> I have a credit card that gives me 5% back on Amazon purchases. Another card gives me 4.5% back on travel and dining expenses. That card also gives me 15% back on Lyft rides. Even if those businesss were to offer me a 2% or 3% discount to use FedNow, I would stick with the credit card.
These are promotions. The card company is gambling that most of your purchases won't be in the promotion category, so they'll come out ahead even if they have to eat 2% when you buy something on Amazon as long as they make 2% when you buy anything else and less than half of your purchases are on Amazon. But if they're making out on net then you're losing out on net, which has to be the case on average or they'd stop offering it.
Many of the promotions are also deals with the merchant. Maybe they're not eating 2% when you buy something on Amazon, maybe Amazon is offering that extra 2% to cause you to perceive a 5% discount and then buy from Amazon instead of Walmart. In which case they're not trying to get you to use FedNow for that.
> And on top of that, I really do value things the credit cards offer, like fraud protection. If I pay for something with a credit card and never receive the goods, I can get the card company to issue a chargeback, and pay nothing. If I buy something with FedNow and never receive the goods, that money is just gone.
The converse of this is buyer fraud. Fraudulent buyers dispute the charge even though the goods were delivered. Merchants then have to incorporate the cost of this into the prices you pay whether you use a credit card or not -- which is another reason why capping the surcharge at 3% is anti-competitive. A competing payment method which is less susceptible to buyer fraud should cost less to use, and then you can decide if you want to pay for the insurance or not. But Visa makes you pay even if you trust the merchant not to defraud you and would rather have the discount than have a greater ability to defraud them.
>even if you trust the merchant not to defraud you
I understand that your point is to do with personal choice, and being able to navigate pros and cons oneself, so I'm not exactly contradicting anything you said; but after an experience I had with Best Buy a couple of years ago, I wouldn't trust any business not to defraud me (or at least, not to put me in a position where I need to dispute a charge).
I ordered a Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra for delivery from them. When I received the package, it was an S22 Plus instead. I explained the situation to their customer service, who told me to ship it back to them for a refund. Then they shipped it right back to me, with a note saying that they couldn't accept the return because it was the wrong item. (Yes, because they shipped me the wrong item! That was the point!)
I don't think Best Buy was intentionally trying to defraud me -- it was presumably just crossed wires on their end -- but a credit card dispute saved me a lot of aggravation, and perhaps money. My credit card company informed me that when they reached out to Best Buy to get their side of the story, they just repeated that I'd returned the wrong item. Since I'd already explained that to the credit card company, they understood that wasn't a satisfactory explanation, and resolved the dispute in my favor.
> after an experience I had with Best Buy a couple of years ago, I wouldn't trust any business not to defraud me (or at least, not to put me in a position where I need to dispute a charge).
I wonder if that's really true.
Suppose you're making a modest monetary donation to a charity you've been volunteering at for years. You're not even expecting anything in return and the charity is operated by your best friend who would refund the money if you simply asked.
Suppose you're buying a car. You've signed a contract to buy it and owe the money regardless of which payment method you now use for the down payment. Doing a chargeback doesn't get you out of the contract. If the car isn't as described you would have to sue them and then if you won the court would order them to refund your money regardless of which payment method you used. Also, if there are problems you might not discover them within the chargeback window anyway.
Suppose you're paying for lunch at a cafe. You've already eaten the food by the time the check comes. You know whether you were satisfied with it or not before you transfer the money.
Do you really need a percentage to go to a payment processor and to pay higher prices to cover chargeback fraud just to buy the ability to do a chargeback in these cases?
Meanwhile Best Buy would still accept Visa but the price to use it would be a few percent higher than the alternative and then you get to decide if you want to pay extra for the insurance or not.
>Suppose you're making a modest monetary donation to a charity you've been volunteering at for years.
A charity isn't a business, so I don't think this is relevant to my statement.
>Suppose you're buying a car. You've signed a contract to buy it and owe the money regardless of which payment method you now use for the down payment. Doing a chargeback doesn't get you out of the contract. If the car isn't as described you would have to sue them and then if you won the court would order them to refund your money regardless of which payment method you used.
A contract is a two-way street. If the seller didn't hold up their end because the car isn't as described, then in fact I don't owe them money. That fact isn't made true by going to court; it's already true, and the court determines it to be so. A chargeback doesn't "get you out of the contract", but it can be a method of enforcing your pre-existing legal right not to pay without having to spend time in court. It can mean that I don't "have to sue them" to be made whole.
The situation you described with a car isn't particularly different from my situation with Best Buy. The phone wasn't as described, so Best Buy wasn't legally entitled to my money. I enforced my legal right to the money via a chargeback, which was much easier than enforcing it via a lawsuit.
>Suppose you're paying for lunch at a cafe. You've already eaten the food by the time the check comes. You know whether you were satisfied with it or not before you transfer the money.
This is your strongest example, but I can think of circumstances where it would break down. For example, suppose the cafe promised a lactose-free meal, and I later experience unmistakable symptoms from lactose intolerance. Then this is largely analogous to my Best Buy situation.
These are promotions. The card company is gambling that most of your purchases won't be in the promotion category, so they'll come out ahead even if they have to eat 2% when you buy something on Amazon as long as they make 2% when you buy anything else and less than half of your purchases are on Amazon. But if they're making out on net then you're losing out on net, which has to be the case on average or they'd stop offering it.
Many of the promotions are also deals with the merchant. Maybe they're not eating 2% when you buy something on Amazon, maybe Amazon is offering that extra 2% to cause you to perceive a 5% discount and then buy from Amazon instead of Walmart. In which case they're not trying to get you to use FedNow for that.
> And on top of that, I really do value things the credit cards offer, like fraud protection. If I pay for something with a credit card and never receive the goods, I can get the card company to issue a chargeback, and pay nothing. If I buy something with FedNow and never receive the goods, that money is just gone.
The converse of this is buyer fraud. Fraudulent buyers dispute the charge even though the goods were delivered. Merchants then have to incorporate the cost of this into the prices you pay whether you use a credit card or not -- which is another reason why capping the surcharge at 3% is anti-competitive. A competing payment method which is less susceptible to buyer fraud should cost less to use, and then you can decide if you want to pay for the insurance or not. But Visa makes you pay even if you trust the merchant not to defraud you and would rather have the discount than have a greater ability to defraud them.