Credit cards; increasing surcharge limit. Effective date.
SB2077 amends Oklahoma’s credit card surcharge law to increase the maximum surcharge a seller may impose on a customer who chooses to pay by credit card. Under current law, a surcharge is capped at 2% of the transaction or the actual processing cost, whichever is less; the bill raises that cap to 4% or the actual processing cost, whichever is less. The bill keeps the existing notice requirements for in-person, online, and phone transactions, and it continues to prohibit surcharges unless the seller complies with the statute’s disclosure rules.
The bill also preserves and clarifies related provisions governing discounts for cash, check, debit card, or similar payments, stating that such discounts are not credit service charges if properly disclosed and that there is no limit on the size of a discount. It retains special rules for money transmitters and continues to define key terms such as “credit card,” “seller,” and “surcharge.” In addition, the bill expressly allows certain entities—private educational institutions, private schools, municipalities, and municipal public trusts—to charge service fees limited to processing, security, portal, and bandwidth-related costs.
If enacted, SB2077 would amend 14A O.S. Section 2-211 to expand the amount businesses and certain other entities may add as a credit card surcharge, increasing the statutory ceiling from 2% to 4% of the transaction, subject to the actual processing cost. The bill would affect retailers, service providers, landlords or lessors in covered transactions, and other sellers doing business in Oklahoma that accept credit cards, while leaving the existing disclosure framework in place. It would also continue to regulate discounts for non-credit-card payment methods and maintain the special service-fee authority for specified educational and municipal entities.
The available legislative record shows little recorded debate or formal voting history, so there is no strong evidence of broad support or opposition in the materials provided. The bill’s caption and text suggest a policy focus on allowing merchants to recover higher card-processing costs, which typically appeals to business interests. At the same time, the higher surcharge cap may be viewed negatively by consumer advocates or card users because it can increase the cost of credit card purchases.
The main point of contention is the increase in the allowable surcharge cap from 2% to 4%, which shifts more transaction cost to consumers who choose to pay by credit card. Businesses and payment processors may support the change as a way to offset rising processing fees, while consumer-oriented stakeholders may object that it makes card use more expensive and could discourage credit card payments. A secondary issue is the bill’s continued allowance for special service fees by private schools, municipalities, and municipal public trusts, though the text limits those fees to specific administrative and transaction-related costs.