Slashdot Mirror


MasterCard Fined $648 Million for High EU Card Fees (bloomberg.com)

MasterCard was fined 570.6 million euros ($648 million) by the European Union for imposing rules that regulators said may have artificially raised the costs of card payments in the region. From a report: The European Commission said MasterCard unfairly prevented retailers from seeking cheaper rates from banks outside the EU country where they are based. MasterCard's curbs on cross-border acquiring ended when the EU introduced credit card legislation in 2015. The EU's probe started in 2013 and escalated with a statement of objections two years later. MasterCard last month set aside $650 million to cover the fine, less than a potential 1 billion euros it flagged as a possibility in 2017. The company got a 10 percent fine reduction for cooperating with the EU, regulators said.

84 comments

  1. no way by MooseTick · · Score: 4, Funny

    I can't believe a credit card company would have high card fees. At least that sounds like an EU problem. They never do that kind of stuff in the US.

  2. Ok but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Who gets the money?

    People got ripped off, yet I have the uncanny feeling the fine will just make our fat and stupid EU politicians even fatter and more stupid. Nothing for the victims obviously.

    1. Re: Ok but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      [irony] The pope or course. Because EU never invest in infrastructure, research, education.. only in politician salary right ? [/Irony]

    2. Re: Ok but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except for the pope thing you should probably remove that [irony] tag mate. You must be American.

      They invest in NOTHING except solidifying their own power like that bitch Merkel's proposed EU Army. Infrastructure only as far as their OWN institutions go. Every member state has to invest themselves in their infrastructure, research and education.

    3. Re:Ok but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It goes to creimer.

    4. Re: Ok but by cyber-vandal · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes mate that's it. The European Regional Development Fund doesn't exist and the poor widdle UK is being oppressed by those nasty foreigners.

    5. Re: Ok but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like the cut of yer jib! In about 2 years, our President is probably gonna be outta job. What d'ya think you boys over there take him in as yer PM? I'd think he'd do what yer look'in to do. I'd think he'd be great in show'in the EU that d'uh English and the rest of the UK won't take any'er shit!

      All Y'all can have him now, if y'all want! He's done pretty much here!

    6. Re: Ok but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're talking about Donald Trump, you keep telling yourself that, he's only just getting started. What's with all the bitching, the US economy hasn't been this good in decades.

      We'll gladly take him 2024 though, I think he's a hero for showing the middle finger to the likes of Clinton and Pelosi.

    7. Re: Ok but by 1ucius · · Score: 1

      [irony] Sure, as long as "invest" == funnel to their friends and allies, after taking a large cut for themselves. [/irony]

    8. Re: Ok but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every member state has to invest themselves in their infrastructure, research and education.

      And that is a bad thing... why?

      I'm not saying it isn't a bad thing, I simply wish to understand why, out of all possible levels of government that could control such things (including but not limited to city/region/nation/EU/UN) you feel that the EU is the appropriate level to control such things.

    9. Re: Ok but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > You must be American.

      Sorry I'm European. But don't worry, PM Theresa May will negociate for you better credit card fees as soon as you are out of this Evil bureaucratic institution named the EU.

      I even heard that Donald will help her for that.

    10. Re: Ok but by aliquis · · Score: 1

      One see those posters now and then about what the EU has done but it's usually just about stupid stuff / spending money into some idiotic project.

      I saw it recently for some club/"work" project and I've seen it for fiber in a rural area and for like orange juice or something in an ad.

      The free market could had chosen to do all that or not depending on what made the most sense.

    11. Re: Ok but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > What's with all the bitching, the US economy hasn't been this good in decades.

      Aggressive protectionism always have positive effect on her short term. It's on long term that it causes problem.
      You will "just" start to enjoy it at the end of his first mandate.

    12. Re: Ok but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It is not a bad thing each state should invest in their own infrastructure.
      Question is: What the hell do we ACTUALLY need the EU for?

    13. Re: Ok but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The free market could had chosen to do all that or not depending on what

      Yeah my American hero.

      It is quite self descriptive to see what "free market" has done with the Fiber and internet providers in the US indeed. Bad services, over expensive and private monopolies everywhere, really enjoyable.

    14. Re: Ok but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > It is not a bad thing each state should invest in their own infrastructure.
      > Question is: What the hell do we ACTUALLY need the EU for?

      Yes, to push the logic farer: why we would even need state ? Every city and village can handle it's own infrastructure ?

