No, The Interchange Settlement Won’t Kill PayPal POS Plans, But It Raises Retailer Pricing Problems

Written by Frank Hayes
October 3rd, 2012

The fight over the interchange settlement is heating up again, with the biggest settlement opponent apparently trying to swing PayPal onto its team. On September 28, the National Association of Convenience Stores’ lawyer, Douglas Kantor, claimed that the settlement’s terms would hobble PayPal’s in-store payments hopes. (PayPal hasn’t said anything on the subject, which suggests how much of a reach this is.)

But even Kantor admitted PayPal could fix the problem with a simple change in its merchant terms. A much trickier problem for retailers post-settlement may be deciding what price to put on each item—or whether there even is a single official price.

Kantor told PaymentsSource that, under the settlement, retailers could levy a surcharge on customers who use a payment card. But the surcharge would have to apply to all payment brands, including PayPal, even though PayPal reportedly prohibits retailers from levying a surcharge for using its in-store POS system. Kantor’s conclusion: Merchants will have to choose between PayPal or an interchange surcharge—and Visa and MasterCard crafted this provision to cut the legs out from under PayPal and other smaller Visa/MC competitors.

“PayPal is a tiny player that doesn’t set the market,” Kantor told PaymentsSource. “Visa and MasterCard set the market, and their rule prevents competition.”

We’re pretty sure PayPal just loves hearing itself called a payments pipsqueak. We’re also sure PayPal has plenty of time to change any contract terms that would get in the way of its post-settlement POS plans, presuming the settlement ever actually goes into effect.

And we’re very sure this tap-dance is really about interchange, which NACS’s convenience-store members want reduced. It’s also about surcharge avoidance, because convenience-store owners know that would mean either that a lot of customers would walk away from the POS unhappy about being nickel-and-dimed—or that they’d simply walk away.

The interchange settlement isn’t the only legal proceeding that has players in the payments process complaining about someone else being victimized. On Tuesday (Oct. 2), a coalition of banking trade groups argued in federal court in Washington, D.C., that consumers aren’t getting the benefit from interchange caps on debit-card transactions.

“The merchants have claimed all along that imposing government price controls on interchange fees would directly benefit consumers, yet there is absolutely no evidence that consumers are benefiting,” said a statement from the bankers’ groups. “So while consumers have gotten nothing from the retailers, the merchants are back asking the courts to add even more to the $6 billion windfall they are now enjoying.”

That’s the type of “you’re grabbing interchange money from consumers that we used to be able to grab from consumers” argument that restores our faith in bankers.

But back to the PayPal problem.


Comments are closed.


StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 60,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!

Most Recent Comments

Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
@David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.