Fiserv Lists $0.02 and $0.10 Visa Gambling Fees in Latin America

Fiserv’s Fall 2026 card-brand update identifies the affected payments under Visa High Integrity Risk Transaction and Volume Fees LAC. The list includes MCC 7995, covering betting, lottery tickets and casino gaming chips, alongside four other merchant categories: 5967, 7273, 6012 and 6051.

The charges apply to card-not-present transactions. Fiserv gives October 2026 as the effective period but doesn’t specify a day.

Two Rates for the Same Gambling Transactions

The discrepancy appears within the same notice. Neither language version identifies separate countries or merchant groups that would explain the difference.

The English and Spanish sections use the same MCC list and percentage charge. What differs is the fixed transaction fee, leaving the applicable rate for the October update unclear.

A $3,200 Difference on $1 Million in Payments

Consider a gambling merchant processing 40,000 eligible Visa deposits averaging $25 each. Monthly transaction volume would reach $1 million.

At the Spanish version’s $0.02 rate, the fixed charges would total $800. Adding the 0.10% volume fee brings the combined amount to $1,800.

Under the English version, the same deposits would generate $4,000 in fixed charges and $1,000 in volume fees. The total reaches $5,000, a difference of $3,200 per month.

These are calculations based on the two published rates, excluding other processing costs. They do not establish how much merchants would pay above their previous fees.

Earlier Visa Pricing Does Not Resolve the Difference

An October 2023 notice from payment-risk specialist Austreme described Visa’s planned April 2024 pricing for Asia-Pacific, CEMEA and Latin America excluding Chile. It listed $0.02 per transaction plus 0.10% of volume, but the transaction-fee section covered only MCC 5967 and 7273. Gambling transactions under MCC 7995 were not included in that list.

Fiserv describes the October 2026 measure as an update, without providing the previous gambling rate. The notice also contains no correction or explanation for the conflicting $0.02 and $0.10 figures.