Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Almighty Buck

Walmart Plans Instant Bank Payments, Cutting Out Card Networks (bnnbloomberg.ca) 139

Posted by BeauHD from the cutting-out-the-middle-man dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Bloomberg: Walmart customers will soon have the option to pay directly from their bank accounts with instant transfers for online purchases. The enhanced feature is a flash point in the escalating tensions between merchants and the card networks setting the fees for payment processing. The world's largest retailer has offered pay-by-bank through Walmart Pay since earlier this year. Until now, the transactions were akin to digital checks and took roughly three days to finalize when being processed through The Automated Clearing House, the same network often used for bill payments or paycheck deposits. Soon, customers opting for pay-by-bank transactions will see the purchase reflected in their bank account balance instantly -- and Walmart will receive the funds immediately. [...]

Walmart's upgraded pay-by-bank offering will be rolled out in 2025. The transactions will occur over bank technology provider Fiserv's NOW Network, which integrates with The Clearing House's Real Time Payments network and the Federal Reserve's FedNow. Until now, large retailers hesitated to launch real time payment options because many banks were not connected to an instant settlement system, meaning their customers would not be able to use the product. NOW Network aims to connect to as many banks as possible to reach 100% of deposit accounts by combining its own network with RTP and FedNow. The instant pay-by-bank product will be available for online checkout on Walmart.com. The Bentonville, Arkansas-based retailer already has customers set up a profile when they shop online. If they opt to add pay-by-bank as a payment option on their profile, they will enter their bank login credentials to connect their account. Fiserv's AllData platform connects with their bank clients and vendors including Plaid, MX, Akoya and Finicity to link and authenticate consumer accounts. With this instant pay-by-bank product, consumers will avoid stacked pending transactions, which can open them up to the risk of overdraft or non-sufficient fund fees from their bank. "When the transaction processes as a real time payment, customers get immediate access to see that payment come through, I see it hit my account and I can properly budget," said Jamie Henry, vice president of emerging payments at Walmart. "It's not as if I've got this phantom payment out there that's going to take place a couple days down the road."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Walmart Plans Instant Bank Payments, Cutting Out Card Networks More

Walmart Plans Instant Bank Payments, Cutting Out Card Networks

Comments Filter:

  • Other countries... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Bert64 ( 520050 ) <.moc.eeznerif.todhsals. .ta. .treb.> on Thursday September 19, 2024 @10:50PM (#64801681) Homepage

    Other countries have been doing this for years, Thailand for instance lets you scan a QR code to initiate an instant bank transfer, and the vast majority of retailers or even individual street vendors accept this payment method.

    Also unlike a payment card, it's a push method - you confirm the amount you want to send rather than the retailer having the ability to pull any arbitrary amount from your account.

    • Right. The main reason I discourage auto pay. It's either a credit/debit card or equivalent. Or my bank can send them a check.

    • Re:Other countries... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by lsllll ( 830002 ) on Friday September 20, 2024 @12:40AM (#64801811)

      I'd be all for this if I received a price break for using it. Saving customers from "stacked transactions" is a bullshit excuse to offer this service for. Give me a 2% discount and I'm there. After all, what's the incentive for me? If I use my credit card, I can always get my money back if I have any problem with the transaction. Why should I pay the same price when using this service?

      • Re:Other countries... (Score:4, Interesting)

        by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Friday September 20, 2024 @01:26AM (#64801887)

        After all, what's the incentive for me? If I use my credit card, I can always get my money back if I have any problem with the transaction.

        And there's the problem with American payment systems. Consumer protections have been outsourced to credit card companies for a serviceable fee rather than being legally guaranteed regardless of the method of payment.

        • Re:Other countries... (Score:5, Informative)

          by Malc ( 1751 ) on Friday September 20, 2024 @04:00AM (#64802081)

          I think the actual problem is that the service fees are invisible to the cardholders. This was great for kicking starting the whole concept of using cards, but maybe now it's time to change this so card holders pay the fees instead of the merchants. Many merchants can't choose whether or not to support Visa and Mastercard, and so it's an often an abusive situation, unless the merchant is as big as Walmart or Amazon. Card holders on the other hand will be much more resistant to paying fees and have choices to avoid them. Furthermore, they'll be able to price compare card providers and thus put pressure on them to reduce fees. This might kill off reward schemes, but really, they're just socialising the cost across all card holders and benefit wealthy people the most because they spend the most.

