Who’s Accountable to the Merchant?

The Merchant Doctor™ perspective on transparency, independent representation, and six essential safeguards every business owner should understand before choosing a POS or payment processing provider.

By Joseph Wilkins | Merchant Doctor™ | Business Eye Network

October 30, 2026

The Lawsuit Is the Headline. Accountability Is the Real Story.

On October 29, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), seven state attorneys general, and California authorities filed a federal lawsuit against Toast, Inc., one of the country’s largest restaurant point-of-sale (POS) and payment technology providers.

The lawsuit alleges hidden and unauthorized fees, unwanted subscriptions, misleading equipment offers, difficult cancellation procedures, and customer support that failed to meet advertised promises.

Toast disputes the allegations and has stated that it intends to vigorously defend itself. These remain allegations, not findings of liability.

But I want to approach this story a little differently.

I work in the merchant services industry. I know plenty of professionals who represent competing products, and I fully expect to see the industry discussing this lawsuit for weeks.

That’s understandable.

But here’s my question:

Will we hold ourselves and the products we represent to the same standards we’re demanding from Toast?

Because if we’re going to criticize one provider for questionable practices, we should be equally willing to examine those same practices in our own organizations.

And that brings me to what I believe is the bigger issue.

Who’s actually accountable to the merchant?

What Happens When the Corporation Controls the Entire Relationship?

The merchant services industry has several different distribution models.

Some companies primarily sell and service their products through their own corporate sales organizations. Others rely on independent sales organizations (ISOs), resellers, referral partners, and independent agents.

Some use a combination of these approaches.

Neither model automatically guarantees better pricing, transparency, or customer service.

But there is an important distinction worth examining.

When a merchant purchases a system directly from a large corporation, the sales representative, implementation team, billing department, technical support team, and account management team may all operate separately.

The person who sold the system may have little involvement once the installation is complete.

When a merchant works with a dedicated independent advisor, there’s an opportunity for a different type of relationship.

That advisor may be involved in evaluating the business, recommending the technology, reviewing the costs, coordinating installation, training employees, and supporting the merchant long after the sale.

I operate in that second model.

As an independent merchant services professional, I’m not simply interested in completing an installation and moving on.

I’m building a book of business based on long-term relationships.

If I fail to disclose something important, recommend the wrong solution, or disappear when a merchant needs assistance, that decision doesn’t just affect one transaction.

It affects my reputation, my referrals, my existing relationships, and the future of my business.

That creates a powerful incentive to get things right.

But independence alone isn’t enough. Accountability has to be demonstrated through actions, documentation, and continued service.

An independent agent can make mistakes. A corporate representative can provide outstanding service.

The merchant deserves transparency and accountability regardless of which model they’re buying from.

The Difference Between a Referral and a Relationship

I’ve personally explored Toast’s platform and sales model.

I’ve participated in a product demonstration, interacted with representatives serving my region, and evaluated the platform from the perspective of someone who works directly with merchants.

During that process, I encountered differences between Toast’s available pricing approaches and the solutions I wanted to offer my clients, including dual pricing. I also learned that Toast’s distribution approach was not designed around the type of independent reseller relationship I was seeking.

Referral opportunities were available, but that’s a different business model.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with paying someone for a qualified introduction.

However, a referral fee compensates someone for generating an opportunity.

It doesn’t necessarily create an ongoing responsibility to support that merchant after the agreement is signed.

That’s a distinction business owners should understand.

Are you working with someone who is compensated for introducing you to a provider, or someone who intends to remain involved in your business relationship for years?

Both arrangements can have value.

But they’re not the same thing.

And neither eliminates the provider’s own responsibility to deliver the services it promises.

The Merchant Doctor™ Six-Point POS Accountability Check

Rather than simply criticizing the allegations against Toast, I believe there’s a more productive conversation to have.

How do we prevent these situations from happening in the first place?

What should a merchant expect from a responsible POS provider, payment processor, or independent advisor?

Here are six areas I believe every business owner should review before entering into a merchant services relationship.

1. Full Financial Transparency: What Am I Actually Paying?

A merchant shouldn’t have to become a payments industry expert to understand their monthly costs.

Unfortunately, POS agreements often involve multiple financial components.

Processing fees, software subscriptions, equipment costs, implementation charges, third-party applications, and additional services can all affect the actual cost of ownership.

