'Venmo and Zelle May Not Be Free For Much Longer'

An anonymous reader quotes an op-ed, written by former hedge fund manager Marc Rubinstein: With new technologies come new rules governing how they are used. Often, policy is framed via analogy: Are social media platforms publishers or are they town squares? Are instant messages water-cooler chatter or are they formal communication? So it is with peer-to-peer electronic payments. Last week a US Senate committee joined the debate over whether they're analogous to cash or to bank-payment channels. It's an essential distinction -- for both consumers and the companies that provide this free service. [...] Yet while no bank would accept liability if a customer lost their wallet to a pickpocket, the senators' debate focused on who's responsible when fraudsters target electronic wallets. Last year, customers of the three largest lenders -- Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo -- lost a total of $370 million via Zelle, the platform these banks jointly own with four others. According to the majority staff report (PDF) filed by the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which convened the July 23 hearing, the banks reimbursed only around $100 million of that, leaving consumers to shoulder the rest. While small in the context of overall volume that go through Zelle -- $806 billion last year, of which these banks did 73% -- that's cold comfort for the customers. Legally, a bank's obligation rests on whether clients fall victim to a "fraud" or to a "scam." In a fraud, money is transferred out of the user's account without their authorization, usually as the result of hacking. Under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, banks are required to reimburse such losses. As long as the customer authorizes the transaction, though, even if fraudulently induced to do so, banks don't have to pick up the tab. Such scams are growing as fraudsters parade as a bank employee, a love interest or a potential new employer, often via social media. According to a Pew Research survey, 13% of P2P platform users reported sending money, only later to realize they were set up. Persuading your bank you are the victim of a fraud rather than a scam can take some work. [...] For bad guys, the speed of P2P payments makes them a particularly attractive target. A Zelle transfer can take 20 to 30 seconds to initiate. In most cases, by the time an unsuspecting consumer realizes they have been targeted, their money is already gone. Banks argue this is no different from cash. [...] However, others see P2P transactions more akin to electronic payments and question why reimbursement rates, at 26% in the case of Zelle, are so much lower than for credit-card payments (47%) or debit-card payments (36%) at the three big banks. Despite critical differences, the subcommittee agrees. Its report recommends extending purchase protections standard in credit and debit-card markets to commercial P2P payments, and amending the Electronic Fund Transfer Act to make fraudulently induced transactions subject to reimbursement. Such a move has already been adopted in the UK, where new rules requiring financial institutions to fully reimburse victims of scams come into force in October this year. US bankers aren't keen. "We need to be thoughtful and think about unintended consequences," Adam Vancini, Wells Fargo's head of payments for Consumer, Small & Business Banking, said at the Senate hearing. For now, Zelle transfers enjoy all the benefits of cash. Layer in the benefits of card payments, too, and the no-cost model may disappear.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.