Payment Capabilities
Last updated: August 12, 2026
Quick Answer
Surcharging means adding a fee to credit card transactions to recover part or all of your processing cost. Cash discounting means offering a lower price for non-card payments rather than adding a fee for card payments. Providers document both. The two work under different card-network rules — and those rules currently have conflicting documents.
All three providers researched — Square, Stripe, and Helcim — state that surcharging compliance is the merchant’s responsibility. Provider support for a surcharging feature does not mean surcharging is available for your business. ProcessorFit does not determine that.
Important: ProcessorFit does not determine whether surcharging is available for your business in your state or jurisdiction. Network rules, state requirements, and your specific situation all matter — and several of those currently have conflicting documentation. Consult appropriate professional advice for your situation.
Research reviewed: August 2026
Surcharging & Cash Discounting at a Glance
Credit only — debit is excluded
All three providers and both Visa documents agree: surcharges may only be applied to credit cards, not debit, prepaid, or ACH.
Surcharge and convenience fee are different
A surcharge applies to any payment on a channel. A convenience fee applies to a specific alternative channel. They sit under different network rules — and using the wrong one for your channel creates its own problem.
The ceiling is your cost, not the headline percentage
Visa and Mastercard limit surcharges to the merchant's own cost of acceptance — which may be below 3%. The 3% figure in provider documentation is a technical maximum, not the allowed ceiling for every merchant.
Network rules conflict — in writing
Visa has two current documents with different percentage caps and different state lists. Mastercard has announced a rule revision in the second half of the year — the year is not stated. Treat network-rule documents as evidence of what is documented, not final answers.
All three providers put compliance on the merchant
Square, Stripe, and Helcim each explicitly state that surcharging compliance is the merchant's responsibility. Enabling a provider's feature does not mean you may surcharge.
ProcessorFit Research
What ProcessorFit has established about each provider researched for this capability — at a glance. Full merchant-journey analysis with evidence follows below.
Three providers researched for this capability. Absence from this page does not establish that another provider lacks surcharging support — it means we have not yet located sufficient provider or card-network documentation to include them.
Square
Verify before applying5 findingsSquare documents a built-in surcharge feature in open beta for select products — and Square states compliance is the seller's responsibility, naming three jurisdictions where surcharging is not allowed.
Verify: Whether your Square products and channels are covered, and whether Square's state list matches the requirements where you operate.
Stripe
Verify before applying4 findingsStripe documents surcharging as a preview API feature with a 3% maximum — but the validation can be disabled, removing the technical limit entirely. Stripe states the merchant is fully responsible for any fines, penalties, or losses.
Verify: Preview API lifecycle requirements, refund proration obligations, and your independent assessment of where surcharging is available for your business.
Helcim
Verify before applying4 findingsHelcim's Fee Saver applies a surcharge in person and a convenience fee online — but each works under a different network rule. Helcim's toolkit disclaims accuracy and directs merchants to their own legal counsel.
Verify: Which Fee Saver mechanism applies to each of your channels, and whether your account meets the ACH eligibility requirement for online Fee Saver.
Signal and verify shown are the most action-relevant finding for each provider. Full evidence, sources, and dates appear in the provider sections below.
In this guide
ProcessorFit Research
Square documents a credit card surcharge feature for in-person POS and Invoices — currently in open beta — and Square states it is the seller's responsibility to verify compliance with local requirements.
Square's built-in surcharge feature is available on Square Point of Sale, Square Restaurant POS, Square Retail POS, and Square Invoices (web only). Square states the feature is in open beta. Square's support documentation contains two statements that sit in tension: one says the feature 'ensures compliance with card network regulations and state laws,' and a second says 'it is the seller's responsibility to ensure compliance with local requirements' and names Connecticut, Maine, and Puerto Rico as places where surcharging is not allowed. The second statement explicitly puts responsibility for local compliance on the seller. That means you should verify the requirements that apply where you operate rather than relying on the feature alone. Square's state list also differs from Visa's two current documents — see the network findings.
What to do next
Still unknown:
Does this cover your business?
Whether Square's online store, Virtual Terminal, or Appointments are on a roadmap for this feature or are excluded by design. Whether additional Square products beyond those listed will be included before or after general availability.