      And after all ? Why not even handle it by ourself ?

      Tips: Response might be in the question...

    15. Re:Ok but by F.Ultra · · Score: 1

      All fines from the EU gets included into the budget and the member state fees are then reduced with the amount so in this the EU member states have to pay $648 million less for the 2019 budget than they would normally do.

    16. Re: Ok but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, please enlighten me.

      I don't need the EU, I don't need a state. Why DO we need them?

    17. Re: Ok but by Cederic · · Score: 1

      What d'ya think you boys over there take him in as yer PM?

      Sadly the evidence strongly suggests he'd do a fuck of a lot better than our current one.

    18. Re: Ok but by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      Oh no big words the horror! They don't do fuck all now stop being a dumbass.

    19. Re: Ok but by jiriw · · Score: 2

      Because else, tomorrow your 'neighbor' will buy a gun, shoot you dead and take your land. That's why. Especially if he thinks he can gain more than he has to loose. Civilization is a thin veneer, held in check by people paying taxes. At least, that's what the skeptic in me whispers.
      The optimist tells me one day we'll reach that federation of planets-like state of civilization science fiction writers dream about. The realist? That one tells me with moderate prosperity for as large a group of people as possible (which includes all those member-states the EU is comprised of) we stand a chance, not hurtling towards world war three. That's why I'm quite upset about the English so hell bent upon impoverishing themselves. Poor neighbors may do crazy things.

    20. Re: Ok but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or put another way: fill the hole in Jean-Claude Junckerâ(TM)s budget, created by his failed negotiations with David Cameron. Strange he still has a job, but then some people do say that the EU is run by aloof elitists with no sense of responsibility and no fear of consequences.

    21. Re: Ok but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My boots are full of diarrhea.

    22. Re: Ok but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The correct term is cheese eating surrender monkeys.

    23. Re: Ok but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We all know where that leads, a EU army under NATO control.

    24. Re: Ok but by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Yeah my American hero.

      It is quite self descriptive to see what "free market" has done with the Fiber and internet providers in the US indeed. Bad services, over expensive and private monopolies everywhere, really enjoyable.

      I'm Swedish.

      I wish our government built fiber networks 15 years ago and then let others provide the service. With the direction Sweden is going I assume those in charge also wish they had done it all but then also run and surveil it all too..

      Anyway I've got four ways I can hook up my apartment physically:
      * Cable (private owned.)
      * Telephony (one national network many service providers.)
      * Ethernet both directly by Bredbandsbolaget but also through the municipal network with 19 Internet service providers
      And then there's wireless. I don't know how many companies we've got who actually run the networks but more than three and then there's various brands selling on those networks too.

      So I guess I can be hooked up to closer to 10 different networks and upwards to 40 service providers or such.

      My understanding of the "problem" in the US is that many solutions end up being monopoly solutions. Then again from Sweden being number 1 or just above on the topic and the USA being far behind it's also my understanding USA has been catching up pretty well so by now it may not be all that terrible in general at-least as far as cost goes though I'm sure there's places in the USA where the number of choices are very limited.

    25. Re: Ok but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This gets +3 modded? What a bunch of pussies you all are.

      Teh ebul neighbor could keel me, that's why we need a government, really? What if the ebul neighbor comes over, tries his funny stuff and I shoot him in the face first? That's called natural selection.

      Only the weak need governments.

    26. Re: Ok but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If Trump had his way the US would leave NATO so it would be an EU army under NATO under EU control.

      But it would also lead to NATO not considering US products when harmonizing equipment which would cut into the profits of the military money making machine so if talks about leaving NATO ever became serious then the Republican senators would suddenly be on board with impeaching Trump.

    27. Re: Ok but by dave420 · · Score: 1

      You are entirely incorrect. Well done.

  3. Cooperation by Presence+Eternal · · Score: 1

    Ten percent penalty reduction for cooperating? Sounds to me like never cooperating is a good gamble. Heck, delay something for four years and inflation will pay you money all by itself.

    1. Re:Cooperation by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 2

      I'm glad the EU has measures in place to encourage cooperation without giving away the store. The US frequently settles for pennies on the dollar (on already low fines.) There's no incentive not to commit the bad acts in that case.

      Heck, that could be the baseline, and it would be trivial for the EU to add enough interest to the fine to make the four years delay for delay's sake not worth it.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
  4. Only in the EU??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why don't the bought-off crooks we call politicians in this country ever... Just answered my own outrage!!

