Sales transactions; discounts inducing payment by cash, check, or similar means; options; disclosure; surcharges; repealing provision prohibiting surcharge on use of credit and debit card. Effective date.
SB 677 revises Oklahoma law governing discounts and surcharges in sales transactions. It expands the rule allowing sellers to offer discounts for payment by cash, check, debit card, or similar means, clarifies that there is no cap on the size of a discount, and requires disclosure to the Administrator of Consumer Affairs Credit when a discount is offered outside the applicable regulations. The bill also updates definitions and language related to credit cards, sellers, and surcharges.
The bill further authorizes sellers to impose a surcharge on customers who pay with a credit card or debit card, but only if the seller provides clear notice at the point of entry and sale for in-person transactions, on the homepage and point-of-sale webpage for online transactions, or verbally for phone transactions. Any surcharge is capped at the lesser of 2% of the transaction or the actual processing cost. The bill also preserves a separate rule allowing certain money transmitters to charge different prices based on the mode of transmission, so long as card-based payments are not priced higher than cash or similar means within the same channel. It also allows certain private educational institutions, municipalities, and related public trusts to charge limited service fees tied to processing and online transaction costs.
In practical terms, SB 677 repeals the existing statutory provision that had prohibited surcharges on credit and debit card use and replaces it with a regulated surcharge framework. It amends 14A O.S. 2021, Section 2-211, repeals Section 2-417, and takes effect November 1, 2025. The bill affects retailers, service providers, lease transactions, online sellers, money transmitters, and specified educational and municipal entities.
The overall sentiment reflected in the voting history is strongly favorable. The bill passed both chambers with overwhelming support, including unanimous or near-unanimous committee and floor votes, indicating broad agreement on the policy change. The lack of committee transcript material limits insight into debate, but the vote totals suggest the measure was viewed as a straightforward modernization of payment rules rather than a controversial overhaul.
The main point of contention is the shift from a categorical ban on card surcharges to a permitted surcharge regime, which may raise concerns for consumers about added costs and transparency. Supporters likely viewed the bill as giving businesses flexibility to recover processing expenses and to offer discounts for lower-cost payment methods, while critics would be most concerned about the burden on card users and whether the notice and 2% cap are sufficient consumer protections.
SB 677 changes Oklahoma’s sales-transaction statutes by replacing the prior prohibition on credit and debit card surcharges with a regulated surcharge system, while also clarifying and expanding the legality of cash/check/debit discounts. It amends Title 14A, Section 2-211, repeals Section 2-417, updates definitions of credit card, seller, and surcharge, and creates disclosure and cap requirements that sellers must follow. The bill also preserves limited fee authority for certain private schools, municipalities, and public trusts, and it applies to in-person, online, and telephone transactions.
The bill appears to have enjoyed broad bipartisan support and little visible opposition in the recorded votes. It passed the Senate and House by large margins, with several unanimous or near-unanimous votes in committee and on the floor. That voting pattern suggests the measure was generally viewed as a practical update to payment-processing rules, with lawmakers largely comfortable with allowing surcharges so long as notice and limits are imposed.
The central controversy is whether businesses should be allowed to pass card-processing costs to consumers through surcharges. Opponents of surcharging would likely argue that it adds hidden or unexpected costs and could disadvantage consumers who rely on credit or debit cards, while supporters would argue that the bill simply aligns prices more closely with payment costs and preserves flexibility for merchants. The bill’s notice requirements and 2% cap are the main safeguards, and any debate would likely focus on whether those protections are adequate and whether the repeal of the prior ban is appropriate.