LeX-Ray

Fragmentation of the internal market is detrimental to competitiveness, growth and job creation within the Union. Eliminating direct and indirect obstacles to the proper functioning and completion of an integrated market for electronic payments, with no distinction between national and cross-border payments, is necessary for the proper functioning of the internal market.

PSD of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 4 ) has provided a legal foundation for the creation of a Union-wide internal market for payments as it substantially facilitated the activity of payment service providers, creating uniform rules with respect to the provision of payment services.

CBPICR of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 5 ) established the principle that charges paid by users for a cross-border payment in euro are the same as for the corresponding payment within a Member State including card-based payment transactions covered by this Regulation.

Regulation 2012/260 of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 6 ) provided the rules for the functioning of credit transfers and direct debits in euro in the internal market but excluded card-based payment transactions from its scope.

CRD of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 7 ) aims to harmonise certain rules on contracts concluded between consumers and traders, including rules on fees for the use of means of payment, on the basis of which Member States prohibit traders from charging consumers, in respect of the use of a given means of payment, fees that exceed the cost borne by the trader for the use of such means.

Secure, efficient, competitive and innovative electronic payments are crucial if consumers, merchants and companies are to enjoy the full benefits of the internal market, especially as the world moves towards e-commerce.

Some Member States have issued or are preparing legislation to regulate directly or indirectly interchange fees and covering a number of issues, including caps on interchange fees at various levels, merchant fees, the ‘Honour All Cards’ rule and steering measures. The existing administrative decisions in some Member States vary significantly. To make the levels of interchange fees more consistent, a further introduction of regulatory measures at national level aimed at addressing the levels of, or discrepancies between, those fees is anticipated. Such national measures would be likely to lead to significant barriers to the completion of the internal market in the area of card-based payments and internet and mobile payments based on cards and would therefore hinder the freedom to provide services.

Payment cards are the most frequently used electronic payment instrument for retail purchases. However, integration of the Union payment card market is far from complete as many payment solutions cannot develop beyond their national borders and new pan-Union players are prevented from entering the market. There is a need to remove obstacles to the efficient functioning of the card market, including in the area of card-based payments and internet and mobile payments based on cards.

To enable the internal market to function effectively, the use of electronic payments should be promoted and facilitated to the benefit of merchants and consumers. Cards and other electronic payments can be used in a more versatile manner, including possibilities to pay online in order to take advantage of the internal market and e-commerce, whilst electronic payments also provide merchants with potentially secure payments. Card-based payment transactions instead of payments in cash could therefore be beneficial for merchants and consumers, provided that the fees for the use of the payment card schemes are set at an economically efficient level, whilst contributing to fair competition, innovation and market entry of new operators.

Interchange fees are usually applied between the card-acquiring payment service providers and the card-issuing payment service providers belonging to a certain payment card scheme. Interchange fees are a main part of the fees charged to merchants by acquiring payment service providers for every card-based payment transaction. Merchants in turn incorporate those card costs, like all their other costs, in the general prices of goods and services. Competition between payment card schemes to convince payment service providers to issue their cards leads to higher rather than lower interchange fees on the market, in contrast with the usual price-disciplining effect of competition in a market economy. In addition to a consistent application of the competition rules to interchange fees, regulating such fees would improve the functioning of the internal market and contribute to reducing transaction costs for consumers.

The existing wide variety of interchange fees and their level prevent the emergence of new pan-Union players on the basis of business models with lower or no interchange fees, to the detriment of potential economies of scale and scope and their resulting efficiencies. This has a negative impact on merchants and consumers and prevents innovation. As pan-Union players would, as a minimum, have to offer issuing banks the highest level of interchange fee prevailing in the market they want to enter, it also results in persisting market fragmentation. Existing domestic schemes with lower or no interchange fees may also be forced to exit the market because of the pressure from banks to obtain higher interchange fees revenues. As a result, consumers and merchants face restricted choice, higher prices and lower quality of payment services, while their ability to use pan-Union payment solutions is also restricted. In addition, merchants cannot overcome the fee differences by making use of card acceptance services offered by banks in other Member States. Specific rules applied by the payment card schemes require the application of the interchange fee of the ‘point of sale’ (country of the merchant) for each payment transaction, on the basis of their territorial licensing policies. This requirement prevents acquirers from successfully offering their services on a cross-border basis. It can also prevent merchants from reducing their payment costs to the benefit of consumers.