          • Some merchants make it clear that using a credit card will cost extra due to the processing fees. Gas stations are particularly famous for this, listing different prices for cash or card transactions.

            Given that credit card companies have been upping their fees on merchants, it's becoming more common to make those fees transparent to the customer.
            =Smidge=

            • Re: (Score:3)

              by Malc ( 1751 )

              Is than an American thing? It's probably illegal in many places, especially in Europe because the price you pay has to be the price you see. Airlines were an example that did this until a few years ago, but the EU forbade them from tacking on credit card fees to the advertised sale price like this.

              • The prices are properly displayed and/or additional fees properly posted. Either there will be two prices listed (as is the case with gas stations that do it) or there will be a notice that credit card transactions will have an additional fee.

                The problem is when a customer doesn't see the fee until they're presented with the bill, which is not what's happening.
                =Smidge=

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by sjames ( 1099 )

                  In many cases they don't see the fee at all, it's built in to the mark-up on the items purchased.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by jsonn ( 792303 )
                The EU has also capped the merchant fees for credit cards and that's why many (smaller) stores finally started to accept credit cards. Including the payment process in the price is fine as long as all payment options are within a reasonable margin. But Americans also need to understand that their whole charge-back model would no longer work with capped prices and all the scamfluencer would cry only to block such a reform.

              • Re: (Score:3)

                by Entrope ( 68843 )

                Charging different rates for cash vs credit used to be banned in the US, but is now allowed. Visa and MasterCard just agreed to a lawsuit settlement that will allow different surcharges based on what card is used (retailers pay different "swipe fees" for different cards).

                Surcharges for certain electronic payment methods are common in Australia and New Zealand too -- I visit there regularly but still haven't figured out the exact rules because of the different brand names and jargon for the different paymen

                • > Charging different rates for cash vs credit used to be banned in the US

                  This is not a factual statement. It's complicated, but the short version is at no point was it banned to charge different prices for cash vs credit.

                  What WAS banned, or otherwise prohibited, was merchants applying surcharges to CC transactions. Even that wasn't universal... and, very importantly, charging different prices is not the same as a surcharge.
                  =Smidge=

                  • IIRC, it was a contractual thing, not actually a law. Visa and Mastercard used to write it into their merchant agreements that cardholders could not be penalized versus cash customers. Gas stations... which for some reason were always the businesses most opposed to cards... reasoned out a loophole where they were offering a "discount" for paying cash instead of a penalty for the cards, and that fiction got made into reality by a (civil) lawsuit about ten years ago, so now all businesses are free to engage

                    • > IIRC, it was a contractual thing, not actually a law

                      There are also state laws that prohibit surcharges. Like I said, it's complicated...

                      =Smidge=

                  • Re: (Score:3)

                    by sjames ( 1099 )

                    It wasn't banned in law, it was banned in merchant contracts.

                • Credit card surcharges are illegal in many states. Instead, the vendor offers a cash discount. That's how it's done legally everywhere
            • I think the extra processing is Bullshit really. Handling cash, especially large amounts of it is expensive, and potentially dangerous in the US. There's the risk of a robbery, and the need for surveillance, security, safe, transport. Plus if you're driving around with cash and get pulled over by cops, there is a non zero chance of them just taking it through civil asset forfeiture. No evidence of a crime needed, the cops just need to suspect it then the can use it for more weapons, gear, donuts, what ever.
            • Yep. The merchant adds 3-5% to the invoice if you pay with a card. My electrician can't afford to eat those card fees any more.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by sjames ( 1099 )

              The credit companies are well aware that they benefit from keeping the fees hidden from the consumer. They have been in a years long battle to keep retailers from transparently passing the fees to card users only. Often the merchant contract forbids it, which is why gas stations frame it as a cash discount rather than a credit surcharge. The credit cards tried closing that loophole, but have not prevailed in court.

              Working markets require transparency. Many players in that market want things opaque. They wan

        • I'm confused by this. Its still illegal to perform fraud even if its an all cash transaction. But try to get your $10 cash back from a merchant. What do you do? Small claims court? Find a bunch of other people and do a class action? Call 911?

          The law is there, but not the enforcement mechanism. That costs money. Who pays for it? With the payment networks its clear, the merchant pays and its automatic with every payment. The problem as many merchants will tell you, is that its too fair for the customer and un

      • Economic theory says you would benefit by reduced costs to the retailer because they would be able to charge you less while maintaining the same margins. It doesn't mean they would pass along the entire savings to you. Rather you would split the savings but still end up paying less.

