On January 19, 2021, several federal banking regulators including FinCEN, the Federal Reserve, the FDIC, NCUA, and the OCC jointly issued answers to several frequently asked questions (FAQs) regarding suspicious activity reports (SARs) and other anti-money laundering (AML) considerations for financial institutions covered by SAR
The commercial slowdown wrought by the global pandemic COVID-19 has left many in the payments industry wondering how the virus will affect their existing processing agreements. Depending on which side of an agreement you are on, you may be worried about breaching your contractual obligations
In light of the significant increase in chargebacks resulting from COVID-19, Visa, Mastercard and American Express recently issued guidance to assist acquirers, issuers, and merchants in navigating the dispute process. Below is a summary of that guidance. Visa On March 27, 2020, Visa released a
The Taft Paytech & Payment Systems team has prepared the following tips for ISOs, processors, payment facilitators, ISVs, money services businesses, and banks in light of COVID-19 developments.
As of January 1, 2020, the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) is now in effect. As we explained here, the CCPA imposes requirements on merchants and payment processors to protect personal information of California residents.
Enforcement of the law does not begin until July 1, 2020, which is good because the regulations interpreting the law have not even been finalized yet. The draft regulations, published this past October by California’s Attorney General, propose rules relating to consumer disclosures, processing consumer requests, and other implementation details. Final rules will be issued before the July 1, 2020 enforcement date.
A federal court’s interpretation of a merchant contract resulted in the merchant not being liable for card brand security breach assessments. It may be worthwhile to examine and revise your merchant agreement in light of that ruling.
In Specs v. First Data, decided June 2019, the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that the limitation of liability clause in First Data’s merchant agreement took precedence over the agreement’s indemnification clause, and therefore that the merchant was not liable for card brand penalties. The indemnity obligated the merchant to reimburse First Data for any losses arising out of merchant violations of card brand rules, whereas the limitation of liability exempted the parties from indirect and consequential damages. The court found that card brand penalties qualified as consequential damages.
Recent opinion provides welcome clarity on Oklahoma’s position on surcharge ban enforceability, relating to electronic payment processing
Judicial developments surrounding the legality of credit card surcharging have made keeping up with the latest news on this issue a challenge. Currently, there are several states with laws in place prohibiting surcharges. Merchants have challenged the constitutionality of these laws in court, sometimes with some confusing results.
The Maryland legislature has passed legislation that, if signed by the Governor, will require merchant acquirers to revise their merchant applications and agreements. Under the proposed law, merchant services providers, financial institutions, independent sales organization (ISO’s), or any subsidiary or affiliate of those entities (“Credit Card Processors”) will be required to provide merchants with specific disclosures and notices clearly and conspicuously within the merchant agreement. We interpret this to include payment facilitators. There is also a cap on the fees or penalties that a Credit Card Processor can levy against a merchant for its cancellation of the merchant agreement.
Developing an anti-money laundering program (AML) can prove challenging for card processing companies. While not an exhaustive list, here are 9 areas that an AML program should be sure to include:
The legality of surcharging keeps getting more confusing. Recent reports seem to indicate that New York’s law prohibiting surcharging was overturned. Unfortunately, that overstatement confuses the actual status of the statute.
As you may recall, the card brand rules allow merchants to add a fee on top of the regular price for goods and services, also known as a surcharge, if a consumer pays by credit card. The rules require merchants to follow certain conditions and requirements if they surcharge credit card transactions.