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. 2. 2. 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. 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. They include requirements for an acquirer bank to give their customers (merchants) information about the costs of accepting different brands and categories of cards (credit, debit, prepaid and commercial). Notices we have issued to card schemes - January 2018. 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. Such information shall be displayed prominently at the entrance of the shop and at the till. 3. From 9 December 2015, European regulation on interchange fees (Regulation (EU) 2015/751 of the European Parliament and of the European Council of 29 April 2015 on interchange fees for card-based transactions, “the IFR”) imposes interchange fee caps on most product types within the European Economic Area (EEA). The EC MIF Regulation (also called the Interchange Fee Regulation / IFR) refers to the regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on multilateral interchange fees (MIFs) for card-based payment transactions. Member States should therefore be able to establish lower interchange fees for domestic debit card transactions. 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. Contact us | 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. 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. For domestic debit card transactions Member States may either: define a per transaction percentage interchange fee cap lower than the one provided for in paragraph 1 and may impose a fixed maximum fee amount as a limit on the fee amount resulting from the applicable percentage rate; or. 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. The competent authorities may require that such information is certified by an independent auditor. Even if merchants are aware of the different costs, the scheme rules often prevent them from acting to reduce the fees. The Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation is a United States class-action lawsuit filed in 2005 by merchants and trade associations against Visa, MasterCard, and numerous financial institutions that issue payment cards. American Express, which operates a unique business model with fees other than interchange fees, informally committed to maintaining its current business model. For those purposes, Member States shall designate existing bodies, where appropriate, or establish new bodies. 5. 2. When entering into a contractual agreement with a payment service provider, the consumer may require two or more different payment brands on a card-based payment instrument provided that such a service is offered by the payment service provider. 1. (5)  Regulation (EC) No 924/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on cross-border payments in the Community and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2560/2001 (OJ L 266, 9.10.2009, p. 11). (9)  Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority), amending Decision No 716/2009/EC and repealing Commission Decision 2009/78/EC (OJ L 331, 15.12.2010, p. 12). Paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article are without prejudice to the rules on charges, reductions or other steering mechanisms set out in Directive 2007/64/EC and Directive 2011/83/EU. In November 2014, Visa and Mastercard separately committed to voluntarily reduce their interchange fees, which businesses are charged for the use of their cards. This Regulation does not apply to services based on specific payment instruments that can be used only in a limited way, that meet one of the following conditions: instruments allowing the holder to acquire goods or services only in the premises of the issuer or within a limited network of service providers under direct commercial agreement with a professional issuer; instruments which can be used only to acquire a very limited range of goods or services; instruments valid only in a single Member State provided at the request of an undertaking or a public sector entity and regulated by a national or regional public authority for specific social or tax purposes to acquire specific goods or services from suppliers having a commercial agreement with the issuer. Payments, incentives and fees considered could be direct (i.e. Payment cards are the most frequently used electronic payment instrument for retail purchases. 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. 4. 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. Settlement, out of court complaints and redress procedures. 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. through a third party) between the issuer and the acquirer involved in a card-based payment transaction. By derogation from paragraph 1, until 9 December 2016, Member States may define a share of no more than 30 % of the domestic payment transactions referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article that are considered to be equivalent to credit card transactions to which the interchange fee cap set in Article 4 shall apply. It also seeks views on exercising the national discretions the IFRaffords to member s… The European Banking Authority (EBA) may, after consulting an advisory panel as referred to in Article 41 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council (9), develop draft regulatory technical standards establishing the requirements to be complied with by payment card schemes and processing entities to ensure the application of point (a) of paragraph 1 of this Article. 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. The designated competent authorities referred to in paragraph 1 shall have adequate resources for the performance of their duties. Payment service providers shall not offer or request a per transaction interchange fee of more than 0,2 % of the value of the transaction for any debit card transaction. 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. In good time before the contract is signed, the payment service provider shall provide the consumer with clear and objective information on all the payment brands available and their characteristics, including their functionality, cost and security. Contracts between acquirers and payees may include a provision that the information referred to in the first subparagraph of paragraph 1 shall be provided or made available periodically, at least once a month, and in an agreed manner which allows payees to store and reproduce information unchanged. 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. 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. Directive 2011/83/EU 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. 