small change on them.
On the other hand if the multimillion dollar Debit - Don't Use Cash! advertising campaigns were, in the end, a scam pushed by banks to generate fees where none existed before, then the creditors will have to turn down this needless, illusory "service". Or at least, suck less blood from merchants to run it.

@Hoss: It's usually a flat charge (10-35¢ depending on the merchant's negotiating clout) plus a percentage.

@wrjohnston19283: Yeah if they charge you $1 for a drinbk and pay $.10 in ingredients and say $.25 for the transaction it reduces their 'normal' 90% profit margin to a paltry 65%?!?

There are costs inherent in any form of payment... even cash and credit cards are amongst the least expensive means of taking payment overall.

It's not just a percentage. There are multiple fees involved. As a small business owner, I pay about $50/month in fees.

Here's a breakdown of MY fees (your mileage may vary):

~2.29% of total purchase,

PLUS $.25 transaction fee - that's $.25 every time we run a card,

PLUS ~$.50 batch fee (only charged for days we take a CC),

PLUS $10/month statement fee.

AND, there is a $25/month minimum when added together. So, if my fees only come up to $23, they tack on another $2 to make it $25.

So, for a single $.50 pack of gum, it probably averages about $.27. For a $60 purchase, it would run about $1.65. That's assuming you spread the batch and statement fees over hundreds over transactions. Fewer transactions per month = higher fees per transaction.

It may not sound like a lot, but it does add up.

Now, a big company like 7-11 is going to have much better rates, but this gives you an idea.

@henrygates:
Only problem I have with that is these places will raise prices regardless and just take a larger profit margin.

1) 7-11 will *not* lower their prices if they don't have to pay these fees. Count on it.

2) The credit card companies will simply start charging the fee to the consumer somehow. They will either raise rates or find some other way to ding you.

Signing this petition simply says "I want to spend more money while helping 7-11 get bigger profits." It will only cost you in the end.

@KeepingTheForeName_GitEmSteveDave:
man you must be shopping at the wrong places if youre buying cups for 50 cents

@balthisar:
Yup, this seems more of a case of everybody putting their hand out for a..."hand out" /facepalm

Since when is 7-11 a "small business"?

Why don't they just buy a congressman or two? They are much cheaper than those fees.

@shepd: A shot glass full of Mountain Dew.

@henrygates: Yeah they pass on the fees to us. And if the fee gets removed then they just keep it. So either way the consumer gets screwed. I guess its just a matter of which business do you want to see steal more of our cash? Banks? Or small businesses?

@henrygates:

I get so tired of hearing this stupid BS of businesses don't pay taxes blah blah blah... Have you ever put any logic into that statement? Let me help you out because I'm a nice guy: 1) a business sells a product or service based all costs (which includes taxes & credit card interchange fees) & profit issues, 2) the business' customer pays with money earned in one fashion or another & said earned money is most often a result of the buyer having sold their time at a certain rate, 3) the rate at which the time was sold included the SAME issues the business considered (including all costs such as personal income taxes & the current value of that money to purchase goods & services).

So one could say that individuals don't pay fees & taxes, the businesses they work for do (because the customer sold his time for money based on the total cost of goods & services and passed the cost onto the business they worked for).

Everyone pays, now the percentage is in constant flux back & forth as businesses & consumers/money earners try to increase their margins. You might be able to argue that businesses don't pay taxes if every penny of profit & loss in every regard was immediately transferred to individuals, but it is not: we have the shell game businesses play with profit & losses, to benefit their stakeholders by managing/timing them, as well as other factors such as non-liquid/long-term assets critical to operations, etc.

Please save your universal anti-tax rants for directly related topics (attempts to tag them to every issue gets old).

I would not help any corporation they could do it on their own. Let them fend for themselves.

@cozymoses: Since most of their stores are franchises.

@HiPwr: Part of the merchant agreement that they have to accept prevents the merchant from charging fees to credit card users. The workaround of course is to give a discount for paying in cash, but then they can't advertise low prices anymore.

PLEASE, if they don't like the credit card fee, why do the accept credit cards?

It's a tax deductible cost of doing business.

As a small business owner of a heating and cooling company...let me be the 1st to tell you these fees SUCK!!! they charge you $.35 just for the transaction and then its a percentage of the payment on top of the trans. fee. After I pay for the equiment. I end up getting about 10% less profit when they pay w/ credit cards. Due to people being dependent on plastic we have to accept them or lose business. (and we shopped around for the lowest fees)

@Trai_Dep: MINIMUMS are a merchant violation!

OMG offer a discount to people paying with cash. there are a few gas stations around me that do this already for pumped gas. i know not all 7-11s have gas pumps, but they could still offer some sort of incentive to get their customers to pay cash.
not that i care about this hurting banks, i care about it hurting smaller credit unions because that is a source of income for them to stay running.

I would sign this in a heartbeat! Except, I'm still bitter at the grocery stores, airlines, and the likes.
A year ago, everyone jacked up their prices because the cost of fuel had risen so much. They apologized, explaining that it was the only way to keep profit margins. Fast forward to today: The cost of fuel has dropped in many areas in half, but they kept the prices or extra charges and are just pocketing the difference.
If 7-11 got their way, we wouldn't see a dime in savings.

I would definitely sign this petition. I've seen more and more places posting a sign up, "We no longer accept VISA." because of the fees. I also see a lot of places with "$10 minimum purchase to use card" signs, etc. As a consumer, the fees directly harm me.

