You are here: / / SELLERS MUST POST THE TOTAL PRICE CHARGED TO CUSTOMERS WHO PAY WITH CREDIT...

SELLERS MUST POST THE TOTAL PRICE CHARGED TO CUSTOMERS WHO PAY WITH CREDIT CARDS, WHICH CAN BE HIGHER THAN THAT CHARGED TO CUSTOMERS WHO PAY CASH (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, over a concurring opinion, a partial dissent and a dissent, determined that General Business Law 518 requires businesses to post the total price charged to customers using credit cards, which can be higher than that charged to customers who pay cash:

Plaintiffs are five merchants who allege that they wish to engage in differential pricing and to inform customers of their practice by stating the cash price in dollars and cents and the credit card price as a percentage or dollars-and-cents amount, reflecting only the additional charge for credit card purchases and not the total dollars-and-cents price for such purchases. The point is best illustrated by examples. Plaintiffs wish to tell their customers, for example, that “a haircut costs $10.00, and if you pay with a credit card you will pay 3% extra” or “a haircut costs $10.00, and if you pay with a credit card you will pay an additional 30 cents.” … This practice, “listing one price and a separate surcharge amount,” has been described as “a single-sticker regime” … or a “single-sticker-price scheme” … , and we refer to it similarly. The merchants have challenged GBL § 518 as a violation of their First Amendment rights, to the extent that it allows them to charge credit card users higher prices but prohibits them from describing the price difference as they wish. * * *

… [W]e conclude that a merchant complies with GBL § 518 if and only if the merchant posts the total dollars-and-cents price charged to credit card users. In that circumstance, consumers see the highest possible price they must pay for credit card use and the legislative concerns about luring or misleading customers by use of a low price available only for cash purchases are alleviated. To be clear, plaintiffs’ proposed single-sticker pricing scheme — which does not express the total dollars-and-cents credit card price and instead requires consumers to engage in an arithmetical calculation, in order to figure it out — is prohibited by the statute. Expressions Hair Design v Schneiderman, 2018 NY Slip Op 07037, CtApp 10-23-18

CONSUMER LAW (SELLERS MUST POST THE TOTAL PRICE CHARGED TO CUSTOMERS WHO PAY WITH CREDIT CARDS, WHICH CAN BE HIGHER THAN THAT CHARGED TO CUSTOMERS WHO PAY CASH (CT APP))/CREDIT CARDS  (SELLERS MUST POST THE TOTAL PRICE CHARGED TO CUSTOMERS WHO PAY WITH CREDIT CARDS, WHICH CAN BE HIGHER THAN THAT CHARGED TO CUSTOMERS WHO PAY CASH (CT APP))/GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 518 (SELLERS MUST POST THE TOTAL PRICE CHARGED TO CUSTOMERS WHO PAY WITH CREDIT CARDS, WHICH CAN BE HIGHER THAN THAT CHARGED TO CUSTOMERS WHO PAY CASH (CT APP))

You might also like
Reversal Due to Ineffective Assistance Affirmed Over Forceful Dissent
IN LAWSUITS AGAINST THE GOLF-COURSE OWNERS, A GOLFER COMPETING IN A TOURNAMENT ASSUMED THE RISK OF BEING STRUCK BY A GOLF BALL WHILE RIDIING IN A GOLF CART ON THE COURSE, BUT A GOLFER DRIVING A GOLF CART TO HER CAR IN THE COURSE PARKING LOT DID NOT ASSUME THE RISK OF A COLLISION WITH A CAR EXITING THE PARKING LOT (CT APP).
UNDER THE TERMS OF THE SURRENDER AGREEMENT THE TENANT OWED THE LANDLORD AN ADDITIONAL $175,000; UPON DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT, THE PLAINTIFF SUED FOR THE CONTRACTUAL LIQUIDATED DAMAGES OF OVER $1,000,000; THE JUDGMENT FOR $175,000 WAS UPHELD; THE LIQUIDATED DAMAGES OF OVER $1,000,000 VIOLATED THE PUBLIC POLICY AGAINST NON-STATUTORY PENALTIES AND FORFEITURES (CT APP).
EVEN THOUGH DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A JURY TRIAL BECAUSE THE CHARGES WERE B MISDEMEANORS, THE FACT THAT DEPORTATION WAS A POTENTIAL PENALTY ENTITLED DEFENDANT TO A JURY TRIAL PURSUANT TO THE SIXTH AMENDMENT (CT APP).
DEFENDANT MAY WAIVE RIGHT TO BE PRESENT FOR SENTENCING ON A FELONY.
THE DENIAL OF AN AREA VARIANCE FOR A GARAGE WHICH WAS BELOW THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT BUT WAS FOUR FEET HIGHER THAN THE RESIDENCE WAS NOT “IRRATIONAL;” THIRD DEPARTMENT REVERSED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS (CT APP).
Retroactive Tax Credit Restrictions Violated Due Process
Closure of Railroad Crossing Did Not Constitute a Taking of Claimant’s Land

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

SELLERS STRUCTURED THEIR OFFER TO SELL PROPERTY WITH THE INTENT TO DEPRIVE PLAINTIFF... MISSING THE DEADLINES FOR APPLYING FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO THE COURT OF APPEALS...