An advertised processing rate or monthly software price rarely tells the entire story.

The Merchant Doctor™ standard:

Before an agreement is signed, the merchant should receive a clear explanation of:

• Payment processing fees and how they’re calculated.
• Monthly software subscriptions and additional applications.
• Equipment purchases, leases, rentals, or financing arrangements.
• Installation, training, and ongoing support charges.
• Potential cancellation, equipment return, and other conditional fees.

When applicable, the merchant should also understand the differences between interchange-plus pricing, flat-rate pricing, dual pricing, and surcharging.

These are not interchangeable programs, and compliance requirements can vary significantly.

The objective is simple.

No surprises when the first statement arrives.

2. Authorization and Consent: Did I Actually Agree to This?

One of the FTC’s allegations involves merchants being charged for software subscriptions or additional services they claim they never authorized.

This raises an important issue across the entire POS industry.

Modern POS systems offer dozens of applications, integrations, and optional features.

Payroll, loyalty programs, online ordering, inventory management, marketing, and reporting tools can all be valuable.

But adding functionality shouldn’t automatically mean adding charges without the merchant’s informed approval.

The Merchant Doctor™ standard:

Every billable service should be clearly identified, explained, and authorized before activation.

If a merchant requests a new application, they should understand what it does, what it costs, whether the price can change, and how to cancel it.

Approval should be documented.

And if a feature is included in a trial period, the merchant should know exactly when that trial ends and whether billing begins automatically.

A merchant should never have to investigate their own statement to discover what services they’re purchasing.

3. Equipment Ownership: Is That Hardware Really Free?

Free equipment offers are common throughout the merchant services industry.

But the word “free” deserves a closer look.

Equipment may be provided at no upfront cost while its expense is recovered through processing rates, monthly fees, minimum commitments, or other contractual arrangements.

That doesn’t automatically make the offer bad.

For some businesses, reducing upfront expenses can be financially beneficial.

The issue is whether the arrangement is properly explained.

The Merchant Doctor™ standard:

Before accepting equipment, the merchant should understand:

• Whether the hardware is owned, rented, leased, or provided conditionally.
• Whether the cost is recovered through other fees.
• Whether the equipment can be used with another processor.
• What happens if the business closes or changes providers.
• Whether equipment must be returned and what charges apply if it isn’t.

I’ve worked with enough POS equipment to know that hardware decisions can affect a merchant long after the original installation.

The right equipment arrangement depends on the business.

But the terms should never be a mystery.

4. Contractual Freedom: What Happens If I Want to Leave?

This is one of the most overlooked questions in merchant services.

Everyone wants to know how much it costs to get started.

Not nearly enough people ask what it costs to get out.

The FTC complaint raises concerns about cancellation procedures, early termination charges, and financing arrangements that allegedly made it difficult for certain Toast merchants to leave.

That should prompt every business owner to review their existing agreements.

The Merchant Doctor™ standard:

Before signing, merchants should understand the contract length, renewal provisions, required cancellation notice, potential termination charges, and equipment obligations.

If financing is involved, they should understand whether changing processors or canceling software services could affect repayment terms.

And they should know the actual cancellation procedure before they ever need to use it.

A provider should be willing to explain these conditions upfront.

If a business relationship is valuable, the provider should work to retain the merchant through service and performance—not through confusion about how to leave.

5. Customer Support: Who Answers When Something Goes Wrong?

This may be the most personal part of this discussion for me.

I’ve spent plenty of evenings and weekends helping merchants resolve operational problems.

Restaurants don’t stop operating at 5 p.m.

Bars don’t close because a technical support department has gone home.

And when a POS system goes down during a Friday dinner rush, the merchant isn’t thinking about the software’s newest features.

They’re thinking about their employees, customers, and ability to complete transactions.

The FTC complaint alleges that some Toast customers struggled to obtain effective assistance despite advertised around-the-clock support.

That allegation deserves attention.

But the broader issue isn’t limited to one provider.

The Merchant Doctor™ standard:

A merchant should understand exactly what support is available before purchasing a system.

That includes who handles hardware failures, payment processing problems, software issues, network connectivity, and third-party integrations.

It should also include escalation procedures and realistic response expectations.

Here’s how I approach it.

If one of my merchants has a genuine operational emergency, I want to know about it.

