Tag Archives: payment processing

Visa Investigation Update

On May 2 it was revealed by Visa CEO Joe Saunders that the credit card giant was being investigated by the Department of Justice for violation of antitrust laws. One of the key elements of the DoJ’s interest in Visa for antitrust violations is its new fee, the Fixed Acquirer Network Fee (FANF) which went into effect on April 1, 2012. Saunders stated that the investigation began on March 13, prior to the fees taking effect.

Saunders revealed that Visa was being investigated during Visa Inc.’s Fiscal Q2 2012 Earnings Conference Call, which prompted The Official Merchant Services Blog to take its readers through the strange roller coaster ride that was Visa’s beginning of May in THIS BLOG HERE.

The strength of Visa’s earnings in the last quarter was framed immediately by Saunders in the conference call: Credit. As Saunders says, “In the U.S., payment volumes increased 6% for all products. Our star performer for fiscal second quarter was credit. Building on that, we continue to invest in new and expanded long-term credit relationships with our largest U.S. clients to drive growth in our core business.”

The other side of that statement, however, is debit. Where MasterCard took great strides — notably adding the nation’s largest debit card institution Bank of America, which switched from Visa.

Host Merchant Services image of Visa CEO Joe Saunders

Visa claims it was hampered by the Durbin Amendment in terms of making earnings from debit in the last quarter.  As Saunders said in the conference call, “So far, the situation is playing out as we expected, and in line with our updated guidance for fiscal 2012 as well as our guidance for fiscal 2013. During the March quarter, U.S. aggregate debit payment volumes slowed to 2% growth and, as expected, has continued to decline in April. Interlink is bearing the brunt of the regulatory impact.”

Saunders then took a moment to emphasize the individual differences between Visa Debit — the well known Visa check cards that get swiped through terminals around the country — and Interlink, Visa’s PIN-debit product. Saunders noted that Visa’s swipe debit grew, but grew very slowly. And then went into detail about how Interlink was the company’s worst performer in the quarter, “We posted negative payment volume growth in each month of the March quarter. More recently, between the compliance deadline of April 1 and April 28, Interlink payment volume has experienced notable deterioration. Keep in mind, though, that in the March quarter, Interlink contributed less than 10% of U.S. debit revenue and about 2% of Visa Inc.’s overall revenue and was our lowest yielding product in the U.S. market. “

At this point in the call Saunders shifted into a very general discussion of Visa’s “strategies to compete” — essentially their new fees, including FANF, the Transaction Integrity Fee and a revised Network Acquirer Processing Fee. That led Saunders to discuss the Department of Justice investigation: “On March 13, prior to the April 1 implementation date, the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division issued a civil investigative demand requesting additional information about PIN-authenticated Visa Debit and elements of our new debit strategies, including the fixed acquirer fee. In March, we met with the department twice and provided materials in response to the CID. We are confident our actions are appropriate and that our response to the DOJ supports that.”

More Commentary from Visa

During the question and answer period of the conference call, Saunders stepped up to defend Visa’s new fees. Saunders says that the fees are part of “the total structure we’ve put to deal with the Durbin regulation. We are not making money per se off of that fee. The combination of discounts and incentives that we have put together, I think, actually relate in a modest loss in the amount of $100 million a year. So we aren’t doing this with the intent of raising prices.”

Host Merchant Services image of the Department of Justice

Then another question comes up in the call asking about the outlook the company has for recovering from the losses in Debit due to Durbin. Saunders very vocally defends the company’s fees and strategies: “Let me just follow up on that and make perfectly clear one thing, and that is that we are never going to regain all of the market share that we had in the debit card business. Nothing that we say or none of our strategies suggest that that will happen or could happen. And nothing that we have done or thought about or said anticipates that it will happen. The environment has changed by regulation. We are operating in a different world, and we are going to live forever with less share than we once had.”

The TLDR Version from Visa

So essentially Visa’s CEO has revealed the company is being investigated by the DoJ for antitrust violations because its new fees could circumvent the point of the Durbin Amendment’s reform. But Saunders states the company is cooperating with the government probe, and stoutly defends the fees as not circumventing Durbin. Saunders says the fees don’t recoup the losses that the company will incur from the hard cap, and that the company is still taking a downturn in the debit sector even with the fees in effect. He admits that these fees are part of their strategy to deal with the legislation but feels that the company isn’t violating antitrust laws.