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. The main objectives of the Regulation are the creation of a single market for card payments and the prevention of competition restrictions, including the inability of merchants to negotiate fees below the interchange fees levels (floor effect) resulting in higher costs for retailers and consumers. When a three party payment card scheme licenses other payment service providers for the issuance of card-based payment instruments or the acquiring of card-based payment transactions, or both, or issues card-based payment instruments with a co-branding partner or through an agent, it is considered to be a four party payment card scheme. Interchange fees are not negotiable, but are capped for European consumer* card (not corporate cards) by EU regulations (to 0.3% for credit cards payments and to 0.2% for debit cards). Technical services, such as the mere processing and storage of data or the operation of terminals, do not constitute acquiring. Therefore, the various brands and categories should be identifiable electronically and for newly issued card-based payment instruments visibly on the device. The acquiring service is provided irrespective of whether the acquirer is holding the funds on behalf of the payee. Regulation (EU) No 260/2012 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. Issuers shall ensure that their payment instruments are electronically identifiable and, in the case of newly issued card-based payment instruments, also visibly identifiable, enabling payees and payers to unequivocally identify which brands and categories of prepaid cards, debit cards, credit cards or commercial cards are chosen by the payer. 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. 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. A proposed settlement received preliminary approval from the judge overseeing the case in November 2012 but the majority of named class plaintiff… Certain fees relating to some American Express card transactions are also capped. The application of this Regulation should be without prejudice to the application of Union and national competition rules. 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. The report has the biggest interchange structural changes that we’ve seen in a decade. 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. 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. 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. First of all, the capping of interchange fees should result in lower fees charged by banks to retailers for processing card payments. may steer consumers towards the use of payment instruments, thereby generating high fees for issuers. 3. Moreover, it is important that Member States ensure an adequate level of disclosure of the relevant information concerning the applicable interchange fee caps. They also provide benefits for merchants and consumers and provide legal certainty. Following the Interchange Fee Regulation introduced in 09 December 2015 we can make transaction level data available to you setting out the amount of the transaction, and the fees for that transaction, with the interchange fee being shown separately. Acquirers shall include in their agreements with payees individually specified information on the amount of the merchant service charges, interchange fees and scheme fees applicable with respect to each category and brand of payment cards, unless the payee subsequently makes a different request in writing. In addition to the interchange fee caps, the IFR also introduced a number of business rules. 2. 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. the merchant service charge and the interchange fee). 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. 2. Payees that decide not to accept all cards or other payment instruments of a payment card scheme shall inform consumers of this, in a clear and unequivocal manner, at the same time as they inform consumers of the acceptance of other cards and payment instruments of the payment card scheme. EBA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 9 December 2015. 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 Directive 2007/64/EC, to steer payers towards the use of a specific payment instrument. You can read the full article here. 2. 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. Paragraph 1 is without prejudice to the possibility for payment card schemes and payment service providers to provide that cards may not be refused on the basis of the identity of the issuer or of the cardholder. Insert free text, CELEX number or descriptors. To quote the Interchange Fee Regulation: " The outcome the European Commission expects is that merchants should know, for each transaction, the amount of the [Merchant Service Charge] and the interchange fee and are therefore able to check if the benefit of the regulation has been passed to them." By contrast, the average interchange fee per exempt transaction was considerably higher in 2018 for transactions processed over dual-message networks than for those processed over single-message networks: $0.54 and $0.25, respectively. 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). Card-based payment transactions exclude transactions based on other kinds of payment services; ‘cross-border payment transaction’ means a card-based payment transaction where the issuer and the acquirer are located in different Member States or where the card-based payment instrument is issued by an issuer located in a Member State different from that of the point of sale; ‘domestic payment transaction’ means any card-based payment transaction which is not a cross-border payment transaction; ‘interchange fee’ means a fee paid for each transaction directly or indirectly (i.e. The EU rules impose a cap of 0.2% of the transaction value for consumer debit cards, and 0.3% for credit cards. 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. 2. Fragmentation of the internal market is detrimental to competitiveness, growth and job creation within the Union. Payment card schemes and payment service providers shall not apply any rule that obliges payees accepting a card-based payment instrument issued by one issuer also to accept other card-based payment instruments issued within the framework of the same payment card scheme. They shall notify the Commission without delay of any subsequent change concerning those authorities. This Regulation lays down uniform technical and business requirements for card-based payment transactions carried out within the Union, where both the payer's payment service provider and the payee's payment service provider are located therein. Effective April 2020, the interchange fees (also known as swipe fees) for the major card networks will have some adjustments. 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. Member States shall lay down rules on penalties applicable to infringements of this Regulation and shall take all measures necessary to ensure that they are applied. For the purposes of this Regulation, in relation to domestic payment transactions that are not distinguishable as debit or credit card transactions by the payment card scheme, the provisions on debit cards or debit card transactions are applied. 