Awesomeness, we need some stickers about the asking for photo ID as well.

At what point are the words 'fraud' and 'theft' acceptable then? I agree that vandalism isn't the way, but the retailers seem to get away with this crap any other way people try to deal with it.

I don't know... I think it IS fraud and theft. I went to a Dairy Queen once here in Davenport, IA and after getting my family and me some treats, I went to go pay with my credit card. He told me that he could take it as payment, but there's be a $2.00 fee to do so. I told he he was wrong and that I thought that was against the credit card agreement. He then pointed to a hand written sign taped to another register that mention the fee. I was pissed. I had to scrounge around my car to find enough money to pay the bastard because I refused to pay the $2.00 fee on principle and he wouldn't waive it.

my local subway dinged me with a fee last month. I wanted a $5 footlong but ended up paying $5.25 because I didn't have cash. then again, i've found some change on the ground since then and i've probably broken even.

still. those fees are bs.

@Fishy007: It's not fraud because because there is no deception. It's not stealing because there is no theft, anyone who pays does so willfully and fully informed about the extra fee.

It's too bad there isn't a word for greedy-douchebagery. Which is what is really happening.

Yeah...I can see somebody being sued for slander/ libel. However, if the company that initiates the suit does require minimum purchases and the like I guess it wouldn't be slander/ libel. Especially if they have little notices on their cash registers and the like.

@Lucky225: After having my wallet stolen, I always write "Please see I.D." on the back of all of my credit cards. Only about 1 in 10 people ask me for it though.

my old roommate is banned for life from a bar because he started spazzing out trying to explain this to them.

I think the stickers are a great idea. It might not be fraud, but these fees are a breach of contract that are directly harming the third-party beneficiaries of the contract--i.e., us.
I know from personal experience that a single complaint doesn't seem to do anythuing, but if they started to get a bunch...

@GMFish: I suppose technically it'd be breach of contract, which isn't nearly as dramatic in sound.

@zombies.like.lattés.too: A bar I go to requires nothing less than $10.00. I then have to buy 4 extra shots in addition to my beer to get over the $10. (Shots are 2 for 1 and we like to bar hop, so I usually only want 1 drink per place) Okay, I'm really not all that upset, everyone always needs to take more shots.

@danger the pirate (silver star edition): I am sure they have no clue who he is by now, unless it's a townie bar... But Bars and small restaurant seem to do that a lot... Bars probably shouldn't be, I can sort of see why small restaurants do...

I agree - I LOVE the motivation and the idea, but the terms "fraud" and "theft" just don't apply. "Theft" applies when property is taken against its owner's will; here, the purchasers have a choice about buying up to the minimum. There's no theft when there is consent (in the average circumstance; this is not "theft by trick" etc.). Fraud has differing and sometimes complicated definitions; but it always involves the concealment of a material fact. I don't see "fraud" here.

Don't get me wrong, I am as anti-minimums as they come and I have stopped patronizing many stores over them. I love the idea of calling out merchants who apply them, and I agree it's a violation of the card issuer's terms. But, it's not "fraud" or "theft".

@osiris73: They actually shouldn't be accepting the card at all. Card issuer rules state that this is NOT a valid card as it is not signed. *unless you managed to squish your signature and that on the line that is*

Either way your statement is a violation of most if not all issuer rules which prohibit the asking of identification in conjunction with the use of a card.

@osiris73: A hand written sign doesn't override an agreement that is entered into. I would have asked for piece of paper, and hand written an opposite sign.

@osiris73: So, you were told about the charge and agreed to pay it?

This word "fraud" does not mean what you think it means. It does not mean "Something happened and I agreed to it with full disclosure of the facts, but I was really annoyed".

Does this mean I have to not like that IKEA gives me 3% back in store credit if I use a debit card? Because technically that's a sort of kinda maybe penalty against those who use credit cards there.

We paid for our kitchen remodel using the debit card and shopped free at IKEA for some time afterward.

If you're upset about a credit card minimum, why not just report it to Visa or whatever other companies the business is using.

...Because there are thousands of tiny businesses that accept credit cards but charge a fee, (including the Loudoun County, VA Treasurer's Office !!!).