The transcript of the entire conference call can be read HERE at Seeking Alpha. Many thanks to them for providing it for use to bloggers and media outlets.

Hand Inserting Credit Card To A Pos Terminal Payment Terminal Flat Design Vector 64931018

A is for Acquirer

We’ve been working hard the past 7 months at The Official Merchant Services Blog to offer our readers a knowledge base — a place to come frequently to get clear and useful information about the payment processing industry. But we’re always looking to take things a step further. We want to offer more information and be even more helpful. I was recently inspired by this article over at UniBul’s Credit Card Blog which offers a definition of 21 confusing payment processing terms. Credit Card Processing has a lot of buzzwords that get used. This type of technical or industry language can sometimes make understanding statements very difficult for merchants.

Well we want to make these terms clear and remove the confusion. This is part of the ongoing service Host Merchant Services promises: the company delivers personal service and clarity. So we’re going to take some time to explain how everything works. This is going to be an ongoing series where we define industry related terms and slowly build up a knowledge base. We’ll start with the same term that kicked off the UniBul blog. But our coverage is going to go a bit deeper than just a definition. We’ll provide a little extra context. And as we get more and more of these completed, we’ll collect them in our resource archive for quick and easy access.

Hand Inserting Credit Card To A Pos Terminal Payment Terminal Flat Design Vector 64931018

Acquirer

An acquiring bank (or acquirer) is the bank or financial institution that processes credit and or debit card payments for products or services for a merchant. The term acquirer indicates that the financial institution accepts or acquires credit card transactions from the card-issuing banks within an association. The best known (credit) card Associations are Visa, MasterCard, American Express, Discover, Diners Club, JCB and China UnionPay.

An acquirer is contacted to authorize a credit card or debit purchase. The acquirer will either approve or decline the debit or credit card purchase amount. If approved the acquirer will then settle the transaction by placing the funds into the seller’s account.

Every time you use your credit or debit card you are using the services of an acquirer. An Acquirer will charge a monthly and/or a per transaction fee to the stores or merchants to facilitate transactions. Acquirers need to be licensed with credit card companies, such as Visa or MasterCard.

To get a better understanding of how payment processing works, you can view this infographic.

Android Phone Now Takes Payments

Host Merchant Services finally gets to make this announcement official: All mobile payment solutions the company offers now feature both iPhone and Android compatibility.

On February 28, 2012 Host Merchant Services teased through its Facebook Page that it would have big news regarding HMS and Mobile Payments in March. But technical difficulties with the full release of Payfox’s Android solution held the news back until today. In the Android Marketplace, Payfox is now listed and available for download. You can see the listing here.

The App has been on the Android Marketplace since March 21. But now the rest of the support is in place to get the app working. The final piece of the puzzle was the card reader — UniMag II, Two-Track Secure Mobile MagStripe Reader. The device is a two-track, encrypted magnetic stripe reader that works with a wide variety of mobile platforms, including Apple, HTC, LG, Motorola, and Samsung devices. Use your mobile device to read credit cards, signature debit cards, gift cards, loyalty cards, driver’s licenses, and ID badges. The UniMag reads up to 2 tracks of information with a single swipe in either direction, providing superior reading performance for your mobile device.  A merchant account is required to accept credit card transactions.

Host Merchant Services image of the Unimag II.

You can download the specs from the UniMag II data sheet right here. These are the Android devices supported by the reader:

  • HTC Aria
  • HTC Desire Z
  • HTC Eris
  • HTC EVO 4G
  • HTC EVO Shift 4G
  • HTC G2
  • HTC Hero
  • HTC Incredible
  • HTC MyTouch 4G
  • HTC EVO 3D
  • HTC Nexus One
  • HTC Incredible 2
  • HTC MyTouch 3G Slide
  • HTC MyTouch 4G Slide
  • HTC Thunderbolt
  • HTC Merge
  • LG Optimus T
  • LG Revolution
  • Motorola Droid 2
  • Motorola Droid X
  • Motorola Droid Pro
  • Motorola Milestone
  • Motorola FlipSide
  • Motorola Atrix
  • Motorola Droid 2
  • Motorola Droid 2 Global
  • Motorola Droid Bionic
  • Motorola Droid 3
  • Samsung Captivate
  • Samsung Droid Charge 4G
  • Samsung Epic
  • Samsung Epic 4G
  • Samsung Fascinate
  • Samsung Nexus S
  • Samsung Replenish
  • Samsung Infuse 4G
  • Samsung Continuum
  • Samsung Galaxy SII

Please Note

When you go to the Google Play Market and search for PayFox using your Android/Droid phone, the PayFox application will only display for those devices for which the application itself is compatible.