What to verify:
If your Square setup includes online store sales, Virtual Terminal transactions, or Appointments payments, you cannot confirm from Square's current documentation that the surcharging feature applies to those channels. Confirm channel coverage directly with Square before configuring surcharging.
How Square identifies debit versus credit at the point of sale, and the error rate or edge cases in that identification. Whether a card that is dual-branded (credit network + debit routing) is treated as debit or credit in Square's system.
What to verify:
Square states debit identification is automatic, but confirming this is the case for your card mix — particularly dual-network cards — before relying on the feature for compliance is prudent.
What fee ceiling and disclosure or signage requirements does Square document for its surcharging feature?
Square documents a 3% maximum rate for its credit card surcharge and states merchants must display customer-facing notice before checkout, with Square generating a disclosure statement to facilitate this.
What remains unknown: Whether Square enforces the 3% cap against the merchant's actual cost of acceptance (the applicable network rule) or treats 3% as the binding ceiling regardless of cost. Whether Square's generated signage satisfies the specific disclosure format requirements for every network and state where the merchant operates.
A 3% surcharge may exceed your actual cost of accepting Mastercard and Visa credit cards, which is the limit the network rules require. Square's documentation states a 3% cap, but the applicable ceiling for your business is the lesser of the network ceiling and your own cost of acceptance. Verify this comparison before configuring a rate.
Square's surcharging documentation contains two statements that sit in tension: one states the feature 'ensures compliance with card network regulations and state laws,' and a second states 'it is the seller's responsibility to ensure compliance with local requirements' and names Connecticut, Maine, and Puerto Rico as places where surcharging is not allowed.
What remains unknown: The basis for Square's three-jurisdiction list. Whether the compliance-assurance language refers to automatic technical enforcement (e.g., blocking the surcharge feature in those jurisdictions) or is marketing language that does not override the merchant-responsibility disclaimer. Whether Square's list is updated when state requirements change.
Square's responsibility language requires careful reading. One Square statement says the feature 'ensures compliance with card network regulations and state laws'; a separate statement places responsibility for local compliance on the seller. ProcessorFit does not determine which statement legally controls. Square's state list differs from both current Visa documents; treating any one of these as an authoritative legal determination of where surcharging is prohibited would require legal advice beyond what ProcessorFit can establish. Verify the requirements that apply where you operate.
Square documents a built-in credit card surcharge feature for Square Point of Sale, Square Restaurant POS, Square Retail POS, and Square Invoices (web only), currently described as open beta.
Square supporting surcharging does not mean you may surcharge — or that your configured surcharge will comply with network rules and applicable law.
Square documents what the feature does technically. Square's merchant-responsibility language is explicit: compliance is the seller's responsibility. Square does not validate your configured percentage against your actual cost of acceptance, so a surcharge that meets Square's 3% technical cap may still exceed what network rules permit for your specific rates. The basis for Square's state list is not established — it differs from both current Visa documents.
Question to ask before applying
"Which of my Square products and payment channels can apply a credit card surcharge today — specifically my online store, Virtual Terminal, and Appointments if I use them — and while the feature is in beta, what would change for me when it reaches general availability?"
ProcessorFit Research
Stripe documents credit card surcharging as a public preview API feature and states the merchant is fully responsible for any fines, penalties, or losses from non-compliance.
Stripe's surcharging capability requires the 2026-03-25.preview API version and preview-stage SDKs. Stripe states a 3% maximum, but that cap can be turned off by passing enforce_validation: disabled in your API code — after which Stripe no longer enforces that technical maximum. Stripe also requires showing the surcharge separately on receipts and handling refund amounts proportionally. Stripe states the merchant 'must ensure surcharging is permitted and within legal, regulatory, and network limits' and is 'fully responsible for any fines, penalties, or losses' from non-compliance. This is the clearest statement of merchant responsibility found across the researched providers.
What to do next
Still unknown:
Stripe documents a credit card surcharging capability requiring the 2026-03-25.preview API version and preview-stage SDKs, described as currently in preview.
What remains unknown: When the feature will reach general availability. Whether the API surface will change again before or on general availability. Whether preview-stage SDK requirements impose limitations on production usage.
Implementing Stripe's surcharging feature requires tracking a preview API version that has already changed once. Establish a monitoring process for the API version lifecycle before integrating, and plan for a potential integration update on general availability.