They don't care enough about the breach of the ageement enough to go after them, there's little to no penalties in place to censure or punish the offenders other than to yank their card readers, and that's just not worth it to the bank.

Knowing this, what little "official" recourse a consumer has in this situation, maybe it's not such a bad idea to alert customers on the way in that there will be a fee or a minimum purchase required. Of course no business owner would put such a sign on the door, that would drive customers away. But that's kind of the goal of this group, I'd imagine. The language is harsh, but the message is clear. Steer clear of this place with your credit card if you can avoid it.

@kamel5547:

x2, I'm upset about them REQUIRING ID, not 'not asking for it', they're not supposed to. And YOU are supposed to sign your card in order for the card to be valid.

i hope i dont get slammed for this
out in SoCal the ARCO gas stations only let you make a debit transaction, not a credit one. And then they charge you a .45 cent handling fee for the privilege.

they offer a solution, but it requires setting up an ARCO debit card, and giving them access to your bank information.

are merchants allowed to charge you an ATM fee, as ARCO is the only place that i have ever seen it happen.

I've pulled aside a couple of store managers and let them know that they were breaking their agreements. They were honestly surprised and didn't know. They figured since other people were doing it, it must be fine.

You've gotta understand where they're coming from. Those transaction fees are killer for places that sell small items.

@floraposte: Except that the customer should not have standing to enforce the merchant's breach of a contract with a third party, no? If you break your contract with your cell phone provider, I can't collect the ETF! Bad example, but...

@bunnymare: He didn't pay the charge, he scrounged up the cash to pay the cost of his trip to Dairy Queen. The charge was to pay with a credit card.

I kind of side with the people with the stickers. As long as you place it on glass, it's probably easily removed, with no damage.

As for alerting Visa, that is well and good, but the PUBLIC needs to know. If only the average Consumerist reader ruffles up their bristles to Visa, it's a drop in the bucket. But when the public on a whole does it.... People tend to talk more when they know they have been "wronged" by a big corporation. Look at all those emails that went/go around because some stupid chain outlet tries charging for water during the confusion of 9/11 or something similar. We all hate being jerked around.

@bunnymare:

No, but the implication of signs saying "minimum purchase 4X" is close to fraud in that they imply that the merchant is empowered in their contractual relationship with the credit card company to charge such a fee, and that is simply patemntly false. The point is, the consumer does not have "full disclosure" of the facts, until the minimum purchase jackasses add a phrase to those signs that says, "which is a willful breach of the merchant agreement." Come to think of it, these stickers would do.

@treimel:

should say, "minimum purchase $X"

@GMFish: Just because you make a hand-written sign proclaiming something to be true doesn't mean it is. The sign clearly constitutes fraud as it was clearly put there "for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage."
[dictionary.reference.com]
In this case, the company is trying to get the most out of every transaction before the merchant service takes its cut of the transaction.

A little sign also doesn't supercede a formal contractual agreement between a company and its merchant service.

@Lucky225:
I only ask to see ID when I suspect credit card fraud, and considering I get four or five a week, I feel okay with this. The reason I ask for ID, is because the fraudsters seem to put all their photoshopping resources into the credit cards, and their IDs always look like a five year old made them. It justifies my calling in for authorization. I just loathe people who won't sign their credit cards, when it clearly states that the card is not valid unless it is signed.

Kudos to them. Not everyone knows it's illegal, and the businesses are committing fraud and theft - they are taking people's extra money when they are not allowed to by having extra charges to purchase small amounts of stuff on a credit/debit card. I know not allowing those small purchases is illegal, but I was under the impression that having an extra charge wasn't. Guess not.

@GMFish: You're nitpicking. Telling me the machine won't charge less then "5 bucks" or whatever you've said the min. order is would be lying.

This is the standard response at every liquor store around Detroit.

I fully support these stickers. If stores don't want to pay credit card fees, stop taking credit cards and put a fee heavy ATM in your store. Again, lots of shops around Detroit are like this. Enough that if I'm south of 8 mile and not right along Woodward, I assume I have to use cash.

Stop trying to have your cake and eat it too, merchants. You want to take cc purchases? Pay the fees. You don't want to pay the fees, don't take cc's.