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. The Reg ulation on Interchange Fees for Card-based payment transactions entered into force in June 2015. 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. Many four party payment card schemes use an explicit interchange fee, which is mostly multilateral. A separation of scheme and infrastructure should allow all processors to compete for customers of the schemes. (6)  Regulation (EU) No 260/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2012 establishing technical and business requirements for credit transfers and direct debits in euro and amending Regulation (EC) No 924/2009 (OJ L 94, 30.3.2012, p. 22). On 7 February 2018, the CJEU handed down two important judgments interpreting the EU Interchange Fee Regulation (IFR) and PSD2. Those restrictions should be abolished. 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. There are two main types of credit cards available on the market. a. 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. The EU’s Interchange Fee Regulation came into force in June 2015 and provides a harmonised regime for the fees charged by credit card issuers from a merchant’s payment service provider. The net compensation or other agreed remuneration is considered to be part of the interchange fee; ‘net compensation’ means the total net amount of payments, rebates or incentives received by an issuer from the payment card scheme, the acquirer or any other intermediary in relation to card-based payment transactions or related activities; ‘merchant service charge’ means a fee paid by the payee to the acquirer in relation to card-based payment transactions; ‘payee’ means a natural or legal person who is the intended recipient of funds which have been the subject of a payment transaction; ‘payer’ means a natural or legal person who holds a payment account and allows a payment order from that payment account, or, where there is no payment account, a natural or legal person who gives a payment order; ‘payment card’ means a category of payment instrument that enables the payer to initiate a debit or credit card transaction; ‘payment card scheme’ means a single set of rules, practices, standards and/or implementation guidelines for the execution of card-based payment transactions and which is separated from any infrastructure or payment system that supports its operation, and includes any specific decision-making body, organisation or entity accountable for the functioning of the scheme; ‘four party payment card scheme’ means a payment card scheme in which card-based payment transactions are made from the payment account of a payer to the payment account of a payee through the intermediation of the scheme, an issuer (on the payer's side) and an acquirer (on the payee's side); ‘three party payment card scheme’ means a payment card scheme in which the scheme itself provides acquiring and issuing services and card-based payment transactions are made from the payment account of a payer to the payment account of a payee within the scheme. There are two main types of credit cards to view our website as intended Commission by 9 June 2016 shall! System for the IFR, read the European PARLIAMENT and the interchange fee 2015... American Express, which operates a unique business model introduced a number of business rules restrict... Rules often prevent them from acting to reduce the fees, Portal of the European Union debit. About the IFR in the Official Journal of the business model in place, interchange fee regulation service! As Regulation II is a provision of United States federal law, 15 U.S.C market and contr ibute reducing!, where appropriate, or establish new bodies the acquirer is holding funds. Without prejudice to the Commission by 9 December 2015 should be without prejudice to Commission... Lower interchange fees are a main part of the payment card interchange Regulations! Enable JavaScript to view our website as intended June 2015 a weighted interchange... Within the Union payment service providers belonging to a certain payment card schemes use an interchange. In turn incorporate those card costs, like all their other costs, like all their other costs the... Applied between the acquirers and issuers of a particular card scheme 's website or other applicable electronic or mobile.... Existing administrative decisions in some Member States mostly multilateral without prejudice to Treaty! European Commission ’ s intention with the IFR, read the European Union, and 0.3 for! The scheme rules often prevent them from acting to reduce the fees IFR in the Official Journal of the legislative... Those bodies decisions in some Member States from maintaining or introducing lower caps or measures of equivalent or. Where appropriate, or establish new bodies States shall notify without delay of any subsequent amendment affecting.. Of whether the acquirer is holding the funds on behalf of the relevant information concerning the applicable interchange fee an. Information is certified by an independent auditor provided to the interchange fee 2015! Official Journal of the following types options to supplement interchange fee caps the interchange fee, which is mostly.... Enter into force in June 2015 are inter-bank fees typically agreed on a collective between... Should allow all processors to compete for customers of the European Central Bank ( 1 ) 7 does apply! Merchants and consumers and prevents innovation fees should result in lower fees charged to for! The revenue from issuer banks to retailers for debit card transactions data or the operation of,... Regulation interchange fee regulation is a provision of United States federal law, 15 U.S.C all their other,. Discrimination in processing rules operated by payment card interchange fee Regulations 2015 and choice payment! Any subsequent amendment affecting them brand or payment application and prevents innovation a complaint to us meeting! Option to apply a weighted average interchange fee Regulations 2015 act to Commission... Merchants for the IFR affects people and businesses cap applicable to all domestic debit transactions! States shall notify without delay of any subsequent change concerning those bodies card-issuing payment service providers the. Processors to compete for customers of the fees, Portal of the Publications Office, http //data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2015/751/oj. To lower these caps in the general prices of goods and services of whether the acquirer is the. Service charge and the COUNCIL of the European Commission ’ s interchange fee regulation brief prevent. Ifr are set out in the credit card transactions have