The application of existing legislation by the Commission and national competition authorities has not been able to redress this situation.

Therefore, to avoid fragmentation of the internal market and significant distortions of competition through diverging laws and administrative decisions, there is a need, in line with Article 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, to take measures to address the problem of high and divergent interchange fees, to allow payment service providers to provide their services on a cross-border basis and for consumers and merchants to use cross-border services.

The application of this Regulation should be without prejudice to the application of Union and national competition rules. It should not prevent Member States from maintaining or introducing lower caps or measures of equivalent object or effect through national legislation.

In order to facilitate the smooth functioning of an internal market for card-based payments and internet and mobile payments based on cards, to the benefit of consumers and merchants, this Regulation should apply to cross-border and domestic issuing and acquiring of card-based payment transactions. If merchants can choose an acquirer outside their own Member State (‘cross-border acquiring’), which will be facilitated by the imposition of the same maximum level of both domestic and cross-border interchange fees for acquired transactions and the prohibition of territorial licensing, it should be possible to provide the necessary legal clarity and to prevent distortions of competition between payment card schemes.

As a consequence of unilateral undertakings and commitments accepted in the framework of competition proceedings, many cross-border card-based payment transactions in the Union are already carried out respecting the maximum interchange fees. In order to provide for fair competition in the market for acquiring services, the provisions relating to cross-border and to domestic transactions should apply simultaneously and within a reasonable period after the entry into force of this Regulation, taking account of the difficulty and complexity of the migration of payment card schemes, which this Regulation necessitates.

There are two main types of credit cards available on the market. With deferred debit cards, the total amount of transactions is debited from the cardholder account at a pre-agreed specific date, usually once a month, without interest to be paid. With other credit cards, the cardholder can use a credit facility in order to reimburse part of the amounts due at a later date than specified, together with interest or other costs.

All debit and credit card-based payment transactions should be subject to a maximum interchange fee rate.

The impact assessment shows that a prohibition of interchange fees for debit card transactions would be beneficial for card acceptance, card usage, the development of the single market and generate more benefits to merchants and consumers than a cap set at any higher level. Moreover, it would avoid negative effects resulting from a higher cap in those national schemes that have very low or zero interchange fees for debit transactions due to cross-border expansion or new market entrants increasing fee levels to the level of the cap. A ban on interchange fees for debit card transactions also addresses the threat of exporting the interchange fee model to new, innovative payment services such as mobile and online systems.

The caps in this Regulation are based on the so-called ‘Merchant Indifference Test’ developed in economic literature, which identifies the fee level a merchant would be willing to pay if the merchant were to compare the cost of the customer's use of a payment card with those of non-card (cash) payments (taking into account the fee for service paid to acquiring banks, i.e. the merchant service charge and the interchange fee). It thereby stimulates the use of efficient payment instruments through the promotion of those cards that provide higher transactional benefits, while at the same time preventing disproportionate merchant fees, which would impose hidden costs on other consumers. Excessive merchant fees might otherwise arise due to the collective interchange fee arrangements, as merchants are reluctant to turn down costly payment instruments for fear of losing business. Experience has shown that those levels are proportionate, as they do not call into question the operation of international card schemes and payment service providers. They also provide benefits for merchants and consumers and provide legal certainty.

Nevertheless, as shown in the impact assessment, in certain Member States interchange fees have developed so as to allow consumers to benefit from efficient debit card markets in terms of card acceptance and card usage with lower interchange fees than the merchant indifference level. Member States should therefore be able to establish lower interchange fees for domestic debit card transactions.

In addition, to ensure that debit card fees are set at an economically efficient level, taking into account the structure of domestic debit card markets, the possibility to express interchange fee caps as a flat rate should be maintained. A flat rate may also promote the use of card-based payments of small value amounts (‘micropayments’). It should also be possible to apply such a flat rate in combination with a percentage rate, provided that the sum of such interchange fees does not exceed the specified percentage of the total annual transaction value at domestic level within each payment card scheme. Furthermore it should be possible to define a lower per transaction percentage interchange fee cap, and to impose a fixed maximum fee amount as a limit to the fee amount resulting from the applicable per transaction percentage rate.