Host Merchant Services image for difference between Android phones and Star Wars Droids.

Red 5 Standing By

Our friends at Transfirst also wanted to offer some clarification about the use and licensing around the word Droid:

“Android and Droid are often used interchangeably when referring to ever-growing & increasingly popular line of smartphones that run on Google technology. The difference, for most purposes, is one of legal definitions and intellectual property. Android simply refers to the operating system and software that powers phones built by any of number manufacturers, including HTC or Motorola, and that run on any of the major carriers.

Droid, on the other hand, is a term coined and owned by LucasFilm Ltd., the licensing rights for which Verizon had to purchase in order to brand their specific line of Android Smartphones.”

In short, Androids are phones, and you can now use them to swipe payments. Droids are what Jawas scavenge. Though I’m sure the Jawas will happily accept mobile payments from all you moisture farmers out there. Ootini!

SOPA: Rebuttal of RIAA Opinion Pt. 2

This is part 2 of The Official Merchant Services Blog‘s rebuttal of this New York Times Op-Ed piece titled “What Wikipedia Won’t Tell You” written by Cary H. Sherman, chief executive of the Recording Industry Association of America, which represents music labels.

The Real Slim Shady

Mr. Sherman in his article goes on to accuse Wikipedia of spreading misinformation. He tries to find a smoking gun by suggesting the tech giants have an agenda of their own. He accuses them of bias in terms of the story they present, saying they are bending the truth and not being neutral. He even attacks media outlets that supported SOPA for not “taking advantage of their broadcast credibility to press their case.”

This is amazing. In a piece crafted specifically to present the RIAA’s very biased agenda that is featured in one of those media outlets thus stretching the New York Times’ already damaged credibility — lest we forget Zachary Kouwe, Maureen Dowd or Jayson Blair — Sherman accuses his opposition of doing the exact same thing he is doing. Keep in mind, his own executives were gloating about how well the music industry is doing in 2011. But here he is saying the industry is still being harmed by piracy and that Wikipedia is not telling you the whole story. Sherman simply seems to not be as familiar with how the internet works as his employee Duckworth is. To borrow the ever-popular phrase, he’s doing it wrong. He says, “Misinformation may be a dirty trick, but it works.” Not on the internet. People find you lying to them, or manipulating them, and they either make a mockery of you or turn you off. Sorry Mr. Sherman but in this instance, Citation Needed!

Host Merchant Services image about the Stop Online Piracy Act and the players involved.

First World Problems

Mr. Sherman makes another fatal mistake with his article when he types: “The conventional wisdom is that the defeat of these bills shows the power of the digital commons. Sure, anybody could click on a link or tweet in outrage — but how many knew what they were supporting or opposing? Would they have cast their clicks if they knew they were supporting foreign criminals selling counterfeit pharmaceuticals to Americans? Was it SOPA they were opposed to, or censorship?”

Sherman is playing off of a stereotype about the twitter-age, or Net 2.0 –that everything is simplified and broken down into tiny bits of information. That the online citizen isn’t getting the full story is in fact that’s his main idea. But Sherman has forgotten net 1.0, and the strength of what Google, Wikipedia and all of that data really is. Somewhere between twitter campaigns with STOP SOPA avatars and Sherman’s own e-mail inbox is this huge collective database of information, which includes the exact language of the legislation as written. Every single piece Host Merchant Services has written on SOPA has included this link:

Stop Online Piracy Act PDF

Merchant Services Document Download Graphic

Merchant Services Download Button

Many other articles that covered this topic throughout the past year have given links to all of the relevant data and text. It’s the internet Mr. Sherman. The information is just a click away. Many people not only had access to the bill, they also read it. And so their protest was based on the bill itself. Not on the oversimplification you suggest.

