GingrAppAudit.com
This is an independent documentation archive: a preserved record of Cats in the City’s multi-year experience with Gingr’s merchant-processing platform. It captures what was shown, what was not shown, what was said, what was billed, and what it cost to exit when the export tool failed.
0. Notice to Gingr, CardConnect, and Fiserv
This site is provided as an evidence-based archive. It presents primary documents and factual chronology and makes no legal accusations or conclusions.
Verified corrections or missing records (including onboarding-era Terms, acceptance logs, and any referenced Master Agreement) will be posted as received, without editorial revision, with provenance preserved.
1. Purpose of This Archive
This site exists for three reasons:
- Transparency — an evidence-based archive of Gingr’s merchant processing onboarding, disclosures, and communications as experienced in the real world.
- Business Impact Documentation — Cats in the City attributes $33,167.56 in added processing costs, calculated from processor statements as the delta from the negotiated 2.47% rate, plus exit costs tied to prolonged export-tool failure.
- Support for Accountability — so merchants, regulators, and reviewers can evaluate whether the mechanisms match the standards businesses are told to expect.
This archive makes no legal conclusions. It does something simpler and harder: it preserves the story in primary documents, with the sequence intact, so the truth doesn’t have to argue—it can just be seen.
2. Key Documents (Direct Downloads)
These are the core files referenced throughout the archive. For regulators, investigators, analysts, and reviewers, the Regulatory Summary Version has been added and is formatted for oversight bodies who prefer structured chronology, consolidated findings, and clear reference indexing.
- Regulatory Summary Version (structured for oversight review): Open PDF
- Executive Summary: Open PDF
- Media-ready article (narrative-form documentation): Open PDF
- Public business-facing article (operational impact overview): Open PDF
- Quote Evidence Sheet (platform communications & rate statements): Open PDF
- Supplemental Exhibit A (expanded log of support interactions & timeline detail): Open PDF
- Gingr’s official position (Dec 22, 2025 response letter): Open PDF
1) Regulatory Summary Version → 2) Executive Summary → 3) Timeline (Section 3) → 4) Cross-Reference Matrix (Section 8).
These documents together provide a complete, chronological, and evidence-supported view of the events, contractual visibility issues, and the discrepancies documented in this archive.
Record status: Following Gingr’s December 22, 2025 letter, Cats in the City requested the governing onboarding Terms, acceptance logs, and notice records on December 23, 2025. No responsive documents have been provided as of January 15, 2026.
3. Timeline of Key Events
2021–2022: Onboarding & Written Rate Match
- Received a written 2.47% rate match
- Completed the CardConnect application inside Gingr’s portal
- Accepted Terms presented without visible versioning and without a clearly stated rate-change mechanism
2022–2024: Undisclosed Rate Increases
- Incremental increases observed over time
- No clear, direct notice from Gingr inside the platform or via email
- References surfaced only inside merchant statements
Feb 20–21, 2025: First Rate Dispute
- Gingr acknowledged increases and stated “rates are reviewed twice per year”
- No onboarding-era governing contract or acceptance record provided
March–December 2025: Export Failure
- Export tool failure persisted for months during attempted exit
- Issue acknowledged with no workaround and no ETA
- Ongoing billing continued because essential client data remained locked in the platform
December 2025: Formal Demand & Response
- 104-page factual packet submitted
- Gingr cited 2024 Terms, not the onboarding Terms
- No clear rate-change authority identified within the cited materials
December 2025: Oregon DOJ Complaint
- Complaint submitted with primary exhibits
4. The Written 2.47% Rate Match
Gingr sales communication stated a rate match in plain language (e.g., “Rates we will honor: Swiped/Keyed – 2.47% …”). That matters because it created an expectation that wasn’t vague, wasn’t implied, and wasn’t “subject to interpretation.”
The central question preserved here is not emotional. It’s documentary: what authority—if any—was disclosed to override that written rate, and where was it shown at the point of acceptance?
Throughout this archive, ‘processing rate’ refers to the effective percentage cost reflected on processor statements for card-present and card-not-present transactions, inclusive of applied program fees when presented as part of the effective rate.
5. Evidence of Undisclosed Processing-Rate Increases
The documentary record reflects multiple merchant processing rate increases applied after onboarding. These changes were not accompanied by clear, direct notice at the Gingr platform level and were not surfaced as part of the onboarding disclosure experienced by the merchant.