That might mean responding to a text late at night, taking an emergency call, or coordinating with the processor, software provider, or network specialist to get the business operational again.

I can’t personally resolve every technical problem, and no responsible advisor should promise that.

But there’s a difference between guaranteeing an immediate fix and taking ownership of helping someone reach a resolution.

The merchant shouldn’t have to figure out which company to call while their business is losing money.

6. Long-Term Accountability: Who Owns the Relationship After the Sale?

This final point brings everything together.

A POS system isn’t simply a piece of equipment sitting on a counter.

It’s connected to the merchant’s payment acceptance, inventory, employees, accounting, customer experience, and daily operations.

As businesses evolve, their needs change.

They may add locations, introduce online ordering, upgrade their network, change pricing structures, or adopt new software.

Someone should be helping them evaluate those decisions.

The Merchant Doctor™ standard:

The relationship shouldn’t end when the equipment is installed.

Merchants should know who their primary contact is, who can advocate for them when problems arise, and whether anyone is periodically reviewing their costs and technology needs.

For independent advisors, that means remaining engaged and taking responsibility for the recommendations we make.

For corporate providers, it means establishing clear ownership of the merchant relationship across sales, implementation, billing, and support.

Either model can work.

But accountability shouldn’t disappear once the contract is signed.

A Challenge to My Own Industry

I want to make something very clear.

This article isn’t a suggestion that Toast is the only company facing these types of complaints.

Nor is it an argument that every independent agent operates with the merchant’s best interests in mind.

I’ve seen enough of this industry to know better.

There are excellent corporate sales representatives, dedicated support professionals, and independent advisors who genuinely care about their merchants.

There are also salespeople across multiple organizations who focus far more on closing agreements than understanding the businesses they’re serving.

That’s why I believe the current lawsuit should become an opportunity for industry-wide reflection.

If you’re an independent agent criticizing Toast for undisclosed fees, are you fully explaining the fees in your own agreements?

If you’re criticizing difficult cancellation procedures, have you reviewed the termination provisions in the products you represent?

If you’re criticizing customer support, are you actually available when your merchants need help—or are you simply forwarding them to another telephone number?

And if you’re criticizing a corporate provider for prioritizing revenue over merchant relationships, are you willing to examine how your own compensation and recommendations influence the decisions you make?

We can’t demand accountability from competitors while excusing the same behavior within our own distribution channels.

That’s the standard I believe this industry needs.

The Merchant Doesn’t Need Another Sales Pitch

The FTC’s lawsuit against Toast will work its way through the legal system.

Toast deserves the opportunity to defend itself, and the allegations should be evaluated through that process.

But merchants don’t need to wait for a court decision to start asking better questions.

They can review their agreements today.

They can request written explanations of recurring charges.

They can verify which services they’ve authorized.

They can ask about equipment ownership, cancellation procedures, financing restrictions, and support responsibilities.

And perhaps most importantly, they can ask one question before choosing their next provider:

Who’s accountable to me after I sign?

At Merchant Doctor™, my philosophy is that merchant services should begin with understanding the business—not selling the equipment.

Diagnose the operation.

Identify the actual needs.

Explain the available solutions and their tradeoffs.

Disclose the financial commitments.

And remain accountable for the recommendations made.

Because the most important part of a merchant services relationship isn’t necessarily the day the system goes live.

It’s everything that happens afterward.

The merchant doesn’t need another salesperson explaining why the competition is bad.

They need an advisor willing to explain the risks before those risks become problems.

---

About Merchant Doctor™

Merchant Doctor™ is an independent merchant services consulting brand developed by Business Eye Network. Our approach focuses on helping businesses understand payment processing, point-of-sale technology, operational efficiency, and the financial commitments associated with their merchant services relationships.

Through Merchant Services PhD™, we aim to make complex payment industry topics more accessible to business owners and decision-makers.

Education first. Transparency always. Accountability beyond the sale.

Sources and Further Reading

• Federal Trade Commission — FTC and States Take Action Against Toast Inc.
• Federal Trade Commission — Toast, Inc. Case and Proceedings
• Toast, Inc. — Toast Responds to FTC Lawsuit

Editorial note: This article discusses allegations in a pending federal lawsuit filed October 29, 2026. The allegations have not been established as legal findings. The Merchant Doctor™ Six-Point POS Accountability Check represents independent industry commentary and recommended business practices, not a legal compliance certification.