Furthermore, taking into account that this Regulation undertakes harmonisation for the first time of interchange fees in a context where existing debit card schemes and interchange fees are very different, it is necessary to provide for flexibility for domestic payment cards markets. Therefore, during a reasonable transition period, in relation to domestic debit card transactions, Member States should be able to apply to all domestic debit card transactions within each payment card scheme a weighted average interchange fee of no more than the 0,2 % of the annual average transaction value of all domestic debit card transactions within each payment card scheme. In relation to the interchange fee cap calculated on the annual average transaction value within one payment card scheme, it is sufficient that a payment service provider participates in a payment card scheme (or some other type of agreements among payment service providers) in which, for all domestic debit card transactions, a weighted average interchange fee of no more than the 0,2 % is applied. Here, too, a flat fee or a percentage fee or a combination of the two can be applied provided that the weighted average maximum cap is respected.

In order to define the relevant interchange fee caps for domestic debit card transactions, it is appropriate to allow national competent authorities entitled to ensure compliance with this Regulation to collect information regarding the volume and value of all debit card transactions within a payment card scheme or of the debit card transactions pertaining to one or more payment service providers. As a consequence, payment card schemes and payment service providers should be obliged to provide relevant data to national competent authorities as specified by those authorities and in accordance with the time limits set by them. Reporting obligations should extend to payment service providers such as issuers or acquirers and not only to payment card schemes, in order to ensure that any relevant information is made available to the competent authorities which should, in any case, be able to require that such information is collected through the payment card scheme. Moreover, it is important that Member States ensure an adequate level of disclosure of the relevant information concerning the applicable interchange fee caps. In light of the fact that payment card schemes are generally not payment service providers subject to prudential supervision, competent authorities may require that the information sent by these entities is certified by an independent auditor.

Some payment instruments at domestic level enable the payer to initiate card-based payment transactions that are not distinguishable as debit or credit card transactions by the payment card scheme. The choices made by the cardholder are unknown to the payment card scheme and to the acquirer; as a consequence, the payment card scheme does not have the possibility of applying the different caps imposed by this Regulation for debit and credit card transactions, which are distinguishable on the basis of the timing agreed for the debiting of the payment transactions. Taking into account the need to preserve the functionality of the existing business models while avoiding unjustified or excessive costs of legal compliance and, at the same time, considering the importance of ensuring an adequate level playing field between the different categories of payment cards, it is appropriate to apply the same rule provided by this Regulation for the debit card transactions to such domestic ‘universal cards’ payment transactions. Nevertheless, a longer time period for adaptation should be left to those payment instruments. Therefore, by way of exception and during a transition period of 18 months after the entry into force of this Regulation, Member States should be able to define a maximum share of domestic ‘universal cards’ payment transactions which are considered as being equivalent to credit card transactions. For example, the credit card cap could be applied to the defined share of the total value of the transactions for merchants or acquirers. The mathematical result of the provisions would then be equivalent to the application of a single interchange fee cap on domestic payment transactions carried out with universal cards.

This Regulation should cover all transactions where the payer's payment service provider and the payee's payment service provider are located in the Union.

In accordance with the principle of technological neutrality set out in the Digital Agenda for Europe, this Regulation should apply to card-based payment transactions regardless of the environment in which this transaction takes place, including through retail payment instruments and services which can be off-line, on-line or mobile.

Card-based payment transactions are generally carried out on the basis of two main business models, so-called ‘three party payment card schemes’ (cardholder — acquiring and issuing scheme — merchant) and ‘four party payment card schemes’ (cardholder — issuing bank — acquiring bank — merchant). Many four party payment card schemes use an explicit interchange fee, which is mostly multilateral. To acknowledge the existence of implicit interchange fees and contribute to the creation of a level playing field, three party payment card schemes using payment service providers as issuers or acquirers should be considered as four party payment card schemes and should follow the same rules, whilst transparency and other measures related to business rules should apply to all providers. However, taking into account the specificities which exist for such three party schemes, it is appropriate to allow for a transitional period during which Member States may decide not to apply the rules concerning the interchange fee cap if such schemes have a very limited market share in the Member State concerned.