- Multiple processing-rate increases applied over several years
- No platform-based notification identifying revised rates or effective dates
- No direct email notice specifying processing-rate changes
- Notice of rate changes surfaced primarily within CardConnect/Fiserv merchant statements
When questioned in 2025, Gingr characterized these changes as part of a recurring processing-rate review cadence. However, no such cadence, rate-adjustment authority, or notice mechanism was disclosed to the merchant at the time of onboarding.
5.1 Pricing Sequence and Cumulative Cost Outcome
The materials preserved in this archive reflect a consistent sequence through which pricing was presented, accepted, and later adjusted. That sequence resulted in a material divergence between the platform’s advertised cost and its realized cost over time.
1. Advertised software pricing and written rate match
Gingr markets its platform using a comparatively low monthly software fee. In this instance, a specific merchant processing rate (2.47%) was negotiated and confirmed in writing prior to onboarding. That rate formed a material component of the cost basis on which the platform was selected.
2. Branded onboarding flow separated from pricing authority
Enrollment occurred through a Gingr-branded onboarding workflow that did not display processing rates, pricing schedules, or rate-adjustment authority. Agreement was obtained via a checkbox referencing Terms & Conditions accessible only through nested hyperlinks, without requiring review of pricing-related provisions at the point of acceptance.
3. Initial rate stability following onboarding
For a period following onboarding, the negotiated processing rate was honored. During this time, transaction volume increased as operations expanded, reinforcing reliance on the agreed pricing structure as the business scaled.
4. Delayed processing-rate increases communicated through the processor
One to two years after onboarding, processing-rate increases were applied. Notice of these changes appeared primarily within CardConnect/Fiserv merchant statements rather than through direct, platform-level notice from Gingr. Gingr later described this practice as part of a recurring rate-review cadence.
5. Incremental escalation across multiple review periods
Over successive review cycles, processing rates increased incrementally. These adjustments accumulated over several years rather than appearing as a single, discrete change.
6. Material divergence between advertised cost and realized cost
Across approximately four years of platform use and four operating locations, the cumulative effect of post-onboarding processing-rate increases resulted in approximately $33,000 in additional costs beyond what would have been incurred at the negotiated rate.
Because merchant processing fees scale with transaction volume rather than with location count or software seats, these costs did not present as a fixed monthly surcharge. Instead, they accumulated incrementally and were visible primarily through processor statements over time.
7. Summary of the documented pricing sequence
The pricing sequence documented above can be summarized as follows:
- Low advertised software fee and written processing-rate match
- Onboarding flow that did not surface pricing authority or adjustment mechanisms
- Initial rate stability reinforcing reliance on negotiated terms
- Subsequent rate changes communicated primarily through processor statements
- Incremental escalation over time producing a materially higher realized cost
8. Relevance to vendor evaluation and disclosure
What is material for vendor selection is not the precise per-month allocation of these costs, but the fact that the realized cost of using the platform materially exceeded what a merchant could reasonably evaluate based on the advertised software fee and the pricing information available at onboarding.
Had the magnitude and mechanics of post-onboarding processing-rate adjustments been clearly disclosed at the point of enrollment, the platform would not have been competitively selected under standard cost-comparison analysis. Comparable products evaluated at similar realized cost levels present different feature sets, integration tradeoffs, or pricing transparency.
This section does not attribute intent or impropriety. It documents the practical pricing outcome produced by the interaction of sales assurances, onboarding structure, transaction-scaled fees, and post-onboarding rate adjustments. The distinction between advertised cost and realized cost is relevant to pricing transparency, competitive comparison, and informed merchant consent.
6. Onboarding Workflow Reconstruction
6.1 Onboarding Portal Entry
Merchants are directed to the CardConnect application portal through a Gingr-branded onboarding email, which links to: https://gingr.merchantserviceapp.com/
6.2 Application Portal Observation
Within the application portal, Terms & Conditions are presented only as a hyperlink located at the bottom of the page. No version number, effective date, pricing disclosure, or rate-change authority is visible within the onboarding flow itself.
6.3 TOS PDFs and Linked Agreements
- Cats in the City has not located a provision that expressly authorizes unilateral rate increases, defines rate-change authority, or establishes a post-acceptance pricing modification mechanism.
- No explicit notice mechanism for pricing changes
- References to a “Master Agreement” not provided during onboarding
- No visible versioning or acceptance record shown to the merchant
6.4 Video Documentation of Onboarding Workflow
The following video is a recorded reconstruction of the onboarding workflow as experienced by merchants. It begins with the original Gingr onboarding email, follows the live hyperlink into the application portal, scrolls through the Terms & Conditions link, and opens the nested CardConnect agreement.