Young, Wild but Not Free

Mr. Sherman then takes a wild swing at all of the people who protested SOPA, suggesting some of them are criminals: “But others may simply believe that online music, books and movies should be free. And how many of those e-mails were from the same people who attacked the Web sites of the Department of Justice, the Motion Picture Association of America, my organization and others as retribution for the seizure of Megaupload, an international digital piracy operation? Indeed, it’s hackers like the group Anonymous that engage in real censorship when they stifle the speech of those with whom they disagree.”

So just because people don’t agree with your agenda, they’re hackers who support Megaupload and want free music? That’s the kind of rookie debate tactic that gets you ridiculed throughout the internet. It’s also misinformation and a huge distraction from the topic. The Megaupload arrest is separate from the SOPA debate. This is obvious. The arrest was made under the current law. The FBI was able to crack down on piracy using what is currently in place. That the federal government was able to successfully attack piracy under the laws currently in place would seem to weaken Sherman’s position. In fact data collected on the topic has shown that once the government moved past the Napster issue that Mr. Sherman was so quick to cry about in the opening portion of his article, piracy started to take a huge hit. In fact, that PDF from the IFPI has some compelling statistics about how much piracy dipped after Limewire was shut down. Apparently the current laws have a lot of teeth if law enforcement goes after the pirates and doesn’t waste time going after citizens or forcing search engines and payment network providers to police the internet.

U Jelly?

The last straw with Mr. Sherman’s terrible presentation of his organization’s biased agenda comes from his short and shallow rejection of the Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade Act (OPEN). This bill was drafted as an alternative to SOPA and PIPA. This bill was, excuse the irony, carefully devised by tech industry experts in the government — with an eye toward attacking online piracy but closing the wide open holes that the previous bills contained. The Official Merchant Services Blog helped break this story back in early December, with this blog, where we stated: “A bipartisan group of lawmakers have come out in support of a new law that has been proposed as an alternative to SOPA. Under this proposed legislation, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) would be given the power to investigate claims of copyright infringement on foreign websites. The proposal would also allow the ITC to issue cease-and-desist orders to foreign websites that willfully engage in copyright infringement. The lawmakers demonstrate some clever ingenuity here with this proposal by tapping the ITC for the job of piracy oversight. The ITC already investigates patent infringement complaints and can bar infringing products from being imported into the U.S.”

In short, OPEN is an alternative that was everything Sherman asked for in online piracy legislation that we never received with SOPA or PIPA. It was well researched. It deals with the issues. It has input from tech industry savvy and knowledgeable politicians that know what they’re doing. But Sherman’s misinformation sums up OPEN like this: “The diversionary bill that they drafted, the OPEN Act, would do little to stop the illegal behavior and would not establish a workable framework, standards or remedies. It has become clear that, at this point, neither SOPA, PIPA nor OPEN is a viable answer.”

Host Merchant Services image of online piracy

Forget You

Again Sherman glossed over some important aspects of his own organization’s rhetoric. This article found at The Verge cites the RIAA’s opposition to OPEN and its support of SOPA.  The article quotes RIAA Senior Executive VP Mitch Glazier as saying that the ITC “clearly does not operate on the short time frame necessary to be effective.” Glazer cites the delays in the RIM vs. Kodak case — filed in January 2010 but now expected to be ruled on in September 2012 — as a prime example. Glazier sees these delays as hugely damaging, saying that each day a piracy-facilitating website stays online can cost millions of dollars to “American companies, employees and economy,” and be “an ongoing threat to the security and safety of our citizens.”

So again, it’s a case of what Sherman isn’t telling you, while simultaneously suggesting it’s Wikipedia or Google that are obfuscating the issue. The biggest problem with SOPA and what helped get it killed in Congress was that it left things extremely wide open to interpretation. The biggest boon to OPEN is that it requires investigation. Yes, that absolutely does take time. Time needs to be taken. The RIAA doesn’t seem to care about the affects that can happen when a law goes into place allowing swift shut down of websites based on willy nilly complaints or the hidden agendas of competitors. In fact, this is what is wrong with the RIAA’s stance on piracy. They want what caused the protest in the first place. They want to be able to quickly shut down sites with little to no oversight on how the plug gets pulled. So when an alternative is proposed that works more at the a proper speed with investigation, careful consideration of the circumstances and oversight, the RIAA has to denounce that suggestion.

