In 2025, federal junk fee enforcement actions, such as the FTC's rules targeting deceptive consumer fees, do not apply to B2B merchant processing. Because these rules apply only to consumer transactions, processors continue adding ambiguous ancillary fees such as "Program Integrity," "Risk Assessment," and "PCI Non-Compliance." These items are not part of interchange and often appear without clear justification. For finance leaders, auditing and removing these markups is one of the fastest ways to reduce processing costs without switching providers.
Why B2B Merchant Statements Are Getting Longer
If your merchant statement feels longer this year, you are not imagining it. In 2025, B2B merchants are increasingly encountering an expanded list of discretionary processor-generated fees. Many of these look official but are not tied to any mandatory card-network program.
Federal and state regulators have targeted certain consumer-facing junk fees in lodging, ticketing, and other retail sectors. However, these rules do not extend to commercial merchant processing.
CFPB Junk Fees InitiativeThis gap has allowed processors to introduce additional fees under vague labels, assuming most finance teams focus only on the blended "Total Fees."
For CFOs and Controllers, these charges represent avoidable operating leakage. This guide provides a framework for identifying which fees are legitimate and which are discretionary processor add-ons.
Why B2B Payments Are Exposed
Consumer junk fee protections do not apply to commercial contracts. Under U.S. regulations, business-to-business merchant agreements fall under general contract law. Regulators restrict only clearly deceptive practices.
FTC Consumer Fee Enforcement ScopeThis means:
- Processors may introduce new fees through contract amendments or notices
- Regulators rarely intervene unless deception is provable
- Merchants must rely on internal reviews, not government protections
This lack of oversight creates room for discretionary fee padding in B2B payment processing.
The 5 Most Common Processor-Added Fees on B2B Statements
These fees do not appear on published network fee schedules.
Visa Published Merchant Fees1. PCI Non-Compliance Fees
Typical Format: Flat monthly fee
Why It Appears: Processors charge merchants who have not submitted a PCI SAQ.
Problem: Merchants who are compliant are often still billed due to outdated processor records. These fees are often negotiable or reversible.
2. "Program Integrity" or "Risk Assessment" Fees
Typical Format: Round monthly fee or small basis-point markup
Problem: These names do not appear in any mandatory Visa or Mastercard program lists. These are processor-branded fees, not network-required assessments.
3. Statement, Reporting, or "Account Maintenance" Fees
Typical Format: Monthly flat fee
Problem: Originally tied to mailing physical statements, these fees are obsolete for digital-first reporting environments.
4. Next-Day Funding Fees
Typical Format: Small basis-point surcharge
Problem: Many established B2B merchants qualify for next-day deposits without this surcharge unless restricted by underwriting.
5. Batch Header or Daily Settlement Fees
Typical Format: 0.10 to 0.30 dollars per batch
Problem: These fees persist from the terminal-era settlement model and add little value in modern gateway or ERP-driven environments.
How to Calculate Your Effective Rate
Effective Rate = Total Fees Paid / Total Processed Volume
Benchmark Range: 2.4 percent to 2.7 percent for well-configured B2B accounts.
Red Flag: Above 3.0 percent indicates either markups or discretionary non-interchange fees.
How Junk Fees Hide in Interchange Plus Pricing
Interchange-plus pricing is transparent in theory but opaque in practice. Processors often blend discretionary fees into lines that resemble pass-through network costs.
Networks publish their legitimate assessments publicly. Anything not appearing on those pages is processor-generated.
Common hiding tactics:
- Mixing add-on fees with legitimate assessment categories
- Renaming fees to resemble network programs
- Adding micro-fees labeled as "Integrity," "Security," or "Compliance"
- Positioning markups near true pass-through lines
This is where most margin leakage occurs.
Identifying and Challenging Processor Fees
Every fee should be classified into one of three categories:
Mandatory (network or bank): True pass-through costs from Visa, Mastercard, or issuing banks
Negotiable (processor-controlled): Fees that can be reduced or eliminated through negotiation
Erroneous or refundable: Billing errors that should be reversed
Most processor-added junk fees fall into the negotiable category. PCI Non-Compliance billing errors are often refundable once compliance is proven.
If a fee does not appear on an official card-network list or bank schedule, it should be challenged.
Key Takeaways for Finance Leaders
Processor junk fees create unnecessary cost without operational or compliance value. Finance teams should prioritize audits to identify:
- New or unfamiliar line items
- Duplicate fees under new labels
- Discretionary fees disguised as mandatory programs
Eliminating these fees reduces costs quickly without renegotiating contracts or switching providers.
