Cash discrimination: adjustment of the law after a dispute over discounts on marketplaces may be postponed

The initiative of the largest banks of the Russian Federation to ban discounts on marketplaces is economically untenable, legally manipulative and ethically hypocritical, according to the appeal of the Moscow Society for Consumer Protection to Mikhail Mishustin. As Izvestia found out, the organization conducted a detailed analysis of the financiers' proposals and refuted all their arguments, including the main one about "artificially low prices." In fact, by offering discounts on payments using their tools, marketplaces share the savings from the acquisition fee to those very large banks — more than 2% on each purchase. Public activists are asking the head of the Cabinet of Ministers to reject the financiers' demand, as it "is guaranteed to lead to higher prices, stagnation in fintech and a slowdown in economic growth." The Central Bank told Izvestia that it was necessary to see the positions of all parties and make an informed decision, and the adjustment of the law on the platform economy could be postponed. How the loudest conflict in the consumer market is developing is in the Izvestia article.

Facts versus arguments

Experts from the Moscow Society for Consumer Protection (MOSA) examined in detail each thesis in the bankers' proposals and found a distortion of meaning and substitution of concepts.

The banks' key argument boils down to the fact that discounts linked to a particular payment instrument allegedly represent "platform dumping," "artificial price understatement," and a "price race to exhaustion." The experts of the IOE consider this thesis to be economically incorrect. The discount that the marketplace gives when paying with its own payment instrument is not a "subsidy" or an "additional payment" to the price from external sources, but a reflection of the real savings on operating costs that the ecosystem itself receives.

Traditional card acquiring (bank fees) is the most expensive for the retailer and on average reaches 2.2% of the purchase amount. The tariffs of the National Payment System (NPS) are significantly lower — 0.4-0.7%. And if the payment is made through an affiliated bank, the cost of the transaction for the ecosystem actually tends to zero.

"The true purpose of the initiative is to attempt a 'regulatory takeover.' Marketplaces (such as Ozon, Wildberries and Yandex Market) have begun to successfully develop their own fintech areas and payment tools (Ozon Card, WB Wallet, Yandex Pay). The key advantage of these tools is the multiple lower cost of transactions compared to the acquisition fees charged by traditional banks. Marketplaces share these savings with the consumer by offering a direct discount (for example, the Ozon Green Price)," the study says.

The banks' proposal to introduce a "single price" is, in fact, a requirement to legislate the inefficient and most expensive pricing model, the authors of the study note.

In their appeal, banks appeal to international experience (USA, EU, China, Turkey), arguing that it "confirms the need to curb such market practices." This thesis is a gross manipulation, distortion of facts and misinterpretation of the foreign regulatory landscape, according to the Think Tank, and each of the mentioned countries is analyzed in detail.

For example, banks claim that "EU regulations explicitly prohibit anti-competitive subsidies and price manipulation by systemically important platforms." The OIA argues that this statement distorts the essence of the European regulation of the DMA (Digital Markets Act).

"The focus of DMA is on "self—recommendation" - this is when Amazon (as a platform) promotes products under the Amazon Basics brand in search results (as a seller) higher than the products of third-party sellers. The DMA does not prohibit Amazon (as a seller) from offering consumers a discount for using an Amazon payment card. These are completely different levels of regulation. The initiative of the banks, on the contrary, contradicts the spirit of the DMA, which is aimed at expanding choice and lowering prices for end consumers," the experts note.

"Banks' appeal to foreign pricing regulations on digital platforms is refuted by a detailed analysis that showed that regulatory regulation in the United States, the EU, China, and Turkey is directed against unfair competition methods, but does not recognize them as such and does not suppress the incentive for purchases through discounts and loyalty programs offered by platforms in their payment instruments,— Izvestia explained." the head of the brain Anton Nedzvetsky.

The most surprising thing is that banks are demanding a legal ban on marketplaces, a business model that they have been actively and successfully applying for many years. "The practice of encouraging customers to use an affiliated payment instrument to receive discounts, bonuses or cashback is the core of the business model of modern digital ecosystems, including the ecosystems of credit institutions themselves. For example, Sber, MTS, and T-bank have them," the authors of the document remind.

