🇦🇺Australia

Nicht durchgereichte Kartengebühren an Tankkunden

3 verified sources

Definition

The RBA shows that average merchant costs are less than 0.5% for Eftpos, 0.5–1% for Visa/Mastercard debit and 1–1.5% for Visa/Mastercard credit.[2][5] The ACCC confirms merchants may surcharge up to their cost of acceptance, but not more.[7] In practice, many petrol stations either surcharge nothing or use a single flat rate below true credit‑card cost, meaning they absorb the gap between their acquirer fees and any surcharge collected. On a forecourt where 70–90% of volume is paid by card, this unrecovered 0.5–1.0 percentage points on higher‑cost cards is a direct revenue leakage from fuel margin.

Key Findings

  • Financial Impact: Logic estimate: For a single site with AUD 5m annual card turnover and 40% on higher‑cost credit cards, under‑recovering 0.75% (mid‑point between 1% and 1.5% vs a 0.25% flat surcharge) on that portion bleeds about AUD 15,000 per year per site.
  • Frequency: Ongoing on every credit‑card fuel transaction where surcharge is set below actual cost of acceptance or not applied at all.
  • Root Cause: Lack of granular visibility of per‑scheme cost of acceptance from acquirer statements; manual, one‑off setting of a single surcharge rate at POS; fear of breaching excessive‑surcharge rules leading operators to set conservative or zero surcharges.

Why This Matters

The Pitch: Retail fuel players in Australia 🇦🇺 routinely forgo 0.5–1.5% of card turnover by not passing on eligible surcharges. Automation of surcharge calculation and application at POS for each card type recovers this lost margin without breaching RBA/ACCC caps.

Affected Stakeholders

Service station owners, CFO/finance managers of fuel retail chains, Site managers, Payment/treasury managers

Deep Analysis (Premium)

Financial Impact

Financial data and detailed analysis available with full access. Unlock to see exact figures, evidence sources, and actionable insights.

Unlock to reveal

Current Workarounds

Financial data and detailed analysis available with full access. Unlock to see exact figures, evidence sources, and actionable insights.

Unlock to reveal

Get Solutions for This Problem

Full report with actionable solutions

$99$39
  • Solutions for this specific pain
  • Solutions for all 15 industry pains
  • Where to find first clients
  • Pricing & launch costs
Get Solutions Report

Methodology & Sources

Data collected via OSINT from regulatory filings, industry audits, and verified case studies.

Evidence Sources:

Related Business Risks

Versteckte Gebühren in Flotten- und Tankkartenabrechnung

Hard + logic: A fleet or fuel card programme with AUD 1m of annual card‑paid invoices that are consistently settled via credit card at 1.3% incurs about AUD 13,000 in payment surcharges alone.[3] If 2% of balances incur late‑payment charges at 5.82% plus AUD 60 per instance, that can add another AUD 2,000–5,000 annually. Heavy users of provider reconciliation services at AUD 25 per hour, 10 hours per month, incur about AUD 3,000 per year. Total easily exceeds AUD 20,000 per year for a mid‑size operation.

Überhöhte Händlergebühren durch suboptimale Kartenakzeptanz

Logic estimate: A site with AUD 5m annual card sales paying 1.3% blended fees vs an optimised 0.8% incurs an avoidable cost of about AUD 25,000 per year per site.

Bußgelder wegen überhöhter Kreditkartenzuschläge an Zapfsäulen

Logic estimate: For a chain with 20 sites investigated for excessive surcharges of 0.5 percentage points above cost on AUD 10m in card sales over several years, forced refunds could reach AUD 50,000, with additional legal/compliance costs of AUD 50,000–100,000 and potential ACCC penalties in the low six‑figure range.

Kundenfrust und Umsatzverlust durch intransparente Benzin-Kreditkartenzuschläge

Logic estimate: If a competitive suburban station loses even 1% of fuel volume on AUD 5m annual sales due to surcharge‑driven defection, that is a revenue impact of AUD 50,000 per year. With typical fuel gross margins of 3–5 cents per litre, this equates to roughly AUD 10,000–20,000 of lost gross profit annually per site, plus extra cash‑handling costs on diverted payment methods.

Bußgelder wegen Verstoß gegen Jugendschutz und Alkohollizenzauflagen

Quantified (logic-based): AUD 1,000–AUD 10,000 statutory fine per detected under‑age sale incident, plus AUD 5,000–AUD 30,000 lost gross profit for a 3–14 day liquor‑licence suspension at a busy fuel‑convenience site; cumulative risk of AUD 10,000–AUD 40,000 per site per year when factoring detection probability and repeat‑offence escalation.

Missbrauch durch unzureichende Altersprüfung bei Online‑Bestellungen und Lieferung

Quantified (logic-based): For a site doing 20 online/delivery alcohol orders per day (~7,300 per year), if 1% lead to disputes or compliance issues due to poor age verification (73 orders) with an average loss of AUD 70 per order in refunds, chargebacks, and admin time, the direct annual loss is ~AUD 5,100. Adding the expected value of at least one regulatory penalty event every 2–3 years at AUD 5,000–AUD 10,000 pushes the effective annualised risk to ~AUD 5,000–AUD 20,000 per site.

Request Deep Analysis

🇦🇺 Be first to access this market's intelligence