allow deposits to be required by service or price threshold in Square Appoointments

[Jazminer92]

I’m a Square Appointments user and wanted to submit a feature request based on real-world service business needs.

At the moment, deposits apply globally to all services once enabled. This makes deposits difficult to use for businesses with mixed pricing — for example, low-ticket services ($35–$50 haircuts) alongside higher-ticket, time-intensive services ($100–$300+).

One of the main reasons service-level deposits are so important is that card-on-file alone does not reliably protect against no-shows or late cancellations. In practice, clients may:

• Enter a faulty or expired card
• Lock or disable their card before a no-show
• Remove funds to avoid cancellation fees

This leaves sellers unprotected for high-ticket services, even when card-on-file is required.

What would be extremely helpful is the ability to configure deposits at the service or variation level, such as:

• Requiring deposits only for selected services
• Setting deposit requirements based on a price threshold (e.g. services over $100)
• Allowing card-on-file for low-ticket services while requiring deposits for higher-ticket services

This would allow sellers to appropriately secure time-intensive services without creating unnecessary friction for lower-cost appointments.

Many service-based businesses are currently forced into workarounds such as manual invoices or full prepayment, which undermines the purpose of having deposits built directly into Square Appointments.

Service-level deposit controls would:

• Reduce no-shows for premium services
• Provide meaningful payment security beyond card-on-file
• Improve booking fairness and flexibility
• Increase adoption of the deposits feature

Thank you for continuing to listen to seller feedback and improving Square Appointments.

— J Styles | Salon Services

[TEE2]

Thank you for this! I was coming to the feedback/request page to say this exact same thing. I too have a wide range of pricing depending on the scheduled service.

The percentage option somewhat works but can be a hassle since a client's remaining balance will most likely have some random amount of change. For example, if a service cost is $75 and the deposit amount required is 30%, the client would be left to pay $52.50 at the time of service. That $.50 makes transactions seem very odd.

Deposits should reflect the amount of the service as you said above. I hope this is something that can be implemented.

[JessPoynter]

Great insight! 
This is a vital update! It would also be incredibly beneficial to choose what the deposit could go toward. For example, if a client is booking a haircut and ordering extensions, it would be great if the deposit could go 100% toward the extensions and the haircut could be paid in person (with the verified card-on-file protection) or some other percentage breakup.

[cadresalon]

Our services range in price from $65 > $1200 and we use card on file with a no-show 50% charge. We apply the 50% charge at our discretion but no one is trying to game that process with the games you outlined above. If they did we would likely blacklist them. https://cadresalon.com

[Jazminer92]

@cadresalon 

Thanks for sharing your experience. I agree card-on-file can work well in some business models.

But, in my case (and others) as a solo provider offering longer, higher-ticket services alongside lower-ticket appointments, I’ve still seen situations where card-on-file alone does not reliably secure the appointment time (expired cards, locked cards, insufficient funds, etc.).

Because of that, more granular, service-level deposit controls would be especially helpful, not to replace card-on-file, but to allow sellers to appropriately match protection levels to the time and risk associated with specific services.

Right now the global deposit setting creates an all-or-nothing scenario, which can introduce unnecessary friction on lower-ticket services while still leaving gaps for higher-ticket, time-intensive bookings.

Greater flexibility here would better support the wide range of service models currently using Square Appointments. ☺️