What fee ceiling does Stripe document for surcharging, and can the technical limit be disabled?
Stripe documents a 3% technical maximum for surcharging and states that validation can be disabled by passing enforce_validation: disabled, after which Stripe does not return a maximum amount and the technical restriction does not apply.
What remains unknown: What use cases Stripe intends the disable option for. Whether Stripe monitors or flags surcharges applied when validation is disabled. Whether disabling validation exposes the merchant to heightened compliance or contractual risk.
The disableable maximum is the most significant implementation detail in Stripe's surcharging documentation. When validation is disabled, Stripe imposes no technical restriction on the amount — the obligation to stay within what network rules and your cost of acceptance permit falls entirely on the merchant. Consider whether your implementation will ever disable this enforcement and, if so, what independent verification process you will use.
What refund handling and receipt disclosure requirements does Stripe document for its surcharging feature?
Refund proration and receipt disclosure are network requirements — Mastercard's Rules require them, and Stripe's documentation surfaces both requirements, extending proration to chargebacks.
What remains unknown: Whether the receipt display requirement is automatically enforced by Stripe's hosted invoices and receipts or must be implemented by the merchant in custom receipt flows. Whether Stripe has contractual mechanisms to recover network-assessed fines from merchants whose chargebacks reveal non-compliant surcharge disclosure.
Prorated refunds and separate receipt line items are network requirements, not Stripe implementation choices — they apply regardless of provider. Chargebacks trigger the same proration requirement as voluntary refunds. Verify whether your refund workflow, chargeback response process, and receipt generation meet both requirements before enabling the surcharge feature.
Stripe states that the merchant must ensure surcharging is permitted and within legal, regulatory, and network limits, and that the merchant is fully responsible for any fines, penalties, or losses resulting from non-compliance.
What remains unknown: Whether Stripe has any contractual right to charge back fines or penalties against the merchant's Stripe account in the event of a network or regulatory enforcement action related to surcharging.
Stripe's language is unambiguous — enabling the feature transfers no compliance responsibility to Stripe. Ensure independent verification of where surcharging is permitted for your business before enabling the feature, regardless of the 3% technical default.
Stripe enabling the integration transfers no compliance responsibility — and disabling the technical maximum means Stripe no longer enforces that restriction on the amount.
Stripe is explicit: enabling the feature does not mean the merchant may surcharge, or that the configured amount is within network or legal limits. The ability to turn off the cap is the most important point for merchants evaluating Stripe — a developer can set a surcharge above what Stripe would otherwise limit, and Stripe states it is not responsible for the consequences. The preview status means Stripe may change how the API works again before general availability.
Question to ask before applying
"What does implementing surcharging on the preview API require from my integration — including refund proration and receipt display — and what happens to my integration when the preview version changes or reaches general availability?"
ProcessorFit Research
Helcim's Fee Saver applies a surcharge in person and a convenience fee online for the same product — but each type works under a different network rule — and Helcim states disclosure obligations are the merchant's responsibility.
Helcim's Fee Saver splits by channel: for in-person transactions through the Helcim Smart Terminal, the customer sees the amount as a surcharge. For online payments through Invoices, Payment Pages, Payment Requests, or HelcimPay.js, the amount appears as a convenience fee. Helcim documents that no fee is added on debit or ACH transactions, and that online Fee Saver requires the merchant to be eligible for ACH payments. Helcim's own surcharging toolkit states the materials are not legal advice, that Helcim does not guarantee accuracy or completeness, and directs merchants to their own legal counsel.
What to do next
Still unknown:
Helcim documents a product called Fee Saver that passes processing costs to customers, applying a surcharge for in-person transactions on the Helcim Smart Terminal and a convenience fee for online payments through Invoices, Payment Pages, Payment Requests, and HelcimPay.js.
What remains unknown: Whether Helcim's online convenience fee falls within either network's convenience-fee framework — Mastercard limits the program to government and education entities; Visa requires the fee to be flat and the channel to be one the merchant would not normally use. How Helcim determines which method (surcharge vs. convenience fee) applies for a given region and the card brands a merchant accepts. Whether the online convenience fee is a flat amount or a percentage. ProcessorFit has not established that Helcim's implementation is improper — these are the open questions, and merchants must ask Helcim directly.
