Trialogue negotiations on the PSR and PSD3 are expected to start at EU level shortly after the summer break. The European Council set out its position on 13 June 2025. [1] For the PSR, the Council proposes in Article 31a to improve the transparency of merchant fees for card-based payment transactions. It is thus responding to a complaint from many merchants who, in the case of an ‘unblended fee’ acquirer agreement pursuant to Article 9 of the IFR (Regulation 2015/751), find it difficult or impossible to understand the respective interchange fee, scheme fee and acquirer fee components. EuroCommerce writes in its position paper of 12 June 2025:
“International Card Schemes have been able to increase their fees without sufficient competitive challenge or regulatory scrutiny. They have also rendered their system of fees and rules so complex and opaque that players are unable to understand, let alone challenge, what they are paying for and why.”[2]
The Council clearly assumes that this lack of transparency is not due to a lack of willingness on the part of the acquirer, but rather to the card schemes and acquiring processors, whose invoicing is said to be non-transparent.
What does Article 31a contain?
Two measures are now intended to achieve greater transparency for merchants:
- Card schemes and processors should present their fees (and rules, if applicable) to the acquirer in a transparent and consistent manner. The presentation should enable the fee categories to be compared. The EBA is to develop RTS for comparability. In addition, both parties are to notify the acquirer of any changes to fees or rules six months before they come into effect.
- Acquirers are to fulfil their information obligations regarding merchant fees, interchange fees and scheme fees in accordance with Articles 9 and 12 of the IFR in such a way that they are transparent for the merchant.
This raises the question of why processors should be held accountable. Processing in acquiring is usually handled by scheme-owned processors and other third-party processors (and/or in-house by the acquirer itself). The scheme fee, which must be transparently disclosed to the merchant (in the case of an ‘unblended fee’), does not include processing services, even if these are provided by a scheme-owned processing entity. Although the scheme fee is not defined in the IFR, it follows from Article 7 of the IFR, which requires the separation of the scheme and the ‘processing entity’, that the scheme fee can only include the remuneration for scheme-related services. Processing may also be carried out by a processor that is not scheme-owned. The English supervisory authority PSR sums it up as follows:
“Scheme fees are those charged by scheme operators to participate in the scheme, while processing fees are those charged for the authorisation, clearing and settlement of payments.”[3]
Merchant perspective
However, the regulatory perspective differs from the usual merchant perspective. For merchants, scheme fees often refer to all fees charged by card organisations in their role as scheme operators and processors.
It is conceivable that the Council also shares this ‘merchant perspective’, which contradicts the IFR. In recital 32a, also proposed by the Council, the Council’s proposal ultimately aims to improve transparency for merchants with regard to the fees required by the IFR (merchant service charges, interchange fees and scheme fees). A uniform structure and transparency of processing fees would be helpful for the acquirer in terms of comparing providers, but it would not make it easier for the acquirer to fulfil its information obligations towards the merchant. Nevertheless, recital says:
„From the payment industry perspective and in the interests of payment users, such as merchants, the transparency of card schemes’ fees and rules and processing fees is essential.” (emphasis added by the author). It should be clarified whether the Council intends to use this as a backdoor to amend the IFR or not.
New regulatory requirements for acquiring processors
The requirements regarding the ‘comparability of billing categories’ would also affect not only the processing services of the schemes’ own processors, but also those of other third-party processors in the acquiring business. Presumably, the Council is only targeting the first group, but the planned text of the PSR covers both groups. This would mean that the service catalogues of all acquiring processors would soon be subject to a uniform structure specified by the EBA (RTS). These processors would also have to announce any price changes six months in advance. The processors affected should consider in good time whether they want this regulation or not.
[1] https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-10268-2025-INIT/en/pdf
[2] https://www.eurocommerce.eu/2025/06/ten-years-after-the-interchange-fee-regulation-we-need-new-action-to-tackle-new-wholesale-price-increases/
[3] https://www.psr.org.uk/our-work/market-reviews/market-review-into-card-scheme-and-processing-fees/