        • Economic theory says you would benefit by reduced costs to the retailer because they would be able to charge you less while maintaining the same margins. It doesn't mean they would pass along the entire savings to you. Rather you would split the savings but still end up paying less.

          Let us know when that happens. Remember how ATMs were supposed to reduce costs for banks so they wouldn't have to charge so many fees? How did that work out?

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by necro81 ( 917438 )

            Remember how ATMs were supposed to reduce costs for banks so they wouldn't have to charge so many fees? How did that work out?

            Speak for yourself. The only fees I pay to my bank are 1) the annual rental on a safe deposit box, and 2) a terrible exchange rate on foreign currency. I pay no fee for checking (5-10 checks/month), or ATM usage (2-3x/mo). The last time I ran into an overdraft situation (years ago, and my fault: thought I'd shifted money from one account to another to cover a large purchase, but

            • I've not used a 'bank' for years but a local credit union that's in whatever credit union network runs ATMs. They have no fees in network and I've found machines in various states coast to cost in the USA .
          • Ditto here. Zero bank costs. Except when you do not use the ATM for cash withdrawals.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by AvitarX ( 172628 )

            Minimum balance and fees were much higher in the 90 (until the late 90s), then there was a while with very low/no fees and minimum balances. Now we're somewhere in-between from what I assume is bank consolidation.

      • I can see for some people the 'stacked' pending transactions may bite them in the ass, but more likely WallyWorld is trying to spin this as 'good for consumers' when for the great majority of us, I would prefer them not having direct access to my bank account, because, where I live, that doesn't give me the protections that using my credit card does, nor does it give me the airline miles/2% or so back.
      • Well, if you're at the store purchasing something you get a receipt and you can return the item, correct? And, if I use the credit card in the store that I use on walmart.com all of my store purchases go into my walmart.com account. Honestly walmart is pretty good with their guarantee and return policies. They do work to prevent fraud, so keeping a receipt for something would be best - but you may have it if it goes into your online account regardless.

        • Well, if you're at the store purchasing something you get a receipt and you can return the item, correct? And, if I use the credit card in the store that I use on walmart.com all of my store purchases go into my walmart.com account. Honestly walmart is pretty good with their guarantee and return policies. They do work to prevent fraud, so keeping a receipt for something would be best - but you may have it if it goes into your online account regardless.

          Wow....I haven't been in or shopped at a Walmart in yea

      • Exactly, you mean you take my money instantly instead of giving me 3 days no interest. Give me back my 3 days of interest. There is zero benefit for users.

      • Actually, in my country, getting a discount by paying through automatic transfer is very common. You would usually get a 5% discount, which is the credit card cost for retailers.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by JD-1027 ( 726234 )
        Target has had direct from bank for a long time. You get 5% off your order online or in store and free 2 day shipping. That is a huge benefit.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

      My understanding of those systems is that they work either within banking system and take a while to clear, or they function within a completely isolated payment network with its own wallet. In previous case most of these systems reserve the funds, but take a while to actually clear them. In latter the transfer is near instant, but it costs additional money to do so (usually paid by the merchant).

      The idea being used here is much more recent, that allows for instant clearing of funds. This usually requires s

    • Re:Other countries... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Kisai ( 213879 ) on Friday September 20, 2024 @05:12AM (#64802185)

      The problem overall is the ACH system is a "pull" system. To initiate a client-sided payment, the bank needs to have the merchant in their system, which generally they don't.

      This problem also exists in Canada.

      There is no way to secure ACH. Any mistake made by the checking system in the US or Canada requires a lot of steps to fix. This is why you pay for everything by credit card in the US and Canada, because you can always get the bank backing the card to reverse a transaction if the merchant won't. Having any company pull money directly out of your bank account is a STUPID risk, because you have no way to cancel that. So you might be chasing an idiot merchant for months to get them to stop taking your money. NEVER pre-authorize a bank transaction unless you can deal with a human when you call customer service. No chat bots, no IVR phone trees. If you have a trouble getting a human, then you are going to have trouble stopping payments after you cancel their service, and likewise you have no way to prevent them from raising the prices on you.

      Pre-authorization doesn't mean anything for checking accounts. Only credit/debit cards are pre-authorized.

