WASHINGTON — As the federal government begins to take a closer look at the regulation of mobile payments, the first signs of a split within the payments industry are emerging.
The nascent divide pits firms that argue Washington should ensure a level playing field between banks and their non-bank competitors against others that warn about the potential of new regulations to stifle innovation.
The latter camp is represented by the Electronic Transactions Association, a trade group whose members include a range of payments firms, but not banks in their role as issuers of credit and debit cards.
"What we're concerned about is that some entities who view the advent of mobile payments as a threat to their incumbent advantage might call for unnecessary regulation," said Jason Oxman, chief executive officer of the Electronic Transactions Association.
Because the debate is still in its early stages, and no specific regulatory proposals are on the table, the argument remains largely abstract, though it figures to become more concrete as competition increases in the rapidly evolving world of mobile payments.
The broad outlines of the disagreement were evident in statements issued Friday by the ETA and the Clearing House Association, a trade group that represents the largest commercial banks.
The statements were released in connection with a House hearing on the regulation of mobile payments, which featured testimony from the Federal Reserve Board and the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, but not from industry witnesses.
The Clearing House Association submitted a six-page statement that made a forceful argument that regulators need to hold non-banks to the same standards that banks must meet.
"Because the multitude of non-bank players entering the mobile payments ecosystem are generally not subject to the same functional regulation that applies to depository institutions, they are considered 'shadow payments providers,'" the Clearing House Association said.
The trade group added that, "in general, the entrance of less-supervised providers is likely to result in a reduction in the reliability and integrity of payments."
The Clearing House Association, which did not make a representative available for further comment Friday, argued in its statement that firms engaged in functionally similar activities need to be regulated in equivalent ways.
Read the full story at AmericanBanker.com