The RIAA keeps pushing for legislation that mirrors SOPA. In fact, this will be the third consecutive year that Senator Ron Wyden [D-OR] will defend our country against the immense loopholes and abusive traits that the RIAA crusades for — Wyden took a stand and singlehandedly curbed the Combat Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act of 2010 (S. 3804) in 2010, and then was at the forefront of halting PIPA this year in the senate. What Sherman is telling us isn’t anything revealing about Wikipedia. No. What Sherman is telling us is that no matter how many times the government tells him that these laws are poorly written and open for abuse, Sherman will keep pushing for this to go through.

Courage Wolf

Host Merchant Services and all other payment network providers have a vested interest in this legislation because they keep getting named in it. These laws keep coming up that require payment processors to be involved in the policing of online content. The issue is just as important to merchant services as the Durbin Amendment. And so The Official Merchant Services Blog is once again here to keep people informed about these developments. The RIAA is singing the same old song about Napster and Piracy trying to push some sympathetic buttons with the people, but at the same time attacking the overwhelming opposition to their agenda, calling them misinformed — and criminal. Suggesting that internet users don’t go beyond twitter messages in the depth of their awareness of issues that pertain directly to the future of their internet usage. And the entire time the RIAA is engaging in this shell-game of misinformation, they’re also gloating about how profitable they’ve been able to make digital music transactions. They claim they know the internet. But Mr. Sherman acts like he still thinks it’s a series of tubes. He might know it’s not a truck, but he’s still doing it wrong.

We’ll leave you with the same message we had days ago when Sherman’s employees were tweeting “DECLARE THAT!”

The bottom line is if Lady Gaga and Pitbull online sales are robust and  legit, it’s probably time to back off the Online Piracy rhetoric.

Rebuttal of RIAA Opinion

SOPA: Rebuttal of RIAA Opinion Pt. 1

The RIAA just won’t quit. They’re taken up the crusade to push for anti-piracy legislation once again, as seen in this New York Times Op-Ed piece titled “What Wikipedia Won’t Tell You” written by Cary H. Sherman,chief executive of the Recording Industry Association of America, which represents music labels. The content of the piece is incendiary, and that’s being kind. The RIAA is adamant about their stance on piracy and are pressing the issue in every outlet they can. To quote Digital Underground from their Sons of the P album — which currently is not available for legal purchase online due to holes in the DU library in various legit digital music resources — “Like Ice Cube says, Once Again it’s On.”

Everyday They’re Shufflin’

The Stop Online Piracy Act and the Protect Intellectual Property Act were both killed in Congress — shelved because they were too wide open to abuse. The protest against these bills reached a collective crescendo when internet giants Wikipedia and Google and WordPress teamed up with a host of others for an internet blackout. When the largest source of internet information — and grade school kids’ favorite spot for help with their homework — goes dark and the search engine juggernaut that fuels the internet shines its spotlight on your bill, things have finally gotten serious. The U.S. citizens took notice of this blackout, and joined the internet in protest. And Congress heard the people and backed off this poorly written legislation.

But that hasn’t stopped the entertainment lobby. They went back to the drawing board and then returned mere weeks later with a new idea on how to combat online piracy. Unfortunately that new idea was the exact same idea as before. This was seen in the wishlist the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) released. The highlights of this list are essentially that the music industry wants pretty much the exact same things that were in SOPA, the same things that prompted the protest in the first place. A list of seven demands, which include the exact same far reaching calls for search engines and payment processors to police websites individually and be responsible to law enforcement for content they are indirectly connected to.

We’ll get back to this, but for now the point is the music industry felt the need to push for the same stuff that killed SOPA and PIPA. And that came right back to the forefront with Mr. Sherman’s opinion article in the New York Times. Essentially the RIAA wants a do-over and Mr. Sherman is here to tell us why that needs to happen.