      Australia did it right where there are two bank numbers, one is deposit-only which you give to the person who is to pay you money.

      • In some well-designed European payment systems, you pay by simply placing our payment card in a standard reader, confirm the amount on the display, enter your secret code and press OK. No need to involve credit cards, which are a form of short term loan. A debit card deducts the confirmed amount directly from the attached bank account and cannot withdraw more money than what is there, for most cards. I haven't seen anyone use any other form of payment in years.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by jsonn ( 792303 )
          Strictly speaking, for direct debit the amount is reserved, not immediately transferred. It's followed by a transfer on the next bank work day. It still means that there is no risk of overdraft and only the much smaller risk for the merchant of disputed payments.
          • Maybe the money is actually transferred in some late night batch. I don't know because I don't see that side. But the money is removed directly from my account because I can log in to the bank och see the transaction immediately on my mobile and the total has decreased. And there are official statements stating that the money is drawn immediately.

      • You don't use ACH to pay online from your bank in Canada, you use Interac Online - which has been around for 20 years or so. So nothing you said is relevant to this discussion.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Hodr ( 219920 )

      There have been many methods to directly pay from your bank in the US, for decades electronically and for over a century by check. Maybe they have better protections in Thailand, but paying for things directly with your bank account is a risk in the US.

      If you see a transaction you disagree with or didn't make on a credit card, the credit card company usually will instantly remove the charge and investigate. If you have something similar with an app that pulls from your bank (like cashapp or Venmo for inst

    • Re: "the transactions were akin to digital checks and took roughly three days to finalize when being processed through The Automated Clearing House, the same network often used for bill payments or paycheck deposits."

      Do any other countries do it like this? This is nuts!

    • I have said before, when I travel, one of the most impressive qualities about the United States is how much they seem to be able to get done despite a banking system straight out of the 1980s.

      The US - the only country on earth where the mag stripe is still used, where people still use cheques, where third party hacks like "Cash App" exist, where restaurants can't even figure out how to do chip + PIN...

  • How is this different from the EFTPOS system that we have had in New Zealand for about 40 years?

    • Re:EFTPOS? (Score:5, Informative)

      by 93 Escort Wagon ( 326346 ) on Thursday September 19, 2024 @11:06PM (#64801709)

      I don't even see how this is materially different from a debit card transaction... except you ("you" the Walmart customer) have given them your bank login info, like an idiot.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by ukoda ( 537183 )
        Ah, so inferior to EFTPOS, which does not give any access info to the retailer.
      • I would reasonably expect that sharing your logon details breaks any end-user agreement with banks and invalidates any type of liability protection, putting the onus in case of fraud on the account holder.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by lsllll ( 830002 )

        except you ("you" the Walmart customer) have given them your bank login info, like an idiot.

        I balked at that, too, when I read it. But I think the summary is misleading. I think your entering your credentials is done on the bank site and just to connect your bank account with this service. Much like when you enter your PayPal credentials, you're really not entering them on the site you're making a purchase from.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by EvilSS ( 557649 )
          Plaid requires you to give them your login info, and depending on the bank you use they keep the credentials instead of using a SSO/token, so it's quite possible that is how this one works as well. https://support-my.plaid.com/h... [plaid.com]

          In other cases, when you link a financial institution to an app via Plaid, you provide your login credentials to us. We store those credentials and use them to collect the data to power the services you’ve chosen and, when requested, securely share it with the app you’re using and establish a secure connection that you control. We then help keep your data safe and private with best-in-class encryption protocols. For more information on how we use your data, please refer to our End User Privacy Policy.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by zlives ( 2009072 )

            i have also seen a instant credit firm doing something similar, was not sure if it is using Plaid or something similar on the back end.

      • have given them your bank login info, like an idiot.

        I don't believe that is how it works and it would be a violation of your bank's ToS if it were. You log in to your bank account using your bank's website and via FedNow they link the payments. You never give anyone else your login system. That would be dumb.

      • In other, non-Amerian-Idiot countries, the payment request sends a message to your phone, to open your bank app and approve the payment to the vendor.
      • Only in the US can a company "pull" from your account without specific authorization. In any other country I am familiar with, having your account number, etc, only let's them send you money. The US really ought to fix this.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by jsonn ( 792303 )
          That's not true. Direct debit is a pretty fundamental part of the Single European Payment Area agreements. The initiating party must have proof of authorization, but banks are not required to verify that.

