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.

42 of 84 comments (clear)

  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 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.

    2. 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]

    3. 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.

    4. 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?

    5. 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.

    6. 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.

    7. 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.

    8. 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.

    9. 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.

    10. 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.

    11. 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. 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 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.
    2. 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.

    3. 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?

    4. 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.

    5. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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

  9. 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!
  10. 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!
  11. 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.

  12. 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 PoopMonkey · · Score: 1

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

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. 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.