The issuing service is based on a contractual relationship between the issuer of the payment instrument and the payer, irrespective of whether the issuer is holding the funds on behalf of the payer. The issuer makes payment cards available to the payer, authorises transactions at terminals or their equivalent and may guarantee payment to the acquirer for transactions that are in conformity with the rules of the relevant scheme. Therefore, the mere distribution of payment cards or technical services, such as the mere processing and storage of data, does not constitute issuing.

The acquiring service constitutes a chain of operations from the initiation of a card-based payment transaction to the transfer of the funds to the payment account of the payee. Depending on the Member State and the business model in place, the acquiring service is organised differently. Therefore the payment service provider paying the interchange fee does not always contract directly with the payee. Intermediaries providing part of the acquiring services but without direct contractual relationship with payees should nevertheless be covered in the definition of acquirer under this Regulation. The acquiring service is provided irrespective of whether the acquirer is holding the funds on behalf of the payee. Technical services, such as the mere processing and storage of data or the operation of terminals, do not constitute acquiring.

It is important to ensure that the provisions concerning the interchange fees to be paid or received by payment service providers are not circumvented by alternative flows of fees to issuers. To avoid this, the ‘net compensation’ of fees paid or received by the issuer, including possible authorisation charges, from or to a payment card scheme, an acquirer or any other intermediary should be considered as the interchange fee. When calculating the interchange fee, for the purpose of checking whether circumvention is taking place the total amount of payments or incentives received by an issuer from a payment card scheme with respect to the regulated transactions less the fees paid by the issuer to the payment card scheme should be taken into account. Payments, incentives and fees considered could be direct (i.e. volume-based or transaction-specific) or indirect (including marketing incentives, bonuses, rebates for meeting certain transaction volumes). In checking whether circumvention of the provisions of this Regulation is taking place, issuers' profits resulting from special programmes carried out jointly by issuers and payment card schemes and revenue from processing, licensing and other fees providing revenue to payment card schemes should, in particular, be taken into account. As appropriate, and if corroborated by further objective elements, the issuance of payment cards in third countries could also be taken into account when assessing potential circumvention of this Regulation.

Consumers tend to be unaware of the fees paid by merchants for the payment instrument they use. At the same time, a series of incentivising practices applied by issuers (such as travel vouchers, bonuses, rebates, charge backs, free insurances, etc.) may steer consumers towards the use of payment instruments, thereby generating high fees for issuers. To counter this, the measures imposing restrictions on interchange fees should only apply to payment cards that have become mass products and merchants generally have difficulty refusing due to their widespread issuance and use (i.e. consumer debit and credit cards). In order to enhance effective market functioning in the non-regulated parts of the sector and to limit the transfer of business from the regulated to the non-regulated parts of the sector, it is necessary to adopt a series of measures, including the separation of scheme and infrastructure, the steering of the payer by the payee and the selective acceptance of payment instruments by the payee.

A separation of scheme and infrastructure should allow all processors to compete for customers of the schemes. As the cost of processing is a significant part of the total cost of card acceptance, it is important for this part of the value chain to be opened to effective competition. On the basis of the separation of scheme and infrastructure, card schemes and processing entities should be independent in terms of accounting, organisation and decision-making process. They should not discriminate, for instance by providing each other with preferential treatment or privileged information which is not available to their competitors on their respective market segment, imposing excessive information requirements on their competitor in their respective market segment, cross-subsidising their respective activities or having shared governance arrangements. Such discriminatory practises contribute to market fragmentation, negatively impact market entry by new players and prevent pan-Union players from emerging, hence hindering the completion of the internal market in the area of card-based payments and internet and mobile payments based on cards, to the detriment of merchants, companies and consumers.

Scheme rules applied by payment card schemes and practices applied by payment service providers tend to keep merchants and consumers ignorant about fee differences and reduce market transparency, for instance by ‘blending’ fees or prohibiting merchants from choosing a cheaper card brand on co-badged cards or steering consumers to the use of such cheaper cards. Even if merchants are aware of the different costs, the scheme rules often prevent them from acting to reduce the fees.

