Hacker News Reader

Comment by 9nGQluzmnq3M | Hacker News Reader

Two ACCC decisions that the rest of the world would do well to copy: merchants are allowed to pass on credit card fees to the customer, but the fee charged has to be reasonably in line with the actual cost:

https://www.accc.gov.au/business/pricing-surcharging/payment...

The first part had Visa/MC howling (because they're normally insistent that merchants hide their fee) and the second pissed off airlines, hotels etc that loved to tack on high fixed charges as payment fees, but in both cases consumers are obviously the winners.

View on HN

Nitpick: these great decisions on credit card fees were actually made by the Reserve Bank of Australia - Australia's central bank - not the ACCC. The ACCC is responsible for enforcing these decisions. See your link above and https://rba.gov.au/payments-and-infrastructure/credit-cards/...

Also car advertisements have to show the actual drive away price including all extra fees and taxes. If you advertise anything on TV, you can't get away with putting small print in the commercial that changes what a customer would be getting for the price displayed, e.g. unlimited internet. You can't reasonably expect a customer to pause the tv, get off the couch and get up close to be able to read the small print, only to discover that speeds would be capped after a certain amount of usage.

Drip pricing is very similar and also illegal: the dark pattern of letting someone get all the way through a checkout process and then springing an extra expected (by the merchant, not the consumer) fee or charge on them in the hope that the sunk cost fallacy wins the day.

https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/online-shopping/drip-prici...

Unrelated to your overall point, that isn't necessarily fallacious reasoning. If most checkout processes in a niche are excessively long (free background check services come to mind) then the customer is choosing to spend extra money now in order to avoid spending extra time with an alternative.

In this case the sunk cost is time, the extra cost is money. So I think it kind of applies. They've just gone with a dual-currency system like predatory mobile games ;)

But I see your point, they're not necessarily overvaluing the time they've already spent, they're trying to avoid doing it all over again.

> Two ACCC decisions that the rest of the world would do well to copy: merchants are allowed to pass on credit card fees to the customer, but the fee charged has to be reasonably in line with the actual cost:

Isn't this already the case, at least in the US? https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/307936

Reply on news.ycombinator.com