  5. No free market by fred6666 · · Score: 5, Informative

    The credit card market is an oligopoly and therefore must be regulated. The EU is right to force Mastercard into lowering its fees.

    1. Re:No free market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The credit card market is an oligopoly and therefore must be regulated. The EU is right to force Mastercard into lowering its fees.

      So giving CC companies a big fine will convince them to lower their customer's fees and not pass it on to the customer?

    2. Re: No free market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As long as the numbers aren't too egregious this works out nicely for government and corporation. The fines funnel back into government as a tax while Joe Blow ends up paying through the nose for service. Meanwhile the fine becomes a cost of business and the board is happy. The populace is happy because they get faux-justice and something to cheer about like so many football hooligans.

      Double taxation via proxy is awesome.

    3. Re:No free market by The+Evil+Atheist · · Score: 1

      So instead of putting your foot down and force those companies to treat customers right, just give in to the fear and let them pass costs on to consumers anyway.

      --
      Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
    4. Re: No free market by F.Ultra · · Score: 1

      The exact amount of the fine is decreased from the member state fees so the EU as an organization does not gain a single cent from this.

    5. Re: No free market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It makes some sense. There primary issue according to the summary was that they prevent proper competition.

      MC now has to pay for the fine while it's competitors do not.

    6. Re:No free market by fred6666 · · Score: 1

      You'd have a point if the fine was arbitrary. But they are being fined because they violated the law. The law says that you can't do anti-competitive things and put high fees. Are you suggesting the law should not be applied?

    7. Re:No free market by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      The credit card market is an oligopoly and therefore must be regulated. The EU is right to force Mastercard into lowering its fees.

      It's not about lowering the fees, it's about the rules MasterCard put in place to keep businesses from shopping around. As in they couldn't deal with a bank outside their country who may offer them a lower fee.

    8. Re: No free market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sadly that's not the case. The fine amount is applied to the succeeding year's budget, which always seems to mysteriously grow by about the amount of the fine, so neither the member states not the consumers ever actually benefit, and the EU pols just grow fatter and more obnoxious.

    9. Re: No free market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a reason why fees should be charged to the card holder rather than the merchant. Why bite in to the merchants profits when MC increases their rates due to their bad behaviour? Merchants can hardly refuse MC (unless their fees get so high, like American Express, which is frequently not accepted). Consumers will be less tolerant of a fee hike and will to jump to a competitor, so giving MC for example to be more competitive and behave better.

    10. Re: No free market by F.Ultra · · Score: 1

      The EU budget is determined in advance and the collected fees are included in the current year's budget via the so called "correction mechanism". And the ceilings for the budget is laid down 7 years in advance, and it have to pass the commission, the council and the parliament where full consensus of all member states is required.

      So, no it does not work like you describe.

  6. Re:EU Found a Money Stream by Njovich · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sounds to me they are just closing down an ATM where big corporations leech from the population.

  7. for once, more than Tony's vig by epine · · Score: 1

    We can't make you do anything, but we can make you wish you had.
            — Army saying

    All too often the "business friendly" regulatory stance is "we will punish your sins with a slap on the wrist, but we'll never make you wish you hadn't".

    Depending on how much Mastercard pocketed from this initiative while the getting was good, this could actually have tipped into "we almost wish we hadn't" territory.

    Most corporate fines usually wind up in the neighbourhood of Tony Soprano's vig: mere cost of doing business, everybody wins.

  8. Re:EU Found a Money Stream by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, it's just a fine for being an American corporation. European banks are just as crooked, or more so, but they must be protected from bad Americans.

  9. Where are the handcuffs? by lrombes · · Score: 1

    Why does no one ever go to jail over these things? Clearly there were humans behind this. Why don't these companies lose their charters? Wow- they were fined. They'll just raise the fees on everyone else to get the $s back. No big deal. I know I would go to jail if I'd run this kind of scam personally. Bullshit. What about giving the money back to the people they bilked?

    1. Re:Where are the handcuffs? by hjf · · Score: 1

      They never pay the fees. They keep appealing for years. It can take decades.

      That's why I always say if you really want to punish a business, you have to force them to close their doors for some time. A supermarket for example. You can fine them something they will take years to pay (and probably never will), or you can close them for one single day. They can appeal the closure but the judge can drag their feet for a couple of hours. More than enough to hurt them.

