There has been much attention devoted to issues concerning
the regulation of mobile payments. We have witnessed Congressional hearings,
scanned white papers published by trade groups, overheard lobbyist advocacy,
and read articles written by consumer groups demanding clarity. Through all
this, we are no closer to clarity than we were several years ago. The regulatory
landscape is as clouded as ever and confusion reigns supreme. The battle lines
have certainly been drawn, but indecisiveness has paralyzed progress.
Financial institutions should take advantage of this lack of
clarity to remind consumers and merchants of protections found in traditional
purchase transactions. In the most recent
blog of this series, Customer Relationship at Risk as Mobile
Payments Mature we discussed the importance of financial service
institutions’ customer relationships. Perhaps, financial institutions can use
the uncertainty around governance and regulation to their advantage, nurturing
existing relationships and gaining ground in the mobile payments frontier.
Now, on to the battlefield….
The debates have been split between two dominate camps. The
first consists of larger, established banking institutions which have always
held a significant share of the payments market, while the second consists of
newer participants in the market such as telecommunication providers,
technology giants, merchants, and other non- traditional payment providers
The non-bank payment providers are vehement in their
argument that existing regulation around electronic transactions and payments
linked to credit accounts is sufficient to support any development in the
mobile payment field. While they concede
that a few minor tweaks may be necessary in the existing laws to accommodate
newer technology, they argue that there is absolutely no need to rewrite the
books, create new regulatory bodies, and mess with the incumbent framework. They cite the existing Electronic Fund
Transfer Act and the Truth in Lending Act created by Regulation E and Z and
enforced by the recently empowered Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) with
the passing of the Dodd-Frank Act. This alliance is even more vocal and
passionate in their view that any new regulation would stifle the freedom and
flexibility of innovation, limit the choices available to consumers, and stall technological
advancement.
Larger banking institutions firmly support the view that the
advent of mobile payments is a “game changer” and should be treated accordingly.
They argue that current regulation was implemented before the spread of mobile
payments and as the industry grows and evolves, the existing regulation will be
unable to keep up and address some of the challenges that are surfacing as new
solutions are implemented within the payments market. This group believes that
the new participants must be held to the same strict standards of governance
that existing financial institutions have been held to traditionally.
If the opposing views were not enough, the regulatory bodies
themselves are slow in coming to a consensus. There is seemingly no collaboration
between the Federal Communication Commission (FCC), Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
and banking regulators, all major governing bodies within mobile payments. Payment
Card Industry Data Security Standard Council (PCIDSSC) is attempting to provide
industry oversight. A number of consumer interest groups such as the Consumer
Union, American Bankers Association, and Smart Card Alliance are weighing in
with recommendations and potential solutions. A myriad of industry groups are
lobbying on behalf of different providers and Congress has displayed limited
interest in taking a leadership role and providing direction in sorting out
some of the issues and risks that are being identified and brought to the
table.
The general indecisiveness is certainly hurting the
industry. Traditional banks are slow to make investments and offer new products
in an uncertain regulatory environment. Payment providers are purchasing or
developing technology that may prove to be obsolete if regulation is passed
that cannot be supported by chosen solutions.
Most importantly, consumers are hesitant to change their behavior and
embrace mobile wallets when there is so much ambiguity about fraud protection
and data security. Unless some of these points of contention are resolved in
the near future, the domestic growth projections of mobile payments may need to
be revisited.