@Jackie Stempin VanZyll: Do you offer a discount for cash or check? Frequently businesses also have to pay pretty good percentage to some kind of check guarantee company so cash would be king. Then again, walking around with cash is a serious security concern.

@wcnghj: Then there shouldn't be this artificial impediment. Let the market sort it out, without distortion. And, for this example, consortia may as well be the State, for their reach and power.
We cater to flakes too muddled to carry $5 change might be a great starter ad campaign.
It'd be interesting to see if their $0.80 bubble gum sells as well as the stores that snicker, point and laugh at people lacking half a buck in change when leaving home.

@wvFrugan: Yup. That argument is among the most muddled of economic arguments I've seen on the 'net. And I have lived through the Ron Paul Presidential campaign.

The problem with reducing the cost for cash paying customers is that some state laws make that illegal or some cumbersome to work around.

It's not just convince stores that get screwed in CC fees like this. Any small business that accepts credit cards get racked over the coals in charges. They simply don't have the leverage like a company like Wal-Mart to get those fee's reduced.

@Nick1693: Worth repeating: since when is 7-11 a small business? Directly owned or franchised, they don't fit the term.

@wcnghj: Clearly you know no entrepreneurs.

@ncboxer: @anduin: I used to work at 7-11. The cups actually cost what the prices are on display. For Police/EMS/Fire(anyone in uniform) as well as ourselves, we had "courtesy cups" which were white and had courtesy cup written on them. Why did we give people in uniforms free drinks? Because doing the graveyard shift that I did, we liked cops showing up at random times to keep the crooks honest.

How it was explained by my boss was, as you buy more cups, in quantity, you get a discount. So as you sell more, the cups cost less, which is how they start to become somewhat profitable. I learned this when I mischecked an order in from McClane one day at 3am, and said we received a box of cups we never did, which cost us a bit of money. Since they were 7-11 branded cups, it's part of how they make money off the franchises, as they can only use company branded cups.

I have mixed feelings on this - I understand that the fees suck for companies like 7-11, since they have lots of small transactions, so the flat fee kills them. I like using a rewards card, so I'd hate to see them raise prices or stop taking credit cards.

OTOH, while I don't like the fee structure and understand 7-11'S gripe, do we really need a LAW against it? It's not government's job to decide what fees a business can charge it's customers, or that one group (retailers) should make more by making another group (banks) make less.

@allthoseships:

the problem is that current credit card agreements that retailers sign say if a retailer is going to offer a cash discount, each item needs to display both prices. Easy for a gas station that has 3 grades of fuel, and maybe Diesel. Not so easy for a c-store with thousands of items.

I use a 5% cash back card for gas, and most of the stations around here only take off 4 cents for cash, so I'm ahead of the game paying credit.

@anduin: Have you not heard of competition? That is the check on this "larger profit margin."

@Radi0logy: This is a cynical view and I know this is the place for it. But especially right now business really see the benefit of keeping prices low and competition does matter. So they do not always keep it. Or they might right away, but as other costs go up, they may use these as an offset and not raise prices.

@mrsultana: Why not foster more competition instead of more legislation.

@balthisar: I don't like government interference either. I think the problem is that the monopolistic power of the credit card companies force the merchants to either accept the fees or you can't use the cards at all.

This is really put them between a rock and a hard place. Competitively they have to accept them, but they are then forced to accept them even for small unprofitable purchases. Consumers don't understand the smaller points and this puts the merchant between the consumers and the CC companies.

Quote This is a business-to-business problem, not one that consumers need to add to their already lengthy list of credit card concerns.

Unquote

Hold on there little doggie, what happens to the retail merchant is always going to be passed onto the customer someway, somehow at a later date. The consumerist editors might not worry about that fee TODAY, but the consumerist editors will be screaming about the effects of the fee TOMORROW.

And for the low $ transaction size merchants (obviously 7-11 would fall into that catagory), the interchange fee is obviously a significant issue. Especially as the fee is a flat rate and is applicable to every transaction. Think about it for a moment. The fee is $0.30 or more regardless of the size of the transaction, even if the customer is only purchasing the $1.00 local newspaper. I am willing to bet the merchant markup on the $1.00 product is far less than $0.30 fee.

Now the flip side of this issue is the high $ transaction size merchants (think furniture/jewelry stores). The interchange rate in not an issue. The % take of the Credit Card company is the issue.

As a merchant (if my volume is large enough), I can neogotiate the % take, but I can't negotiate the interchange fee.

Very, very unfair system.

Of course small merchants try to control that stupid fee. This is why you find restaurants and convenience stores posting signs requesting a $5 minimum. Absolutely illegal under CC rules as the CC companies expect the merchant to sell the item(s) at a loss and smile while doing it. But you sell enough stuff at a loss and the business becomes a loss.

One solution? Merchants have a minimum purchase amount for all customers. Period. Must buy $5 or buy nothing. Screw that idea. I want the Sunday paper and am willing to pay cold hard cash for the paper. I dont't want to have to buy $4 of crap to go with the paper.

Another solution? Raise the minimum selling price on every item in the store. Good for the merchant, bad for the consumers.

I can't come up with a good solution, but I can heartily agree with 7-11 about the stupid interchange fees.

@HiPwr: Your argument is actually for the merchants you are complaining about. The merchants are forces to do just what you describe.

The credit card companies, are companies and must do business. I wont call it making a profit, or bring in money, it is doing business. The fee is big enough so that the merchant wont stop taking cards.

So Consumers I ask you, would you rather pay higher fees and interest or higher prices at the register?

Heck I purchase dollar coins from the mint and do all of my petty spending with those.