  • Um... no thanks... (Score:5, Informative)

    by ctilsie242 ( 4841247 ) on Thursday September 19, 2024 @11:22PM (#64801737)

    I have to ask... Walmart doesn't offer any real benefits for this. Why would I use their payment method only as opposed to like almost every single retailer, and using cards or other payment methods? Why would I add another vector for someone to drain my back account for one store?

    Already, the WM shopping experience is miserable. If I want a taillight for a car, or a pair of socks, I have to wait a long time before a clerk can unlock the case. Then, the self checkout, where there are more loss prevention people standing around, hoping someone accidentally slides an item without paying for it... Combine that with the way reduced hours, and WM shopping is last on my list.

    The last thing I'm going to do is give WM access to by bank account directly. At least they can bring back some sort of restaurant in their stores, like how Target has a Starbucks, and have some method to get stuff out of locked cabinets that doesn't entail waiting interminably for a clerk. There are better ways to do this, even if is paper tickets that one takes to the counter to be scanned. Maybe even consider bringing back 24 hour stores.

    • If socks are locked up, that says something about the neighborhood you live in.

    • While I wouldn't really be interested in this either, same security concerns - but anything that makes the credit card companies only useful for purchases on credit is a bonus in my book. The fees are outrageous, but what is more outrageous is that they are hidden from the card user.

      People seeing that purchasing that 500 TV incurs a swipe fee of nearly 3 percent to the retailer that is indirectly passed on to you, and that cash payer behind you... Actually it's the cash payers that should be outraged at
      • Cash is more expensive to handle and process than cards, due to having to carry it around, count it, mistakes, and theft.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      If it works like the system in the UK does, Walmart wouldn't get access to your bank account. It is a push transaction, a QR code tells your banking app Walmart's bank details and the amount, and you confirm it, and your bank sends it. There is a faster turn-around for confirmation of payment (instant) so you don't have to wait potentially a few hours for it to go through.

      At no point does the retailer get access to your account.

      That said, there is little incentive to bother with the hassle of doing it, unle

    • That's because of where you're living and shopping. My WM only locks up large cans of powdered baby formula. Nothing else except ammo and firearms (if they even still sell them)/
  • you either don't have the money or you want the rewards points. Or you don't want to give a rando company direct access to your bank account, there's that too.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by sl3xd ( 111641 )

      Visa & Mastercard aren't just for credit - why would they limit themselves, after all? Plenty of debit cards use the Visa & Mastercard networks as well - though they're often the fallback compared to other debit networks.

    • you either don't have the money or you want the rewards points. Or you don't want to give a rando company direct access to your bank account, there's that too.

      I have the money and don't want to have it debited directly from my account. A credit card gives me a one-month float on my money and consolidates things into into one monthly payment, which I *always* pay off in full. Though I can understand why some people may want (or need) a debit card, I will never want/have/use one, credit cards are much better for those who can use them responsibly.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Bert64 ( 520050 )

      Well if you're paying with any type of card, you're giving them the ability to pull any arbitrary amount from your card any time they want. This is the whole reason why cards need to come with fraud protection guarantees, because fraud is so easy in that scenario.

      In most countries paying with a bank account does NOT work like this. The retailer only provides you with their account number, a reference and optionally an amount often in the form of a QR code for convenience. You enter that information into you

    • In the UK here, where pretty much everyone pays for everything by card, to the point that most people don't carry cash any more; I want the cashback, and the Section 75 protection.

    • you either don't have the money or you want the rewards points. Or you don't want to give a rando company direct access to your bank account, there's that too.

      There are many people that pay with a credit card for convenience. In many (most?) cases, if you pay your balance off at the end of the month you don't incur interest fees. Of course, the payment processor still takes whatever surcharge they're going to throw on. But I get consumer protections, ease of accounting like when it comes to the end of the year to do my taxes, and if I do run short one month I have a credit cushion. (Taxes come into play if you're in a situation like some 1099 employees where some

    • you either don't have the money or you want the rewards points. Or you don't want to give a rando company direct access to your bank account, there's that too.

      Studies have shown forcing you to peel off those $20 bills one at a time paying with cash, makes you about 18% more frugal.

      Naturally this is why a country that ties its GDP to domestic spending, would prefer to downplay the shit out of using cash.

      Rando company? It’s Wal-Mart.

