Mastercard sued for $19B in Britain's biggest damages claim

Re:Mastercard sued for $19B in Britain's biggest damages claim by Iv on Friday September 09, 2016 @01:12PM (#12464155)

I don't want rewards. I want the transaction being done as low as possible.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Mastercard sued for $19B in Britain's biggest damages claim by tracker1 on Friday September 09, 2016 @02:49PM (#12465038)

But that won't lower prices... as it stands, even if rewards programs were eliminated today, and fees were capped as in europe, the prices of goods would not go down.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Mastercard sued for $19B in Britain's biggest damages claim by grahamburger on Friday September 09, 2016 @03:51PM (#12465536)

I'll bet they would. Especially online.

Online retailers (esp small ones) are paying ~2.5-3% in credit card fees, and compete heavily on price. I run a small online store - if my credit card fees suddenly dropped by 2% the first thing I would do is drop all my prices accordingly.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Mastercard sued for $19B in Britain's biggest damages claim by tracker1 on Friday September 09, 2016 @04:17PM (#12465713)

The vast majority of pricing I see online is $##.99, not $##.74, etc...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Mastercard sued for $19B in Britain's biggest damages claim by usrusr on Friday September 09, 2016 @06:36PM (#12466528)

Rounding to stupid numbers (.99) works just like rounding to reasonable numbers: there are some inputs where a sub-granularity change would push the result over the threshold and others where it would not.

But your observation gave me an entirely unrelated idea: could a merchant, online or not, use deliberately random "##.74 instead of ##.99" prices to give the impression of really tight margins, even when they are actually wide?

[ Parent | on HN ]