The latest Rivero's product updates, press releases, and company milestones shaping the future of payment scheme compliance and dispute management.

News

Kajo enables Paymentology to digitalize its compliance processing requirements, ensuring adherence to evolving rules and regulations as it expands its services globally.

You can read the full press release published on 

Paymentology x Rivero.png

Paymentology Partners With Rivero

Learn about the operational challenges and risks associated with the fraud & dispute process for banks and explore strategies and best practices benefitting both banks and their cardholders.

Fraud & Disputes

What is Mastercard DAF (Dispute Administration Fee), and why is it important to automate DAF collection?

In August 2015, Mastercard introduced the DAF (Dispute Administration Fee) as a fee charged for every dispute stage to the receiver and paid to the sender. DAF is applied to all intra-European and domestic disputes in Europe.

The main intention of DAF is to encourage merchants to fight against fraud and invalid disputes, to incentivise issuers to increase recovery (also for amounts smaller than the dispute handling and processing costs) and to compensate the dispute handling efforts for the winning party of a dispute.

Issuers are eligible to receive the DAF if a dispute is won. Winning means the Acquirer does not respond with a representment (aka 2nd presentment), the Acquirer accepts a case filing, or Mastercard rules the case in favour of the Issuer.

Substack.png

How do we help Issuers fully leverage the DAF?

Unfortunately, receiving the DAF doesn’t happen automatically if the dispute is won in the case filing state (pre-arbitration and arbitration). As a result, for every dispute with accepted case filing or with a ruling in favour of the Issuer, the Issuer should first identify the eligible disputes and then collect the DAF by manually submitting a matching miscellaneous fee collection to the network.

Typically, collecting the DAF takes around 2 minutes per dispute. Depending on the volume and the process in place, this results in a high allocation of resources. For this reason, some Issuers even decide not to collect the case filing DAF and thereby miss out on being compensated for their efforts.

With Amiko (our SaaS Fraud and Dispute Management Solution), we enable Issuers to collect the DAF automatically without requiring manual intervention. Thanks to this automation and other efficiency-related measures, Issuers have a real opportunity to be “overcompensated” and to turn dispute handling into a stream of additional revenue from card payments.

pexels-pixabay-210742.jpg

How to turn Mastercard disputes into a revenue stream

With an estimated 200% growth from 2022 to 2026, subscription services have become a major revenue stream in eCommerce. Consumers pay an average of $219 on subscriptions each month and manage an average of 12 subscriptions in the media and entertainment categories alone. Data from a survey conducted by C+R Research about consumers’ relationships with these subscription services gives us important insights into how they constitute a perfect breeding ground for first party  and/or family fraud.

First party and family fraud are the major drivers behind chargebacks in the subscription economy. First party fraud happens when a cardholder initiates a dispute over a legitimate transaction they made and forgot about, whereas with family fraud, a household member performed a transaction without the cardholder’s knowledge. In the case of subscription services, having payment options stored through connected devices makes it a convenient purchase experience for consumers, but for the same reason, these purchases are also easier to lose track of. Risks of first party and/or family fraud are especially high with yearly rather than monthly subscription plans because the charges are much more noticeable once they auto-renew.

Accounting for as high as 70% of all credit card fraud, first party fraud cost the industry over $132 billion in 2020 alone. According to Mastercard, issuers and merchants incur $15-70 in operational costs for every dispute.

To minimize the operational costs of submitting unjustified chargebacks and handling the somewhat likely objections from the acquiring bank, it is important to help the cardholder remember the transaction, in case of first party fraud indicators:


By design, our fraud recovery & chargeback solution, Amiko, considers all aspects of the chargeback process:

Amiko integrates with the latest industry solutions (Ethoca and Verifi) to offer the best experience and capabilities to issuers.


With an estimated 200% growth from 2022 to 2026, subscription services have become a major revenue stream in eCommerce. Consumers pay an average of $219 on subscriptions each month and manage an average of 12 subscriptions in the media and entertainment categories alone.

How Subscription Services Lead to an Increase in Dispute Volume.png

How subscription services lead to an increase in dispute volume

As the first Swiss fintech to join Visa’s Fintech Partner Connect program, Rivero is positioned to provide Visa's clients with innovative solutions to streamline and digitize complex payment processes.

Rivero's SaaS products, Amiko for Fraud Recovery and Dispute Management and Kajo for scheme license compliance management, aim to simplify these critical functions, making them more efficient and cost-effective for financial institutions. See the 

Visa x Rivero.png

Rivero joins Visa Fintech Partner Connect Program

Expert perspectives from Rivero on the future of scheme compliance, dispute management, and how technology is reshaping issuer operations. Gain insights into the evolving world of card payments.

Thought Leadership

Account-to-account transactions, otherwise known as ‘pay by bank’, is a fast growing payment trend that leverages existing payment infrastructure and new open banking protocols to securely make a transaction. Thanks to its low fees and high security it's becoming a popular payment topic, but some pressing issues could come to light as the technology is tested at scale.

