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
STATEMENTS ALLEGING MAFIA INVOLVEMENT IN A STRIP CLUB WERE NOT “OF AND CONCERNING” INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS WHO PROVIDED FOOD, BEVERAGE AND TALENT SERVICES TO THE CLUB.
ALTHOUGH RPAPL 1320-a, ENACTED WHILE THIS APPEAL WAS PENDING, HAS CHANGED THINGS, THE DEFENDANTS’ LACK-OF-STANDING DEFENSE WAS WAIVED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT RAISED IN THEIR ANSWERS OR PRE-ANSWER MOTIONS; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (CT APP).
ALTHOUGH THE BUILDING IS OWNED BY A NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION WHICH RAISES FUNDS FOR HEALTHCARE SERVICES, THE BUILDING IS LEASED TO A FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION WHICH PROVIDES DIALYSIS; THE LEASED BUILDING, THEREFORE IS NOT EXEMPT FROM PROPERTY TAX PURSUANT TO RPTL 420-A (CT APP).
DURING MARCH AND APRIL 2020 CLAIMANT, WHO WORKED IN RETAIL IN CLOSE CONTACT WITH THE PUBLIC, WAS EXEMPT FROM THE EMERGENCY WORK RESTRICTIONS; CLAIMANT CONTRACTED COVID, SUFFERED A STROKE AND WAS HOSPITALIZED FOR FOUR MONTHS; HIS CLAIM CONSTITUTED A “COMPENSABLE ACCIDENT;” CLAIMANT DEMONSTRATED AN EXTRAORDINARY RISK OF EXPOSURE DUE TO FREQUENT CONTACT WITH THE PUBLIC “IN AN AREA WHERE COVID WAS PREVALENT” (CT APP). ​
HERE THE OFFICE OF COURT ADMINISTRATION’S (OCA’S) BLANKET ASSERTION OF THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE RE: THE FOIL REQUEST FOR COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN OCA AND JUDGES WAS REJECTED; ALTHOUGH UPON REMAND THE PRIVILEGE MAY BE SHOWN TO APPLY TO INIDVIDUAL, IDENTIFIED DOCUMENTS, THE OCA DID NOT ESTABLISH AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP WITH ALL THE JUDGES SUCH THAT A BLANKET ASSERTION OF THE PRIVILEGE WAS APPROPRIATE (CT APP).
Analytical Criteria for Determining Whether a Defect Is Trivial Explained
Hospital Did Not Owe Intoxicated Patient a Duty to Prevent Him from Leaving Hospital
Medical Corporation Not Responsible for Unauthorized Disclosure of Medical Information by Employee Acting Outside the Scope of Employment

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...