"The Ozon, Wildberries and Yandex Market marketplaces only follow the same market logic that was previously implemented by banks and telecom operators themselves. They have created their own banks (Ozone Bank, Wildberry Bank, Yandex Bank) to reduce costs and increase loyalty," the study says.

The head of the IOE appealed to Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin to reject the banks' initiative, as it is "economically untenable, legally manipulative and ethically hypocritical."

"In fact, the banks' initiative deprives digital platforms of economic incentives for the development of their own fintech projects, consolidating the monopoly position of the dominant banks in settlements in the consumer market," the document says.

As a result, all consumers, including those who previously paid through wallets or platform cards and received a discount, will pay more, meaning that the banks' proposal is a direct lobbying for price increases for millions of Russians, the authors of the study warn.

The dispute between banks and marketplaces: the positions of the parties

The Central Bank, which initially supported the initiative of credit institutions, now declares its readiness for dialogue. They do not rule out that the adjustment of the law on the platform economy adopted this year in accordance with the position of banks may be postponed.

— It's about how to build a payment mechanism for goods that are sold on marketplaces. At least we have heard the banks' positions. It is clear that there are different players here, because the banks that are inside the marketplaces form a different position. You need to see that too. We have formulated our proposals. The activity in the public field is quite high. Some solutions and options on how to adjust the current law or postpone this adjustment will appear in the very near future," Alexey Guznov, Deputy chairman of the Central Bank, told Izvestia.

The conflict between banks and online platforms has attracted the attention of the FAS. The service stated that the key for them is to ensure fair competition, in which neither banks, marketplaces, nor retail chains find themselves in unequal conditions, and consumers benefit from a fair fight.

Marketplaces, in response to the banks' proposal, accused them of double standards and violation of the principle of competition.

— Ozon considers the initiative of five banks to cancel discounts on marketplaces to be ill-conceived, violating the principles of fair competition and negative for tens of millions of Russian customers who will be forced to pay more. Thus, banks are introducing double standards. They believe that they can provide discounts and bonuses to their customers inside their systems, but marketplaces cannot," the company's press service said.

Even before the confrontation with the banks broke out, Ozon announced that credit institutions would have access to its Green Price loyalty program. It involves co-financing discounts. And 17 different banks responded to this offer.

Wildberries &Russ had previously warned that the changes under discussion would affect all aspects of the platform economy, but above all, worsen the situation of tens of millions of consumers.

—Banks' attempts to justify themselves by saying that they only advocate equal access to marketplaces and the expansion of discount programs to a large audience are deceit," the Wildberries &Russ press service told Izvestia.

They clarified that banks can already provide cashback to their customers for payments on marketplaces, but they do not do this.

Wildberries founder Tatiana Kim previously stated that each of the financial players has its own marketplaces and online stores, but the attempts of the banks themselves to build their own ecosystems are not always successful. In this regard, she urged them to "play fair."

Meanwhile, the Association of Russian Banks (ARB), which protects the interests of medium-sized and small credit institutions, opposed the initiative of its larger colleagues. ARB President Garegin Tosunyan told reporters that some Russian banks occupy an "exceptional position", receiving state "privileges" — from servicing pensions and salaries of state employees to participating in government programs and receiving subsidies. Against this background, their attempts to limit competitors, according to him, "deserve serious attention," and the dispute should be resolved through the cooperation of platforms with the widest possible range of financial market participants.

Banks have repeatedly attempted to integrate into the competitive online trading market, but they have not been successful, and the sector continues to grow. In the first nine months of this year alone, according to AKIT data, the volume of online commerce in the Russian Federation reached almost 8.2 trillion rubles, which is 32% more than in the same period of 2024. So the banks decided to use controversial methods, says Georgy Ostapkovich, research director of the HSE Center for Economic Research and Economic Development.

— Banks' demands on marketplaces are excessive, as banks themselves have loyalty programs that encourage people to use only their financial products. Therefore, it is a fact that if discounts are banned on marketplaces, competition is disrupted. But competition needs to be regulated – only in a calm manner, and not through harsh statements, as credit institutions have done," the expert told Izvestia.

According to him, the Central Bank and the Ministry of Economic Development need to gather all opinions, develop a concept of work that will suit everyone, and remember that the main victims of these showdowns may be ordinary consumers who risk facing rising prices for goods.