Pay by bank’s end goal is the same as any other payments network - to move funds from one bank account to another. Account to account transactions isn’t a new concept. It has been used across European countries for quite some time, notably in the Netherlands with the payment system iDeal and Giropay in Germany. Both systems have leveraged legacy interbank networks to define an easy way for the consumer to log into their ebanking to trigger the account to account payment.. 

Pay by bank’s key differentiating innovation is the near real-time nature of the transactions - the recipient receives their funds almost immediately, since no separate clearing is needed. 

Over the last few decades, customers have grown used to adopting new technologies to make payments. However, to ensure that pay by bank breaks into consumer’s payments wallets, banks must ensure that it brings value to the consumer, as well as to the merchant. The benefits for the merchant are clear - funds are received faster than with card payments, there are potentially lower fees and the risk of a pesky chargeback dispute is reduced dramatically.

However, pay by bank largely neglects the consumer’s interests. Statutes, such as the UK’s 1974 Consumer Credit Act, ensure that payment networks serving cards (namely Mastercard, Visa and American Express) protect consumer’s rights. The absence of a convenient and reliable disputes system, such as the chargeback process, is likely to hinder consumer adoption of pay by bank as a replacement of debit and credit cards. Card payment networks also run extensive fraud and chargeback programs tied into regulatory frameworks. These checks protect cardholders and hold merchants/issuers liable in cases of fraud, further building the case for cards. Open banking advocates argue that the closed system is inherently more resistant to fraud, providing consumers with fraud protection through the increased security of the overall system. Fraudsters, however, have never failed to target a payment method, and will challenge open banking based payments as they have every payment method before it.

Pay by bank also struggles at Point of Service terminals (POS). Even with the recent changes and improvements - such as “SEPA instant” in the EU - the underlying infrastructure is not yet capable of sub-second authorization decisions. This limitation results in significant waiting times at the POS, leading to consumers and merchants opting for payments via card networks.

Pay by bank payment methods will definitely have a place in our payments wallet, but it faces significant infrastructural and consumer protection hurdles. 

Replacing legacy bank transfer invoice payments should be a breeze for pay by bank, but challenging the payment network incumbents is still a way off.

Account-to-account transactions, otherwise known as ‘pay by bank’, is a fast growing payment trend that leverages existing payment infrastructure and new open banking protocols to securely make a transaction.

Pay by Bank - prioritising consumers and merchants interests remains a challenge.png

Pay by Bank – prioritising consumers and merchants interests remains a challenge

Learn about the operational challenges and risks associated with compliance with payment networks like Visa and Mastercard and find out how to simplify this process and make it more manageable and efficient.

Scheme Compliance

Maintaining compliance is crucial to any financial institution’s ability to provide services – yet this must be balanced with investing in innovative capabilities that allow for service improvement, market expansion, and customer service improvement. 

This balancing act is particularly challenging in this part of the world: according to 

, the cost of remaining compliant is highest in the UK and Europe, on average three times greater than in North America and APAC and up to seven times higher than in LATAM. 

One aspect of compliance for financial institutions is card scheme compliance, which involves compliance with license rules (scheme rules and regulations) of international payment networks (e.g. Mastercard, Visa). Card scheme compliance includes several facets, such as reviewing the impacts of changing technical requirements on different systems, keeping an overview of new business rules, managing scheme fees and interchange rates, etc. These changing compliance rules are typically communicated weekly to licensees in a “bulletin” format. 

Yet the number of bulletins published by payment networks is becoming more frequent, complex, and hard to stay on top of – for example, Visa and Mastercard alone issued approximately 25 percent more bulletins in the first six months of this year compared to the same period last year. 

This rising volume of rule changes and requirements has added to the workload of teams processing such publications at the banks. As this process is handled manually, the increase in workload can come at the expense of overlooking compliance requirements, missing deadlines or failing to keep an updated overview of the scheme compliance status. 

Scheme compliance entails a critical responsibility: to avoid non-compliance leading to interoperability issues, non-compliance assessments, and financial losses due to non-optimal interchange or scheme fees. In dire cases – overlooking compliance requirements can cause fines and lead to a loss of the scheme licence for a bank.

Although compliance is a crucial process, today’s approach is often inefficient, time-consuming and essential requirements are easily overlooked. 

First, it is a largely manual process. Most scheme compliance managers spend most of their time communicating new rules and requirements to different departments via email and then chasing every individual to collect feedback on the compliance status.

This highly manual process means there’s a high risk of missing some requirements, information or deadlines. In some cases, this might result in discovering unexpected surprises in scheme fees and in other cases, this can cause a compliance oversight, resulting in hefty fines from the payment schemes.

The manual nature of the task also means that preparing a comprehensive compliance overview is a highly challenging task, requiring constant updates and maintenance of the overview. 

Many smaller banks do not have a dedicated scheme compliance manager to take care of the process. Subsequently, it’s either being taken care of by roles such as a product manager or a project manager. The lack of expertise in such a domain increases the risk of non-compliance and related fines even more.