@floraposte: "I suppose technically it'd be breach of contract, which isn't nearly as dramatic in sound"

Which is why "greedy-douchebagery" fits so perfectly. :-)

Alerting the credit card company isn't going to be effective -- particularly these days where staffing is barely sufficient to keep up with neccessary business. If a store pulls this nonsense about minimium purchases, I walk away. There's a store a block from my house where I shopped every week for years. One time I was buying a bottle of $12 wine and the clerk said I needed a $15 purchase to use a credit card. He even said the old nonsense that it's a bank rule. So I said loudly enough for everyone in line to hear that it's not a bank rule -- your owner is trying to save a few cents. Then I walked out never to return and that was 6 years ago.

It's not slander if it's true.

We were at Disney in California this year, and they asked for ID for every CC transaction. I was with my family, and didn't want to make a fuss, but someone should set them straight.
My local supermarket and CVS don't even need a signature for under $25. But a $4 Mickey Mouse drink needs ID.

@delta_hedging:
Carls Jr in SoCal charges you $1 for using ATM but nothing if you use credit card.

@bunnymare: But we don't have standing to enforce it. We just have the ability to report it to the other party or opt out of the transaction. Or to put signs about it on the front of the store, I guess.

@bunnymare:

No, you absolutely have standing as a third-party beneficiary of the contract. This is actually a classic example of a bilateral contract that is in place primarily to benefit third-parties, i.e., consumers. That's why there can be class actions with regard to merchants relating to the credit card agreements, even though there is no privity of contract between the cardholders and the offending merchants.

@kaceetheconsumer: More power to you for taking advantage of it, then. My objection is to merchants who have agreed to a contract and don't honor it, not to merchants who find legally acceptable ways to encourage users to pay in the desired way.

@Hoss: exactly. CCs aren't going to do crap; the stickers are highly effective.

@floraposte: That's what I said....the customers don't have standing to enforce. I think you and I are in full agreement...

@italianscallion33: Wait, illegal? It's just breaking an agreement between two private parties (Ie, the credit card co and the merchant). No one's breaking laws here. Wait, except the people vandalizing with stickers.

@Lucky225: Well when Joe Blow tries to buy a TV with Mary Smith's credit card she would probably disagree with you.

@FooSchnickens: "The sign clearly constitutes fraud"

In my state the elements of actionable fraud are:

(1) that the charged party made a material representation;

(2) that it was false;

(3) that when he or she made it he or she knew it was false, or made it recklessly, without any knowledge of its truth and as a positive assertion;

(4) that he or she made it with the intention that it should be acted upon by the other party;

(5) that the other party acted in reliance upon it; and

(6) that the other party thereby suffered injury. [ Novi v. Robert Adell Children's Funded Trust, 473 Mich. 242, 253 n. 8, 701 N.W.2d 144 (2005).]

In this instance there is no false representation. The statement made by the retailer that there is an additional charge is true. There is an additional charge.

Now certainly that additional charge is a breach of contract with the credit card company (not with the customer), but merely breaching a contract does necessarily rise to the level of fraud.

@zombies.like.lattés.too: Call your card issuer and request a .25 chargeback, should cost them a good $20.25!

@treimel: Hmm, that's an interesting point about the implication of empowerment, I'm going to have to think about that more. I guess I wouldn't object if the vandal's signs were changed to say:

"This is sort of like fraud" rather than "This is fraud". I like the "douchbaggery" suggestion better though...

@osiris73: I used to work at a restaurant and would straight up refuse to accept cards that weren't signed or said "See ID" on them. They aren't valid.

Relating to credit card issues:

When down on Long Island, I saw a lot of gas stations with a "Cash" price and a "Credit" price. Isn't it illegal to charge more for a "Credit" transaction? Or are they just spinning it as a discount for "Cash" purchases?

@JaideepG2002: its very much a townie bar and hes a very recognizable dbag.

MerchantFraud.org is banned by my Websense filter at work. Websense sucks.

"This Websense category is filtered: Potentially Damaging Content. Sites in this category may pose a security threat to network resources or private information, and are blocked by your organization."

@DeeJayQueue: Actually, IIRC, government agencies CAN charge a fee. I know the NJ MVC does.

From [consumerist.com] :

Convenience fees are allowable surcharges for specific types of payments, generally to schools and government entities (like taxes or fines).