Host Merchant Services chart on record sales in 2011, related to SOPA

Come At Me Bro

So today The Official Merchant Services Blog is going to try to put this issue in its place much like Blake Griffin did to Kendrick Perkins recently. Yes, we are going to Posterize the RIAA. Because the op-ed article indicates the RIAA has soft interior defense and can’t play man to man very well at all. First up we’ll start with the relative hypocrisy of Sherman’s ill-timed article found in this contextual relationship: Suggesting Wikipedia isn’t telling people everything, and then making this comment, “They knew that music sales in the United States are less than half of what they were in 1999, when the file-sharing site Napster emerged, and that direct employment in the industry had fallen by more than half since then, to less than 10,000.”

Cary Sherman of the RIAA

Cary Sherman, chief executive of the RIAA

This is hypocritical because Mr. Sherman is leaving out some very pertinent information — which his employees were just recently bragging about on twitter. As we reported on January 31, the RIAA was excited about the IFPI wishlist because it had a series of statistics that showed the music industry is doing well with digital sales. The music industry claims Wikipedia is being deceptive and then suggests that they are still reeling from Napster, which was effectively scuttled back in 2002. They’re making a play for sympathy from an issue that happened almost a full decade ago, and yet they just got finished gloating about how successful they were this year!

Jonathan Lamy, senior VP of Communications for the RIAA, tweeted that paid subscription services rose 65 percent to 13.4 million in 2011. This tweet was in response to figures released by the IFPI which Lamy was excited to read. Lamy also tweeted that paid digital music services are active in 58 countries, generating $5.2 billion in revenues.

And then Cara Duckworth. The VP of Communications for the RIAA also cited the IFPI figures and then said: “W/more than half of all music sales coming from digital services, we know how Internet works. “Music=Innovation. Declare THAT. #CES #SOPA.”

What the RIAA isn’t telling you is far worse than what Wikipedia isn’t telling you. But Mr. Sherman isn’t about to concede facts when the agenda needs to continue to be pushed. The music industry is finally getting the hang of the digital market. Their own people brag that they know how the internet works. Declare that! But Sherman’s still waving the Napster suit in your face trying to claim that Wikipedia is obfuscating the issue.

It gets worse.

Born This Way

Sherman writes, “While no legislation is perfect, the Protect Intellectual Property Act (or PIPA) was carefully devised, with nearly unanimous bipartisan support in the Senate, and its House counterpart, the Stop Online Piracy Act (or SOPA), was based on existing statutes and Supreme Court precedents.”

The only thing in that statement that is rooted in the reality of what happened with SOPA and PIPA is that there was a lot of bipartisan work. Unfortunately, the work was bipartisan unity on finding problems with the so-called carefully devised legislation. Tech industry experts on both sides of party lines found the problems and holes in the legislation. As we reported on December 27, 2011, SOPA sparked unity in the federal government. And as we’ve written in our in-depth analysis, the bill was not very carefully devised at all. In that analysis we lean heavily on discussion from Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren [D-CA], an expert in the tech industry. We’ll highlight just a bit of Lofgren’s criticism of this bill, with questions raised: “Section 103 also allows a “portion of” a website to be deemed “dedicated to the theft of U.S. property,” regardless of the culpability of the website as a whole. Like many important terms throughout H.R. 3261, the precise meaning of these words is ambiguous, and will require years of expensive litigation to clarify. However, the plain meaning of the words seems to indicate that any large website could face a risk of termination by payment and advertising providers based solely upon infringing material contained in a single web page. ”

This is not carefully devised legislation. And as we eventually reported, the bill’s own sponsor admitted he did not fully understand the technical aspect of the bill and he backed off of it. Bill sponsor Lamar Smith is quoted in various media sources as saying:  “I have heard from the critics and I take seriously their concerns regarding proposed legislation to address the problem of online piracy. It is clear that we need to revisit the approach on how best to address the problem of foreign thieves that steal and sell American inventions and products.”

To Be Continued

payment processing

Payment Processing News Roundup [2023 Update]

Payment Processing News

Today The Official Merchant Services Blog is going to give you a roundup of the latest news that is affecting merchants and payment processing. Our goal is to keep you informed and up to date on all the important news developments in the industry. Armed with that information you can make the decisions and the moves to keep your business ahead of the curve. The news roundup today focuses mainly on The Durbin Amendment and its continued impact on consumers, merchants and processors. The Durbin Amendment will continue to have a major impact on processing throughout 2012, and we’ll continue to keep you abreast of the topic.