Payment instruments entail different costs to the payee, with certain instruments being more expensive than others. Except where a particular payment instrument is imposed by law for certain categories of payments or cannot be refused due to its legal tender status, the payee should be free, in accordance with PSD, to steer payers towards the use of a specific payment instrument. Card schemes and payment service providers impose several restrictions on payees in this respect, examples of which include restrictions on the refusal by the payee of specific payment instruments for low amounts, on the provision of information to the payer on the fees incurred by the payee for specific payment instruments or limitation imposed on the payee of the number of tills in his or her shop which accept specific payment instruments. Those restrictions should be abolished.

In situations where the payee steers the payer towards the use of a specific payment instrument, no charges should be requested by the payee from the payer for the use of payment instruments of which interchange fees are regulated within the scope of this Regulation, as in such situations the advantages of surcharging become limited while creating complexity in the market.

The ‘Honour all Cards’ rule is a twofold obligation imposed by issuers and payment card schemes for payees to accept all the cards of the same brand, irrespective of the different costs of these cards (the ‘Honour all Products’ element) and irrespective of the individual issuing bank which has issued the card (the ‘Honour all Issuers’ element). It is in the interest of the consumer that for the same category of cards the payees cannot discriminate between issuers or cardholders, and payment card schemes and payment service providers can impose such an obligation on them. Therefore the ‘Honour all Issuers’ element of the ‘Honour all Cards’ rule is a justifiable rule within a payment card scheme, since it prevents payees from discriminating between individual banks which have issued a card. The ‘Honour all Products’ element is essentially a tying practice that has the effect of tying acceptance of low fee cards to the acceptance of high fee cards. A removal of the ‘Honour all Products’ element of the ‘Honour all Cards’ rule would allow merchants to limit the choice of payment cards they offer to low(er) cost payment cards only, which would also benefit consumers through reduced merchants' costs. Merchants accepting debit cards would then not be forced to accept credit cards, and those accepting credit cards would not be forced to accept commercial cards. However, to protect the consumer and the consumer's ability to use the payment cards as often as possible, merchants should be obliged to accept cards that are subject to the same regulated interchange fee only if issued within the same brand and of the same category (prepaid card, debit card or credit card). Such a limitation would also result in a more competitive environment for cards with interchange fees not regulated under this Regulation, as merchants would gain more negotiating power as regards the conditions under which they accept such cards. Those restrictions should be limited and considered acceptable only to enhance consumers' protection, giving to the consumers an adequate level of certainty about the fact that their payment cards will be accepted by the merchants.

A clear distinction between consumer and commercial cards should be ensured by the payment service providers both on a technical and on a commercial basis. It is therefore important to define a commercial card as a payment instrument used only for business expenses charged directly to the account of the undertaking or public sector entity or the self-employed natural person.

Payees and payers should have the means to identify the different categories of cards. Therefore, the various brands and categories should be identifiable electronically and for newly issued card-based payment instruments visibly on the device. In addition, the payer should be informed about the acceptance of the payer's payment instrument(s) at a given point of sale. It is necessary that any limitation on the use of a given brand be announced by the payee to the payer at the same time and under the same conditions as the information that a given brand is accepted.

In order to ensure that competition between brands is effective, it is important that the choice of payment application be made by users, not imposed by the upstream market, comprising payment card schemes, payment service providers or processors. Such an arrangement should not prevent payers and payees from setting a default choice of application, where technically feasible, provided that that choice can be changed for each transaction.

In order to ensure that redress is possible where this Regulation has been incorrectly applied, or where disputes occur between payment services users and payment service providers, Member States should establish adequate and effective out-of-court complaint and redress procedures or take equivalent measures. Member States should lay down rules on the penalties applicable to infringements of this Regulation and should ensure that those penalties are effective, proportionate and dissuasive and that they are applied.

The Commission should present a report studying various effects of this Regulation on the functioning of the market. It is necessary that the Commission has the possibility to collect the information required to establish this report and that the competent authorities cooperate closely with the Commission for the collection of data.

Since the objectives of this Regulation to lay down uniform requirements for card-based payment transactions and internet and mobile payments based on cards cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, but can rather, by reason of its scale, be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives.

This Regulation complies with the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, notably the right to an effective remedy or to a fair trial, the freedom to conduct a business, consumer protection and has to be applied in accordance with those rights and principles,