Credit sales; requiring certain actions from sellers when imposing a surcharge on certain transactions. Effective date.
SB 351 amends Oklahoma’s credit sales laws to allow sellers to pass along credit card or debit card processing costs to customers through a surcharge, or to offer discounts for payment by cash, check, or similar means. The bill updates Sections 2-211 and 2-417 of Title 14A to clarify that such discounts are not credit service charges if properly disclosed, and it removes the prior blanket prohibition on surcharges for card use. It also specifies that any surcharge or passed-through fee must be shown as a separate line item on the receipt and may not exceed the seller’s actual costs for bank processing, financial transaction fees, secure transaction costs, portal fees, and related bandwidth expenses.
The bill also revises definitions of “debit card” and “surcharge,” and preserves special fee rules for certain entities, including private educational institutions, private schools, municipalities, and municipal public trusts. Those entities may charge a service fee for online or in-person transactions, but only to offset the same categories of transaction-related costs identified in the bill. The act is set to take effect November 1, 2025.
SB 351 changes the legal framework governing card-payment pricing in Oklahoma by authorizing surcharges and fee pass-throughs that were previously restricted, while imposing disclosure and cap requirements tied to actual processing-related costs. It affects sellers generally, as well as money transmitters and certain public or educational entities that are expressly permitted to charge service fees under the amended provisions. The bill updates statutory language in 14A O.S. 2021, Sections 2-211 and 2-417, and would alter how merchants, schools, municipalities, and related public trusts structure payment pricing and receipts.
The available voting history suggests broad support for the measure. The Senate committee advanced the bill unanimously, the full Senate passed it overwhelmingly, and the House committee also approved it, though by a narrower margin. No committee transcripts were provided, so there is no recorded debate to indicate organized opposition or detailed concerns in the materials supplied.
The main policy issue is whether sellers should be allowed to shift card-processing costs to consumers through surcharges, and if so, how tightly those charges should be limited. Support appears to center on allowing merchants to recover actual transaction costs and on clarifying permissible pricing practices, while any concern would likely focus on consumer transparency, the risk of hidden fees, and whether the listed cost categories are sufficiently narrow. A secondary point of distinction is the bill’s special treatment of private schools, municipalities, and municipal public trusts, which are expressly allowed to charge service fees under the amended language.