The product name 'Fee Saver' covers two distinct mechanisms with different network rule requirements — surcharge for in-person and convenience fee for online. Network definitions of 'convenience fee' are narrower than the word suggests, and whether Helcim's online fee structure fits within both networks' frameworks has not been established by ProcessorFit. Understanding which mechanism applies to each of your sales channels, and how Helcim determines that for your region and card mix, is the first step in evaluating whether Fee Saver is appropriate for your business.
Does this cover your business?
The criteria Helcim uses to determine ACH eligibility. Whether merchants that do not meet ACH eligibility can still use the in-person (surcharge) channel of Fee Saver. The process for applying for ACH eligibility if currently ineligible.
What to verify:
If you intend to use online Fee Saver (convenience fee on invoices and payment pages), confirm your Helcim account is eligible for ACH before configuring the feature. Merchants not currently eligible may not be able to access the online channel of Fee Saver.
What disclosure and compliance obligations does Helcim's Fee Saver documentation impose on the merchant?
Helcim provides a surcharging toolkit that includes sample signage, but the toolkit states the materials are not legal advice, Helcim does not guarantee their accuracy or completeness, and directs merchants to their own legal counsel.
What remains unknown: Whether Helcim enforces any disclosure or signage compliance check before enabling Fee Saver for a merchant. Whether the toolkit materials are updated when network rules or state requirements change.
Helcim's toolkit provides a starting point for disclosure materials, but the disclaimer is clear — these materials are not a compliance guarantee. Use the toolkit as a reference, not as a substitute for legal advice on your specific situation.
Helcim offering Fee Saver does not mean the convenience fee structure satisfies Visa's or Mastercard's convenience-fee requirements — and Helcim's own toolkit disclaims reliance.
Visa's definition requires a convenience fee to be a flat fee for an alternative channel that is not the merchant's normal channel. Mastercard's convenience fee program is limited to pre-certified government and education entities or their agents, and a merchant surcharging Mastercard credit may not also charge a Mastercard convenience fee. Whether Helcim's online fee sits within either network's program — and is a flat amount, not a percentage — has not been established. Helcim's own toolkit directs merchants to legal counsel, which is the correct instruction.
Question to ask before applying
"For my mix of in-person and online sales, which method would Fee Saver apply to each channel — surcharge or convenience fee — is the online fee a flat amount or a percentage, and how does Helcim determine which method applies for my region and the card brands I accept?"
ProcessorFit has not completed the same surcharging-specific research for these processors. Capability support, channel coverage, and compliance obligations must be verified directly with each provider before using the feature.
Clover
Clover appeared in surcharging comparison contexts during this research, but ProcessorFit did not locate sufficient public Clover documentation on surcharging — specifically documentation that clearly describes which channels are covered, what the fee limits are, and what Clover states merchants are responsible for — to include Clover in the researched provider cohort.
That does not mean Clover lacks surcharging support. It means ProcessorFit could not verify enough from publicly available sources to include it here. Clover — and other providers not listed — may be added in future research cycles when sufficient publicly available documentation is located.
Unknown remains a valid research result. Absence of documentation does not mean support is absent.
These terms appear in provider documentation, network rule documents, and state law discussions — sometimes interchangeably, which creates confusion. The terms have distinct meanings, and the distinction matters because each is treated differently under card-network rules.
Surcharge
A fee added to a credit card transaction to recover part or all of the merchant’s cost of acceptance. Under both Visa’s and Mastercard’s documented rules, a surcharge may only be applied to credit cards — not debit, prepaid, or ACH. The fee is a percentage of the transaction amount, not a flat fee.
Mastercard’s own definition, from its FAQ: “A surcharge is any fee charged in connection with a Transaction that is not charged if another payment method is used.” This definition works by economic effect, not by label — a fee that operates this way is a surcharge regardless of what it is called.
Cash Discount
A discount offered for paying by a non-card method — cash, check, or ACH — rather than by credit card. It works differently from surcharging: instead of adding a fee to the card price, the merchant reduces the price for non-card payments. Whether a cash discount program avoids surcharge requirements depends on how it is structured and what applies in your situation. Because Mastercard defines a surcharge by economic effect — any fee not charged when another payment method is used — a program that operates the same way may be treated as a surcharge regardless of what it is called. ProcessorFit did not locate a first-party Visa or Mastercard cash-discount rule set sufficient to characterize current network requirements for cash discounts in the same way as surcharges.
