Verizon Accepts Mobile-Payment Charges On Bill. Will The Consumer Be Protected?

Written by Evan Schuman
June 15th, 2011

Verizon Wireless on Monday (June 13) officially declared that it would do what it had been refusing to for years: support mobile payments appearing on its phone bills.

Verizon went out of its way to deny that this signals the telecom giant pulling back from its ISIS mobile-payment alliance with AT&T and T-Mobile. Indeed, it trumpeted its denial in the second paragraph of its own news release. Feels sort of like the guy who walks into house and his wife says, “Welcome home,” and he shoots back, “I certainly wasn’t cheating on you just now, in case you were thinking that.” (Second paragraph, Verizon? The telco doth protest too much, methinks.)

The denial didn’t even—to be precise—refute that its affections for ISIS are cooling. “Our relationship with Payfone complements the part of the mobile-payments equation we’re already working on with our ISIS joint venture,” said Greg Haller, marketing vice president, Verizon Wireless. (Like Rep. Anthony Weiner complemented his marriage to his wife through Twitter interactions? Or like former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger complimented his wife by paying more attention to the household cleaning staff? Hey, if we’re going to crack political quips, they need to be balanced political-party-wise.)

Whether or not it marks a separation from ISIS is irrelevant, especially as Google’s near field communication (NFC) move might render ISIS itself irrelevant. And if it doesn’t, some Euro moves might. What is clear, though, is that the willingness to post charges on the customer’s existing phone bill certainly is a different strategy than ISIS has been pushing.

The specifics of Verizon’s efforts are sketchy. Verizon Wireless Spokesperson Jeffrey Nelson said, “We hope to offer this service by the end of the year.” It’s being done through a partnership with Payfone, will initially focus on an unspecified number of unidentified retailers and will be limited to E-Commerce purchases, especially in the areas of ticketing/transportation, flowers, music downloads, games, candy and pizza, said Payfone CEO Roger Desai.

Of potentially greater concern are the level of consumer protections Verizon will put in place to protect retailers’ customers. ConsumerReports on Wednesday (June 15) issued a report describing the absence of typical consumer-payment protections if the transactions are sent directly to a telco bill.

“Consumers who use mobile-payment products that debit a prepaid mobile account or send a charge to a mobile-phone account will likely only have voluntary protections from the wireless carrier’s contract. It is unclear what recourse a consumer has when a payment is linked to a prepaid deposit to a wireless carrier (prepaid) or to a phone bill that the consumer pays at the end of the billing cycle, which is usually on a month-to-month basis (postpay). Interstate and international telephone services are regulated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), but the FCC does not have regulations on mobile payments (“non-telephone services”) charged to a prepaid deposit or phone bill,” the report said. “As a result, consumers making mobile payments linked to a prepaid phone account or to their postpay mobile accounts may have no guaranteed consumer protections in the event of an unauthorized transaction or error. None of the wireless carrier contracts we reviewed provided protections as strong as if a payment were made with a credit or debit card.”

It’s certainly a good thing that Verizon is now open to alternative methods to handle these payments. But if retail customers aren’t protected better, it would be foolish for chains to support the move. After all, if customers go to Target or Walgreens and use their Verizon phone to make a purchase and the charges are incorrect on their bills and Verizon refuses to help, who do you think will lose business? What’s more likely: That customers will change their phone service and pay a penalty or that they will simply stop shopping at Target or Walgreens?


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.