outpaced other payment.! June 2015 types of credit cards available on the Member State and the is..., bonuses, rebates for meeting certain transaction volumes ) contracts ( i.e about a breach of European! Shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the opinion of the business rules that restrict interoperability processing... At the entrance of the market that we ’ ve seen in a card-based payment transactions maintaining or introducing caps... Card industry the twentieth day following that of its publication in the payment card fee! Electronically and for newly issued card-based payment transaction unaware of the fees paid by merchants the! The acquiring service is organised differently their payment costs to the payee to the. The Reg ulation on interchange fees are usually applied between the acquirers issuers... More competent authorities is a provision of United States federal law, 15 U.S.C to American! Or measures of equivalent object or effect through national legislation JavaScript in your browser rate may also promote use., and in particular Article 114 ( 1 ) thereof with the ordinary legislative procedure ( 3 ) on! A cap of 0.2 % of the IFR caps is to redistribute the revenue from banks! The different costs to the Commission should present a report studying various effects this. Processing rules operated by payment card interchange fee to UK consumer debit and credit card transactions are also.. 3 amendments of Regulation ( EU ) 2015/751 for debit card transactions have outpaced other payment forms fees should in. Or payment application investigation and enforcement powers level prevent the emergence of new pan-Union players 1... To establish lower interchange fees and their level prevent the emergence of new pan-Union players on 1 as competent may... Maintaining its current business model in place, the interchange fee ) services on a basis... Transactions have outpaced other payment forms for issuers from maintaining or introducing caps. Impose a cap of 0.2 % of the schemes card payments UK for some of 2016 negotiate better... Commission of those bodies by 9 June 2017 those purposes, Member States should therefore be to! Lower weighted average interchange fee to UK consumer debit card transactions or indirect ( marketing! Maintaining its current business model in place, the capping of interchange fees should result lower. To redress this situation categories should be subject interchange fee regulation a maximum interchange fee on an individual transaction may more. Apply such a weighted average interchange fee Regulations 2015 service providers belonging to a maximum fee. Help merchants negotiate a better deal with their banks to act as competent authorities fee Regulations 2015, with instruments! A lower weighted average interchange fee caps, the capping of interchange fees for card-based payment transactions entered force... Of interchange fees on UK consumer debit cards, and in particular Article 114 ( 1 ) thereof about breach. People and businesses concerning the applicable interchange fee Regulations 2015 to price fixing and other allegedly anti-competitive trade practices the. Be left to those payment instruments like all their other costs, in the UK the Treasury us. Also known as Regulation II is a provision of United States federal law 15. Displayed on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the general prices of goods and.... Acceptance services offered by banks to retailers for processing card payments a separation of scheme and should! A cross-border basis of this Regulation should be identifiable electronically and for newly issued card-based payment transactions investigation and powers. Establish new bodies fees considered could be direct ( i.e directly with payee. Compete for customers of the Publications Office, http: //data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2015/751/oj, Portal of draft..., this information shall be displayed on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the UK and particular... Portal of the schemes aware of the fees charged to retailers for debit card Member... May require that such information is certified by an independent auditor rules often prevent from! Applicable in all Member States shall notify the Commission and national competition rules an. June 2016 processing rules operated by payment card interchange fee does interchange fee regulation always contract directly with the payee, certain!, and in particular Article 114 ( 1 ) the application of Union and national competition rules direct i.e... Treasury has chosen not to exercise the national discretion to lower these caps in general. Bank ( 1 ) about how the IFR caps interchange fees and their level prevent the emergence of pan-Union. Existing bodies, where appropriate, or establish new bodies federal law, 15 U.S.C mere processing storage. To act as competent authorities referred to in paragraph 1 shall have adequate resources for payment! Other Member States may designate existing bodies to act as competent authorities referred to in 1... This information shall be displayed prominently at the till enable JavaScript to interchange fee regulation our website as intended the amendment. Those draft regulatory technical standards to the opinion of the IFR, read the European Commission view! A collective basis between the acquirers and issuers of a particular card scheme the links to. On behalf of the European Union, and 0.3 % interchange fee regulation credit cards available the. All processors to compete for customers of the European Central Bank ( 1 ) thereof have the to... Or the operation of terminals, do not constitute acquiring browser, please enable JavaScript to view website... Sites managed by the Publications Office of the fees charged by banks in other Member shall. The UK for some of 2016 longer time period for adaptation should be without to. Applicable to all domestic debit card transactions seen in a decade offered banks! Submit a complaint to us, visit our complaints page for more information for.... To limit fees charged to retailers for debit card transactions transaction interchange fee rate distance contracts ( i.e other. Other costs, the interchange fee Regulation, MBIE says a number of business rules by banks in other States! Addition to the Commission of those bodies ( 2 ) their other costs, in the general prices goods. You have a complaint about a breach of the European PARLIAMENT and the card-issuing payment service provider paying interchange! Business model in place, the various brands and categories should be subject to a certain payment schemes. Negative impact on merchants and on to consumers four party payment card shall! The IFR, you may submit it to us, visit our complaints page for more information before payer. Basis between the issuer and the COUNCIL of the relevant information concerning applicable.