Durbin Reactions

The first story we bring you is from the Los Angeles Times and it’s about the fallout from the Durbin Amendment. The article, found here, states that by the end of last year 610,000 U.S. bank customers switched to a switched to a smaller institution to protest plans by major banks to impose monthly charges for using debit cards. The article says the data was reported by Javelin Strategy & Research in a report and that the 610,000 figure represented 11% of the overall 5.6 million people who switched banks in that time period. The article also noted that: “In addition to the 11% who joined the Bank Transfer Day movement in October, November and December, an additional 26% told Javelin that they switched not as part of the protest movement per se but because the banks charged too many fees.”

Host Merchant Services Predictions Confirmed

The next news item we’re reporting is from The Denver Post. In this article the Post reports pretty much exactly what Host Merchant Services predicted would happen in its Durbin Amendment Analysis article.

The Denver Post writes: “Instead of one new fee, prepare to be sold more products, offered new services, lose rewards and face more fees in general.”

In the HMS Article from 2011, we wrote: “Merchants will end up having to shoulder the burden of the extreme cuts in revenue that this cap brings. Those who predict that merchants will end up worse off by the amendment suggest that the banks, not wanting to take a $9 to $10 billion dollar loss in revenues for the year, will simply add fees to other payment options or get rid of premiums and extras that they had been offering merchants prior to the cap being put in place.”

So essentially the Denver Post reports that the banking industry is reacting as expected to the Durbin Amendment. We even did an entire blog making the statement that the banking industry was going to go in stealth mode like a ninja.

The Denver Post article also gives a recounting of the tale of the Durbin Amendment as it took center stage in the media spotlight. This entire tale was chronicled as it happened by The Official Merchant Services Blog both in its Countdown to Durbin Series, as well as its ongoing Durbin Coverage after the October 1, 2011 date that saw the bill’s provisions begin. The Denver Post recap is succinct and states: “Several other banks already had either imposed debit card fees or were testing them, and analysts had predicted the trend would spread to the entire industry. But BofA’s plan, which leaked out at the end of September, produced an enormous surge of criticism. Protesters from the Occupy movement, consumer advocates and even President Obama questioned the move, and an online movement called Bank Transfer Day emerged to encourage people to switch to small  banks and credit unions. Bank of America ultimately called off its plans without imposing the $5 charge, and the rest of the industry followed suit in allowing fee-free use of debit cards.“

Durbin Going Bye Bye?

The final piece of Durbin-related news comes to us from payment processing review site cardpaymentoptions.com. In this article, they give an extensive roundup of their predictions for 2012 — and one piece is sub-titled “Durbin May Get the Boot.” The article states the Durbin Amendment was originally designed to help merchants deal with high swipe debit card transaction fees, but now that it’s been in effect merchants are feeling the legislation has harmed them. The article specifically cites merchants getting hit with much higher for small ticket transactions — a noted loophole in the law that many media sources criticized while the amendment was still being discussed by Congress.

The article then makes this bold prediction: “Several retail organizations have brought suit against the Federal Reserve in order to repeal/modify the amendment and even the main author, Dick Durbin, has admitted the new law is flawed. With such disastrous results, merchants should expect to see the Durbin Amendment either repealed or greatly modified this year.”

The Official Merchant Services Blog has reported on a few of these suits as they’ve come up. And the backlash against Durbin has been significant. But with the election about to be in full swing it seems, to us at least, that the Durbin Amendment may continue to kick around for 2012. In fact, we’ve also reported that there is growing interest in a similar cap on credit card processing fees, swinging things even further in a direction that will burden consumers and incur ire with the banking industry. It just seems like it will be a lot more difficult to get rid of Durbin after it’s started and that the path of least resistance for Congress on this issue will be to continue to add to the law with more tweaks and changes, making it even murkier and over-legislated. That’s more the federal government’s style.

What do you think? Will 2012 see the end of the Durbin Amendment and the great experiment that was finance reform for payment processing fees? Or will the federal government just try to keep working with the law they have in place trying to smooth it out?