Revolt Over Interchange: Home Depot, Wal-Mart Lead Way

Written by Evan Schuman
March 8th, 2012

In the same month that Home Depot is moving its PayPal mobile-payment process chainwide, the home improvement superstore—along with more than a dozen of the world’s largest retailers, including Wal-Mart and Target—is signaling its dissatisfaction with all of the current mobile-payment options by agreeing to fund an alternative. This retailer-owned effort has a lot of dollars to make its dreams come true, with more than $20 million pledged and more than a trillion dollars in combined revenue to funnel to the preferred approach.

But the group—composed largely of the chains’ financial types—has the same hurdles that have weighed down so many industry consortium: potential infighting among the leading players; legal obstacles; the need to build a massive infrastructure, given the intent to shun current networks; and the tech questions, such as whether this new approach will have any better luck at mastering security than today’s efforts.

“This all sounds vaguely familiar. Oh, yes. I believe ISIS had a similar ‘vision’ and $100 million,” said Randy Vanderhoof, executive director of the Smart Card Alliance. ISIS “found out quickly that ‘it ain’t easy.'”

Through conversations with various participants in the organization—which does not yet have a public name—the advantages and challenges of the effort each appear to be monumental. At the heart of the movement is retail frustration with mobile payments, which initially fueled hopes of a radical new payment order.

In the same way that the business popularization of the Web in the mid-90s rewrote retail and software rules and briefly threatened to topple software giant Microsoft, some had hoped that mobile would rewrite payment rules, reshaping (or even destroying) the dreaded interchange payment system, customer-favoring dispute resolution, information security, CRM data sharing and even the burdens of PCI. Put another way, a chance to topple the card brands, especially Visa and MasterCard. Triple especially Visa.

Said one participant in an early organizing meeting of the group: “We’re only going to get one chance in our lifetime to make a major difference, a major change in payments. And mobile is it,” the participant said. “It all boils down to busting the interchange system.”

Remaking those elements—security, interchange, data-sharing, dispute resolution and PCI—in a much more retailer-friendly way is what is driving the group. What makes this alliance of retailers potentially much more powerful—and effective—than earlier business groupings is the money. But like so much else here, the money specifics are amorphous, when they are being discussed at all.

Companies are joining at various levels, with various levels of pledged dollars, and the total pledged dollars are said to be in the “tens of millions,” with a goal to raise $100 million. But a pledge is very different than cash. One participant described the amount pledged as an “as much as” figure, with the money there when the member company believes there is a need for that cash.


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.