There is vast potential to improve this process in the digitalisation age and gain control over the scheme compliance with minimal effort. Banks need to take the necessary steps to take action – before it’s too late.

Maintaining compliance is crucial to any financial institution’s ability to provide services

Card scheme compliance is becoming harder than ever.png

Card scheme compliance is becoming harder than ever – here’s why!

Platforms to trade, store and exchange Crypto assets became increasingly popular. But also, in this industry, companies are not immune to discontinuing business activities - as recently happened with the German Crypto Exchange "Nuri" (previously called Bitwala). Very often, the users use a debit or credit card to transfer funds into their account with the platforms. We all know that using a credit or debit card comes with “consumer protection” benefits granted by the licence rules of the card schemes, but how do these dispute rights work in the case of stored assets? Let’s have a closer look.

Are there dispute rights for cardholders if the stored monetary value or digital assets are no longer available?

Yes, if a cardholder used a debit or credit card to “purchase” (load) monetary value at a platform (merchant) and her/his account is subsequently made inaccessible by the platform, the cardholder can initiate a dispute with her/his card issuer. Of course, the amount subject to a dispute must not exceed the total amount of the purchase/load transactions carried out with the card.

What are the preconditions for cardholders to have a dispute right?

The main prerequisite for a dispute right is that the platform fails to deliver the available balance in accordance with the terms and conditions disclosed by the platform and agreed to by the cardholder. This can happen by way of, for example, if the cardholder is locked out of the account, the platform is no longer accessible, the platform does not execute the cardholder’s request for withdrawal of the available balance etc. Before raising the dispute, the cardholder has the obligation to try to resolve the dispute directly with the platform. The communication/contact attempt(s) should be recorded (e.g. print screen of online form, keeping the e-mail sent etc.)

170c38cb-0040-4031-b6e5-28e6c2a88f33_2912x2096.png

What are the restrictions for dispute rights?

In a scenario where the cardholder purchased value at the platform / loaded an account (e.g. loads a FIAT account at the platform) and then did a second transaction within the environment of the platform to, e.g. buy cryptocurrency, which is then stored on a separate account at the platform, there is no dispute right on the second transaction/account (e.g. the cryptocurrency value). The dispute right is limited to the funding transaction and the correlating account at the platform. Moreover, the dispute right is always limited to the purchase transaction amounts, so in a scenario where the cardholder buys cryptocurrencies, they increase in value and then the cardholder is no longer able to access the funds, the dispute right is limited to the amount of the transactions charged on the card and not the actual value of the cryptocurrencies. Of course, the dispute right does not safeguard investment risks for the cardholder, so if the purchased value decreases due to market fluctuations, the dispute right is limited to the available balance at the point in time the platform fails to make it available to the cardholder.

What is required to raise a dispute with the card issuer?

The cardholder must provide a detailed description of the purchased value, in case of purchase of cryptocurrencies, e.g. the cryptocurrency type, amount purchased, a record/print screen of the account balance cost, including date and time, the disbursement request, an explanation on how the merchant’s representations do not match the agreed terms and conditions as well as any other relevant information. Card issuers using the dispute tool Amiko may offer the cardholder to initiate the dispute and provide all required information via a digital self-service in the app or portal of the card issuer. Other issuers usually offer a dispute form on their website.

The card issuer can initiate the dispute 120 calendar days from the latest anticipated delivery or performance date (e.g. from the date the cardholder is no longer able to access the funds) but no later than 540 calendar days from the transaction processing date. Given the fact that the card issuer needs time to process the dispute of the cardholder as well, the dispute should be raised by the cardholder with the card issuer as soon as possible.  Some card issuers regulate the timeframe for submitting cardholder disputes in their terms and conditions.

, we help card issuers and acquirers stay informed about changes in dispute and other card scheme rules and enable them to manage the processes and risk exposures accurately.

Platforms to trade, store and exchange Crypto assets became increasingly popular. 

Crypto Exchange Insolvency - Are Cardholders Protected.png

Crypto exchange insolvency – Are cardholders protected?

, DNA Payments will be able to digitise its scheme compliance processes, enhancing efficiency and quality control.

Through Rivero’s SaaS Solution, Kajo, DNA Payments will be able to digitise its scheme compliance processes, enhancing efficiency and quality control.


Dna payments x Rivero.png

DNA Payments can now streamline scheme compliance processes with Kajo

With compliance at the forefront of card payments, PostFinance has embraced Rivero’s scheme compliance management solution, 

, to digitise and optimise its processes.

With compliance at the forefront of card payments, PostFinance has embraced Rivero's scheme compliance management solution, Kajo, to digitise and optimise its processes.

Postfinance x Rivero.png

PostFinance streamlines scheme compliance with Rivero's SaaS tool Kajo

Simplifying payment operations for banks — scheme compliance, dispute management, fraud recovery and industry trends.