Convenience Fee
A fixed fee (not a percentage) for using a specific payment channel that is not the merchant’s primary channel. Visa’s definition requires the fee to be flat, not percentage-based, and for the channel to be one the merchant would not normally use. Mastercard’s convenience fee program is limited to pre-certified government and education entities — or their agents. Helcim’s Fee Saver applies a convenience fee for online payments — whether that structure meets both networks’ convenience-fee definitions has not been established by ProcessorFit.
Dual Pricing
Displaying two prices — one for card and one for cash — rather than adding a fee at checkout or offering a discount. Dual pricing programs have their own network rule requirements that differ from surcharge and cash discount programs. ProcessorFit has not researched dual pricing programs for this capability page — the three providers researched here use surcharge and/or convenience-fee structures.
Using the wrong fee type for your channel — for example, applying a percentage-based convenience fee when network rules require a flat fee — can create its own compliance issue separate from the underlying surcharging question.
ProcessorFit reviewed the network rule documents published by Visa and Mastercard as of 11 August 2026. What follows is what the documents say — not what ProcessorFit recommends or concludes. These documents are authored by the card networks and are subject to change.
Visa — two current documents, conflicting on key points
Source conflict — both documents are live
ProcessorFit found two documents published by Visa addressing credit card surcharging for US merchants. Both were live as of 11 August 2026.
Undated Visa FAQ document. States a 4% cap, names 10 states where surcharging is not allowed, and requires notification to both Visa and the merchant’s acquirer.
Visa Version 08142023 document. States a 3% cap, names 4 states, and requires notification to the acquirer only — not to Visa directly.
ProcessorFit does not determine which document is current or controlling. Both were live. Neither has been superseded by a visible update notice in the documents themselves. The only established fact is that these two documents exist and conflict on percentage cap, state list, and notification requirement.
Mastercard — three surfaces, a formula-based cap, and a pending revision
ProcessorFit reviewed three Mastercard documents and pages as of 11 August 2026:
Mastercard Rules PDF (2019). States a registration requirement with Mastercard, the acquirer, and network notification.
Mastercard rules web page. Consistent with the Rules PDF on registration requirements.
Mastercard registration form page. States that Mastercard is no longer requiring US merchants to register surcharge intent on that site, and that revised rules are anticipated in the second half of the year — the year is not stated on the page.
The Mastercard cap is a formula, not a fixed percentage
The Mastercard Rules PDF defines the surcharge maximum using a formula: the lesser of the merchant’s actual cost of acceptance for Mastercard credit, and a stated percentage cap. Mastercard’s FAQ and web materials state 4% as that cap figure. The Mastercard Rules PDF itself does not contain the 4% figure. ProcessorFit cannot establish that 4% is the current output of the formula; the relationship between the Rules PDF formula and the 4% figure on Mastercard’s FAQ and web materials is not resolved here. The operative merchant-specific constraint in the published Mastercard material is the merchant’s own cost of acceptance.
The Visa documents similarly reference the merchant’s cost of acceptance as the same cap.
American Express and Discover
ProcessorFit did not locate sufficient Amex or Discover rule documents to describe their current surcharging policies in the same way as Visa and Mastercard. The absence of coverage here should not be read as a position on what those networks allow or prohibit.
The gap is larger than it appears for Mastercard merchants
Mastercard’s FAQ states that a merchant’s ability to surcharge Mastercard can depend on the surcharging policies and relative costs of competing brands it accepts — naming Amex, Discover, Visa, and PayPal. For a merchant that accepts all four brands, the unresolved positions of Amex and Discover are not simply a gap about those two networks. They may affect whether Mastercard surcharging is fully established for that merchant under Mastercard’s own documented rules.
Network rule documents can change without notice. The documents reviewed here reflect what was live on 11 August 2026. Treat this as a starting point for finding the current network rule documents, not as a determination of what currently applies.
