ISO Review: Fee Changes and Consent

Why review this now?

On October 29, 2026, the FTC filed a case against Toast alleging problems involving fees, add-ons, support and cancellation. The case was listed as pending when checked for this guide. Toast disputes the allegations and challenges the FTC's application of ROSCA to its business agreements. No outcome is assumed here.

This is an ongoing development within the wider 30-day research window, not a new November judgment. Its practical value for an ISO is the question it prompts: can the merchant and referring partner explain what a processing proposal authorizes, how changes are communicated and what ending a service entails? The checklist below is MerchantBridge analysis, not a statement that the lawsuit has changed every provider's obligations.

Sources: Federal Trade Commission: Toast, Inc.: pending enforcement case; Toast: Toast responds to FTC lawsuit

What should be reviewed beyond the headline rate?

List the proposed services separately: processing, software, equipment, support and optional additions where relevant. For each, identify the quoted charge, billing trigger, responsible provider and document that governs it. A low initial figure says little about a charge whose scope or recurrence is unclear.

Ask how the merchant accepts an optional service and where that acceptance is recorded. Also ask how a later change is communicated and which agreement governs it. Do not infer consent from an internal sales note or assume that every fee appearing on a statement was included in the original quote.

How can a hypothetical proposal reveal the ambiguity?

Suppose a fictional proposal lists a $49 monthly software service and a separate optional support package. The comparison sheet shows only $49. Before describing the offer to a merchant, the ISO should establish whether support is selected, what it costs, when billing starts and how it can be ended.

Now suppose the merchant later asks to cancel processing. Does that request also cancel software, equipment arrangements and support? The answer depends on the actual agreements and supported process. The example is a document-review exercise, not an allegation about any named provider or a calculation of likely savings.

Which evidence should the ISO request?

Work from current proposal documents and public terms, using authorized channels for confidential records if a later review requires them. The initial referral can identify missing items without attaching a merchant statement.

• Itemized services, charges, billing frequency and the party billing each item.
• The version and date of the offer and governing terms.
• How optional services are selected and how that selection can be demonstrated.
• The documented mechanism for fee or service changes.
• Cancellation steps, notice periods and any separate agreements that continue.
• A named route for resolving a discrepancy between the proposal and a bill.

What should not be concluded from the case?

Do not describe the allegations as proven misconduct or promise a legal outcome. Nor should an ISO say that all business agreements have become subject to a newly settled rule. Keep the FTC allegations and Toast's response attributed to their respective sources.

For a referral discussion, state the commercial question that remains unresolved and ask what evidence would answer it. A documented review can improve clarity without promising lower pricing, compensation, residuals or a particular replacement arrangement. MerchantBridge is an advisory and referral partner; the actual agreement and the relevant parties' decisions control.