7. Export Failure & Consequences
Data export tools malfunctioned for months after the attempt to leave Gingr. Gingr acknowledged the issue and provided no workaround or ETA. Continued billing was unavoidable because the platform held essential client records.
7.1 Primary Technical Evidence (Zendesk Records)
The following primary-source records document Gingr’s acknowledged platform failures during the attempted exit period. These are contemporaneous Zendesk support tickets and formal defect reports, preserved in their original form. They establish duration, acknowledgment, lack of workaround, and the operational impossibility of timely data extraction.
-
AJAX Error When Backing Up Gingr Files — Zendesk support ticket documenting a confirmed export failure
affecting owner files, report cards, pet profile images, and agreement signatures. Gingr acknowledged the bug,
reported it as previously known, provided no ETA, and placed the ticket on hold while billing continued.
Open PDF -
Formal UX Defect Report – Silent Failure of Save Functions Across Gingr Platform — Escalated defect report
documenting false-positive save confirmations, silent data loss, session-dependent persistence failures, and
acknowledged integrity risks across multiple core Gingr modules. Submitted for product and technical leadership review.
Open PDF
8. Cross-Reference Matrix
This matrix compares specific assertions made by Gingr in legal correspondence, support communications, and platform explanations to the actual Terms & Conditions and documentary record available to the merchant during onboarding and attempted exit. The comparison is factual and descriptive only. It makes no legal conclusions and reflects alignment—or lack thereof—between stated positions and the documented record.
| Gingr Assertion | Source Cited by Gingr | What the Documented Record Shows | Alignment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rate increases were permitted under the Terms accepted at onboarding. | 2024 Payment Processing Terms | Cats in the City has not located a provision that expressly authorizes unilateral rate increases, defines rate-change authority, or establishes a post-acceptance pricing modification mechanism. | Not Supported |
| Merchant processing statements constitute adequate notice of pricing changes. | Gingr Legal Letter (Dec 22, 2025) | The Terms do not designate processor statements as a contractual notice mechanism for pricing or fee changes, nor do they define statements as legally operative notice. | Not Supported |
| The Terms were presented and govern the merchant account. | Onboarding checkbox hyperlink | Terms were accessible only via hyperlink, lacked a visible version number or effective date, and historical versions were not presented or preserved at the time of onboarding. | Partially Supported |
| Rates are reviewed twice per year. | Gingr Support Email (Feb 2025) | No Terms reference biannual rate reviews, periodic pricing audits, or any scheduled authority to adjust rates. | Not Supported |
| The written rate match does not override the Terms. | No specific source cited | The Terms do not address written rate agreements, do not disclaim their authority, and do not define how conflicts between written pricing commitments and generic Terms would be resolved. | Partially Supported |
| A Master Agreement governs the merchant account. | Referenced within 2024 Terms | The referenced Master Agreement was not provided, not linked, and not made visible or accessible during onboarding. | No Evidence Provided |
| The merchant’s concerns began in late 2025. | Gingr Legal Letter (Dec 22, 2025) | The first documented dispute regarding rate increases occurred February 20–21, 2025, as reflected in contemporaneous correspondence. | Contradicted |
| The merchant could have exited the platform earlier or avoided continued billing. | Implied in correspondence; no technical rebuttal cited | Zendesk-documented export failures, lack of workaround or ETA, and acknowledged data-access constraints materially prevented timely data extraction and platform exit. | Not Supported |
This matrix will be updated if Gingr, CardConnect, or Fiserv provides historical Terms, acceptance logs, pricing schedules, technical remediation records, or the referenced Master Agreement cited within the Terms.
9. Regulatory Resources
10. Documentation Contribution Portal
Merchants may contribute documentation related to onboarding workflows, rate histories, or platform exit experiences for archival review. Contributions are accepted solely for evidentiary preservation and analysis.
No materials are published without explicit, written permission from the contributor. Anonymization is available upon request.
11. How Gingr Can Contribute to This Archive
Gingr is invited to submit:
- Original onboarding Terms & Conditions (exact version presented)
- Historical version archives (dated and versioned)
- Acceptance logs and timestamps
- Clarifying documents on rate-change authority and notice procedures
- The “Master Agreement” referenced in the Terms, if incorporated by reference
12. How to Reach Gingr’s Legal Department
- Damon E. Schramm, Chief Legal Officer
- Togetherwork
- Two Ravinia Drive, Suite 500, Atlanta, GA 30346
- Office: (888) 554-6634
If Gingr updates legal contacts, this section will be revised.