      • Rando company? Itâ(TM)s Wal-Mart.

        That's a good point. Wal-Mart is much worse than just being some rando company.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by sinij ( 911942 )

      Or you don't want to give a rando company direct access to your bank account, there's that too.

      Ability to charge back on a credit card is a major reason I pay with credit cards. If there is a fraudulent charge on my bank account, it is weeks and hours of time spent as opposed to a quick 15 minutes call with my CC. This is especially important for any online orders.

  • If you expect less to pay less I have bad news, someone in the payment processing chain will take just as much as the card issuers would. First they won't, but it will equalize. Here we have 0.45% tax on every transaction to begin with. Then banks add their own fees. Then the provider of the qr code.

  • people who were born yesterday.

  • Mathy McMathface (Score:4, Insightful)

    by geekmux ( 1040042 ) on Friday September 20, 2024 @01:36AM (#64801903)

    consumers will avoid stacked pending transactions, which can open them up to the risk of overdraft or non-sufficient fund fees from their bank. "When the transaction processes as a real time payment, customers get immediate access to see that payment come through, I see it hit my account and I can properly budget,"

    Risk of overdraft? Immediate processing lets people properly budget? You mean mathing the mathity math out of it doesn’t work anymore?

    The hell do people think happened when all of society was waiting for stacks of paper checks sent via snail mail to clear the bank over several days? You’re telling me “stacked pending transactions” is enough to what, avoid doing an ACTUAL budget?

    Pretty bad when you struggle to see how people would have survived even 30 years ago.

    • When cash was king keeping within your budget was easy, when your budget was empty so was your literal wallet.

      Now it's all just numbers on a screen. Or worse a phoney.

    • consumers will avoid stacked pending transactions, which can open them up to the risk of overdraft or non-sufficient fund fees from their bank. "When the transaction processes as a real time payment, customers get immediate access to see that payment come through, I see it hit my account and I can properly budget,"

      Risk of overdraft? Immediate processing lets people properly budget? You mean mathing the mathity math out of it doesn’t work anymore?

      The hell do people think happened when all of society was waiting for stacks of paper checks sent via snail mail to clear the bank over several days? You’re telling me “stacked pending transactions” is enough to what, avoid doing an ACTUAL budget?

      Pretty bad when you struggle to see how people would have survived even 30 years ago.

      Also, what are the odds that a VP at Wal-mart's bank account is riding so close to zero that buying some groceries might cause an overdraft? Using "I" there is pretty disingenuous. Unless, well, I guess if he's really bad at budgeting... okay, it makes sense now.

  • My MasterCard bank debit card works fine and the $$ is pulled before I get home. You learn to manage your budget whether debit, CC or cash ! If I use my CC, I get cash back and have consumer protection for what I buy. My choices.....

  • I use a credit card to pay for everything and pay it off every week (so I feel the pain of my spending). There is no world where I'm even carrying a debit card or giving anyone direct debit to my accounts. That's how you end up on the phone with the bank when they leak your creds, get hacked, or just make a mistake and take out 699 instead of 6.99.

    If I wasn't in a position to use a credit card like this, I'd pay cash.

    • I've had three credit cards for years, and never carried a balance on any of them. As far as I'm concerned, the most important benefit is that any merchant who might be inclined to screw a customer over will have to deal with the 900-pound gorilla rather than some poor dude without the time, money or legal knowledge to fight back.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ledow ( 319597 )

      Which terrible backwards country do you live in where a debit card doesn't have a limit and can't have its transactions queried and stopped just like a credit card?

  • Bad Idea (Score:5, Insightful)

    by StormReaver ( 59959 ) on Friday September 20, 2024 @08:10AM (#64802489)

    If they opt to add pay-by-bank as a payment option on their profile, they will enter their bank login credentials to connect their account.

    This is just asking for bank account information to be stolen and bank accounts drained. It's a very bad idea to normalize the practice of entering your bank account credentials into a vendor's website.

  • So you saying most of their customers that already run a CC debt wont use it .

  • I've been disturbed by the fact that credit card companies exact a tax on every transaction and have worked (I.e. bribed politicians, etc.) to prevent alternative cheaper forms of payment. Most other countries have ways around this tax. (I lived in Switzerland for a few years and everybody uses debit cards for most transactions, not credit cards.)

  • Oh well. Walmart isn't.

Slashdot Top Deals

Pause for storage relocation.

Close