    2. Re: Where are the handcuffs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lets close a naughty company like sayyyy
      An ISP. Everyone connected cant use internet. Education, payments, corporate etc.

      How about something less critical... Lets say EA GAMES!
      Now a bunch of gamers who already paid for the service cant play MP (not a bad thing, go out dammit) but EA didn't have to pay its electricity bill today.

      Lets close target for a day.
      Things get spoilt. Part time workers wont get paid. People in some places where there is only one supermarket is fucked especially if poor and doesn't have a car.
      Not to mention suppliers sending perishable goods.

      If its big enough, its important. Really.

  10. Banks never pay by WCMI92 · · Score: 1

    They can try but they never pay.

    --
    Corporatism != Free Market
    1. Re:Banks never pay by hjf · · Score: 1

      ah you see... you have to call the OTHER number... this is your bank, you need to talk to the card
      ah you see... you have to call the OTHER number... this is the card, you need to talk to your bank ...repeat until you're tired of music on hold.

    2. Re:Banks never pay by Cederic · · Score: 1

      ah, I see... thank you, we'll be getting in touch with them on your behalf
      -- the financial ombudsman

      ah, I see... thank you, we'll arrange an audit
      -- the FCA

  11. And will pass that cost by oldgraybeard · · Score: 1

    right through to the customers somehow.

    Just my 2 cents ;)

    1. Re:And will pass that cost by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Why do you think they would have waited until they got a fine to raise prices if they could?

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    2. Re:And will pass that cost by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      They could raise prices and they did, by anti-competitive practices.

      Which is what they got fined for, isn't it?

      Now, presumably, they have to allow competition. Which will make it harder for them to raise prices, and might make them do the opposite.

      I don't see the downside here, apart from the compulsory gay marriage and becoming Venezuela which I'm told invariably follow when governments don't let the rich do whatever the fucking hell they want.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    3. Re:And will pass that cost by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Huh, we're in agreement. I was asking GGP, because he said "now they have to raise prices". Which just reveals an failure to even understand Econ 101.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
  12. Re: Trump Reducing Student Loan Debt by aliquis · · Score: 0

    But surely it won't so that doesn't really help those you advertise it for.

  13. And the alternative? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

    So, you'd rather MC just keep the money? Cause that's the alternative. This sounds a lot like you're complaining about a half-solution instead of celebrating a half-solution.

    --
    Your ad here. Ask me how!
  14. Re:Who gets the money? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How do I start one of these 'Unions'? Seems like an easy way to make a dollar. I'll call it the FU.

  15. Another EU tax by AHuxley · · Score: 0

    More EU bureaucrats demanding more money from more big brands.
    Who are the EU nations spending all this money on?

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    1. Re:Another EU tax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Who are the EU nations spending all this money on?

      If your question is sincere (but I don't think it is) the answer is mostly development projects to help poorer areas in all member states improve their economies. A miniscule amount of the EU's spending of course also goes to run the bureaucracy which by any standards imaginable is orders of magnitude more efficient than any national bureaucracy the planet has ever seen (are you aware that just the city of London has more bureaucrats than the entire EU?). One of many functions those bureaucrats do when they serve the citizens of the EU is to deal with matters like these which harm European consumers.

  16. Re: EU Found a Money Stream by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since when is Mastercard a bank?!

  17. EU = literally fascism. Im Luxburgish. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We started that shit.
    We, as a country, only exist because we were a tax haven to hide money from the kings.
    We became a puppet state of corporations, due to our tiny meaningless government.
    Now both our politicians and the corporations wanted more power.
    The corporations wanted to override the sovereignity of nations and merge state and industry into one.
    Which is exactly how Mussolini, the "inventor" of fascism, defined fascism back then.
    So they created the BeNeLux, expanded it into the European Community, then the EU, and then TTIP/CETA+NAFTA. (Which, counter to public view, actually passed, apart from a small token bit that the Gauls demanded.)