13. How Merchants Can Request Their Own Processing Terms
Merchants may request the exact Terms & Conditions governing their CardConnect/Fiserv merchant accounts by emailing:
- Fiserv Legal: [email protected]
- Fiserv Risk: [email protected]
- Fiserv Compliance: [email protected]
- CardConnect Support: [email protected]
- CardConnect Underwriting: [email protected]
A template request email is included below. Merchants should ask for:
- The exact Terms in effect at onboarding
- Acceptance logs and timestamps
- Any Master Agreement incorporated by reference
- Any pricing schedule or rate-change authority
Sample request language (Fiserv)
Subject: Request for Merchant Processing Terms, Pricing Schedule, and Acceptance Records Hello Fiserv Legal/Compliance Team, I am a merchant requesting the complete set of agreements and records governing my merchant processing account. Please provide: 1) The exact Merchant Processing Terms & Conditions that were in effect at the time of my onboarding (including version/date). 2) Any Master Agreement incorporated by reference and any amendments that apply to my account. 3) The complete pricing schedule/rate tables/fee schedules tied to my account (including effective dates for any changes). 4) All acceptance logs and timestamps showing how and when the Terms were accepted (including any associated audit logs). 5) Any policy defining the notice mechanism used for rate or fee changes (email notice, portal notice, statement notice, etc.). If you need identifiers to locate the account, I can provide the legal business name, MID, and onboarding month/year. Thank you, [Full Name] [Business Name] [Phone] [Email]
Sample request language (CardConnect)
Subject: Request for Merchant Terms, Master Agreement, Pricing Schedule, and Acceptance Logs Hello CardConnect Support/Underwriting, I am requesting the complete contract set and acceptance records that govern my merchant processing account. Please provide: 1) The exact Terms & Conditions presented at onboarding (dated/versioned) and any subsequent amendments. 2) Any Master Agreement incorporated by reference, including exhibits and schedules. 3) The pricing schedule/rate table/fee schedule associated with my account (including effective dates for any changes). 4) Acceptance logs/timestamps/audit trail showing when and how the Terms were accepted. 5) Any policy or documentation describing how notice of pricing changes is provided to merchants. I can provide MID and onboarding details upon request. Thank you, [Full Name] [Business Name] [Phone] [Email]
14. Contact Information for This Archive
- Regulatory inquiries: [email protected]
- Merchant submissions: [email protected]
- Gingr legal submissions: [email protected]
15. Collaboration & Independent Review Invitations
This archive was built to preserve the record as it occurred. Transparency strengthens accuracy, and accuracy benefits merchants, platforms, regulators, and any entity tasked with evaluating disclosure practices. To that end, several groups are invited to collaborate or contribute supplemental documentation.
Regulators & Oversight Bodies
Invited to review, request records, or provide recommended clarifications:
- State Attorneys General
- Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)
- Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
- State consumer-protection divisions
- Financial agencies overseeing merchant processing
Payment Processors & Contracting Partners
Invited to contribute historical or clarifying documents:
- CardConnect
- Fiserv Legal, Risk, and Compliance
- Any underwriting or contractual affiliates linked to the onboarding process
Processors are encouraged to submit:
• Historical Terms & Conditions
• Acceptance logs and timestamps
• Any Master Agreement referenced in onboarding Terms
• Pricing schedules or rate-change authority
• Policies regarding disclosure of pricing changes
Current & Former Gingr Merchants
Merchants may submit:
- Onboarding screenshots or workflows
- Rate histories or processor statements
- Export-tool behavior or data-retention issues
- Copies of notices—or absence of notices—regarding pricing changes
Merchant documents are only published with explicit permission.
Media, Analysts & Researchers
Those covering SaaS disclosure standards, integrated payment processing, or B2B consumer-protection patterns may request interviews or evidence summaries.
Purpose of Collaboration
The intention is not adversarial. It is archival. A complete record supports clear evaluation, regardless of perspective. Any verified documentation from Gingr, CardConnect, or Fiserv will be added as-is—without revision, editorialization, or contextual dilution.
Collaboration inbox: [email protected]
16. Statement of Neutrality & Good Faith
This archive presents only verifiable documentation. It makes no legal accusations or conclusions. Any verified correction provided by Gingr will be incorporated transparently, without burying the revision and without rewriting the record.
Transparency benefits merchants, regulators, and Gingr alike. This archive is truth in organized form — nothing more, nothing less.