For surcharging, different sources say different things. ProcessorFit describes what each source shows, rather than making a legal determination — because several sources are in conflict, and ProcessorFit cannot resolve which applies to your situation.
Named by current sources
A specific state or jurisdiction is identified in a current, dated card-network document. Example: the four states in Visa's 2023 document.
Sources disagree
Two or more current documents address the same question with conflicting answers. Example: Visa's two documents listing different states and different caps.
Mentioned — but what it covers is unclear
A source says something on the topic but ProcessorFit cannot present it accurately without misrepresenting its scope. Example: Mastercard's suspended-registration status, where the scope of the suspension is unclear.
Named in older sources only
A jurisdiction appeared in older documents but is not confirmed in current documents. ProcessorFit does not present these as current.
Not established
ProcessorFit did not locate sufficient current documentation to describe what a source says. No inference is drawn from absence.
These categories describe what ProcessorFit found in the documents reviewed — not what your business may do. State law, your specific situation, and current versions of the network rule documents are what matter for that question.
All three providers researched — Square, Stripe, and Helcim — include explicit merchant-responsibility language in their surcharging documentation. The language differs in specificity but is consistent in direction: enabling the feature does not mean the merchant may surcharge.
Square
“It is the seller's responsibility to ensure compliance with local requirements.”
Square also states surcharging is not allowed in Connecticut, Maine, or Puerto Rico — a list that differs from both Visa documents. Notably, Mastercard's Rules include Puerto Rico among US territories where surcharging of Mastercard credit cards is permitted. Network permission and local restriction are different layers: both statements can be accurate simultaneously.
Stripe
“You must ensure that surcharging is permitted under applicable laws and regulations in the jurisdictions where you operate. You are fully responsible for any fines, penalties, or losses that result from non-compliance with surcharging requirements.”
This is the most explicit merchant-responsibility statement found across the three researched providers.
Helcim
“The information in this toolkit is not legal advice. Helcim makes no guarantee of accuracy, completeness, or currency. Merchants should consult their own legal counsel.”
Helcim's toolkit disclaims reliance and directs merchants to counsel — which is the correct direction.
Cost of acceptance limit: Both Visa and Mastercard documents reference the merchant’s cost of acceptance as the actual cap for your business — meaning the configured surcharge rate must not exceed what you actually pay to accept that brand’s credit cards. This is separate from and may be lower than the headline percentages in provider documentation. None of the three providers verify this limit automatically for your account.
Visa and Mastercard both document that surcharges may only apply to credit cards — not debit, prepaid, or ACH. All three providers researched here confirm this restriction. ProcessorFit does not determine whether your business may surcharge credit card payments — that depends on your state, your agreement with your acquirer or payment provider, and current network rules.
No. Both Visa and Mastercard documents reference the merchant's actual cost of acceptance as the limit — meaning the cap for your business is the lesser of the headline percentage and what you actually pay to accept that card brand's credit cards. A 3% surcharge may exceed your cost of acceptance, which means 3% would not be the maximum for your business.
No. All three providers researched state explicitly that surcharging compliance is the merchant's responsibility. Stripe is the most direct: the merchant is fully responsible for any fines, penalties, or losses from non-compliance. Turning on the feature is a setup step, not a compliance decision.
ProcessorFit cannot determine which Visa document is current or what Mastercard's registration update means for its other surcharging requirements. Both Visa documents were live as of August 11, 2026. These are questions to raise with your acquirer or payment provider and, depending on your situation, for legal advice.
A cash discount and a surcharge are different fee types. Whether a particular cash discount structure avoids specific surcharge requirements depends on how it is structured and what requirements apply in your situation — ProcessorFit does not determine that. Because Mastercard defines a surcharge by economic effect (any fee not charged when another payment method is used), a program that operates the same way may be treated as a surcharge regardless of what it is called. The two are not interchangeable.
B2B & B2G Level 2 / Level 3 Processing
Research coverage for Stripe, Helcim, Dharma Merchant Services, and Stax on enhanced commercial-card data processing.
Provider Directory
Browse all processors with published research.
Compare Processors
Side-by-side comparisons including Square, Stripe, and Helcim.
Merchant Decision Center
Get a research path tailored to your payment profile.
Use the Merchant Decision Center to analyze your payment profile, explore provider options, and build a research path based on what actually matters for your business.