    So calling people who oppose the EU Nazis, is rather silly.
    And even if, ... ad hominem is not a valid argument against an argument, unless you have a Nazi-like mindset. ;))

    1. Re:EU = literally fascism. Im Luxburgish. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We started that shit.
      We, as a country, only exist because we were a tax haven to hide money from the kings.
      We became a puppet state of corporations, due to our tiny meaningless government.
      Now both our politicians and the corporations wanted more power.
      The corporations wanted to override the sovereignity of nations and merge state and industry into one.
      Which is exactly how Mussolini, the "inventor" of fascism, defined fascism back then.
      So they created the BeNeLux, expanded it into the European Community, then the EU, and then TTIP/CETA+NAFTA. (Which, counter to public view, actually passed, apart from a small token bit that the Gauls demanded.)

      So calling people who oppose the EU Nazis, is rather silly.
      And even if, ... ad hominem is not a valid argument against an argument, unless you have a Nazi-like mindset. ;))

      Jesus, it's like rush Limbaugh and Alex Jones had a baby.

  18. Re:Who gets the money? by F.Ultra · · Score: 1

    The exact amount of the fee is put into the EU budget and the member state fees are reduced with the exact same amount so in the end all this means that the EU member states have to pay $648 million less in fees for the 2019 fiscal years. So no, this is not a government revenue stream.

  19. Keep this story in mind by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 1

    Keep this story in mind the next time you hear someone talking about how going " cashless " will be such a wonderful thing.

    MasterCard, Visa, PayPal, et. al. can set whatever rates and fees they want with little or no oversight / regulation today.
    Those fees are then passed onto the consumer.

    ( They can also cherry-pick what business and merchandise types are allowed through their systems )

    When their CEO decides he / she doesn't like:

    Adult-Industries ( porn )
    Guns
    Women's Health Clinics
    $pick_your_favorite_controversial_topic

    They can ( and, in the case of PayPal, some do ) simply ban those transaction types and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it.

    For now, at least, cash is still an option.

    1. Re:Keep this story in mind by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Retailers can choose not to accept them though.

      In the UK many retailers and restaurants don't take American Express because the fees are too high. This keeps surprising Americans that visit.

      $pick_your_favorite_controversial_topic

      Yeah, there are numerous rumours floating around that Mastercard are attempting to exert political power through threats to cut off financial processing capabiltiies. This is very concerning but I've seen no actual evidence yet.

      Hopefully it's just shitty internet rumours, because otherwise I'll have to exert a lot of time and energy getting UK regulators and parliament engaged and involved on the issue.

    2. Re: Keep this story in mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would be better if the fees were charged to the card holder rather than the merchant. People might shop around then for their credit card and the recent EU law that made it illegal to add card fees at purchase time wouldnâ(TM)t have raised prices for people spending cash.

    3. Re:Keep this story in mind by PoopMonkey · · Score: 1

      I don't see why it'd surprise anyone since many places in America don't take Amex.

    4. Re:Keep this story in mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They can ( and, in the case of PayPal, some do ) simply ban those transaction types

      Not only Paypal, Mastercard seems to be doing similar things as well.
      They demanded that Patreon ban Robert Spencer the anti-jihad activist (not to be confused with Richard Spencer the white supremacist).
      I assume he is still allowed to spend money with a Mastercard card so that might seem not that controversial.
      But receiving money via Mastercard of course requires an intermediary such as Patreon (or a direct Mastercard merchant license or something).
      Here some details. I wonder if there are more examples, because this is just his word of course.

  20. The problem is actually regulation by Solandri · · Score: 1

    The credit card companies got laws passed making it illegal for merchants to pass credit card fees on to customers. That means the person who decides which card to use is insulated from the cost associated with using that card, completely handcuffing market forces which would drive credit card processing fees down.

    Get rid of those laws (regulations), and the credit card processors would be forced to compete head-to-head on price, driving their fees down.

    1. Re:The problem is actually regulation by fred6666 · · Score: 1

      The credit card companies got laws passed making it illegal for merchants to pass credit card fees on to customers.

      Where is there such a stupid law? Certainly not where I live.
      It's the contract between the credit cards companies and the merchants forbidding that. Not the law.

      Credit card regulation protect consumers and merchants.

  21. Does European Commission accept by ark1 · · Score: 1

    Credit Cards as payment for fines?

    1. Re:Does European Commission accept by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Credit Cards as payment for fines?

      If the EU had a real sense of irony, they'd make them pay via PayPal as many businesses in EU and elsewhere are now encouraging their customers to use in order to cut down on credit card fees (which are charged to the merchant, not the user).

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  22. Nope. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whiney bitch-asses who hate the human rights and customer protection laws in the EU make all sorts of bollocks up about how ebil the EU is.