Visa (V) Risk Analysis

As a global payments technology company, we are subject to complex and evolving regulations that govern our operations. See Item 1-Government Regulation for more information on the most significant areas of regulation that affect our business. The impact of these regulations on us, our clients, and other third parties could limit our ability to enforce our payments system rules; require us to adopt new rules or change existing rules; affect our existing contractual arrangements; increase our compliance costs; and require us to make our technology or intellectual property available to third parties, including competitors, in an undesirable manner. As discussed in more detail below, we may face differing rules and regulations in matters like interchange reimbursement rates, preferred routing, domestic processing and localization requirements, currency conversion, point-of-sale transaction rules and practices, privacy, data use and protection, licensing requirements, and associated product technology. As a result, the Visa operating rules and our other contractual commitments may differ from country to country, state to state, or by products. Complying with these and other regulations increases our costs and operational complexity, and reduces our revenue opportunities. If widely varying regulations come into existence worldwide, we may have difficulty rapidly adjusting our products, services, fees and other important aspects of our business to comply with the regulations. Our compliance programs and policies are designed to support our compliance with a wide array of regulations and laws, such as regulations regarding anti-money laundering, anti-corruption, competition, money transfer services, privacy, and sanctions, and we continually adjust our compliance programs as regulations evolve. However, we cannot guarantee that our practices will be deemed compliant by all applicable regulatory authorities. In the event our controls should fail or we are found to be out of compliance for other reasons, we could be subject to monetary damages, civil and criminal penalties, litigation, investigations and proceedings, and damage to our global brands and reputation. Furthermore, the evolving and increased regulatory focus on the payments industry could negatively impact or reduce the number of Visa products our clients issue, the volume of payments we process, our net revenue, our brands, our competitive positioning, our ability to use our intellectual property to differentiate our products and services, the quality and types of products and services we offer, the countries in which our products are used, and the types of consumers and merchants who can obtain or accept our products, all of which could harm our business and financial results.

Regulators around the world have been establishing or increasing their authority to regulate various aspects of the payments industry. See Item 1-Government Regulation for more information. In the U.S. and many other jurisdictions, we have historically set default interchange reimbursement fees. Even though we generally do not receive any revenue related to interchange reimbursement fees in a payment transaction (in the context of credit and debit transactions, those fees are paid by the acquirers to the issuers; the reverse is true for certain transactions like ATM), interchange reimbursement fees are a factor on which we compete with other payments providers and are therefore an important determinant of the volume of transactions we process. Consequently, changes to these fees, whether voluntarily or by mandate, can substantially affect our overall payments volumes and net revenue. Interchange reimbursement fees, certain operating rules and related practices continue to be subject to increased government regulation globally, and regulatory authorities and central banks in a number of jurisdictions have reviewed or are reviewing these fees, rules, and practices. For example: - Regulations adopted by the U.S. Federal Reserve cap the maximum U.S. debit interchange reimbursement rate received by large financial institutions at 21 cents plus 5 basis points per transaction, plus a possible fraud adjustment of 1 cent. Additionally, the Dodd-Frank Act limits issuers' and payment networks' ability to adopt network exclusivity and preferred routing in the debit and prepaid area, which also impacts our business. In response to merchant requests, the Federal Reserve has recently taken actions to revisit its regulations that implement these aspects of the Dodd-Frank Act. For example, in October 2022, the Federal Reserve published a final rule effectively requiring issuers to ensure that at least two unaffiliated networks are available for routing CNP debit transactions by July 1, 2023. In October 2023, the Federal Reserve issued a proposal for comment which would further lower debit interchange rates, with a mechanism for automatic adjustment every two years. Separately, there continues to be interest in regulation of credit interchange fees and routing practices by members of Congress and state legislators in the U.S. In June 2023, legislation was reintroduced in the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate, which among other things, would require large issuing banks to offer a choice of at least two unaffiliated networks over which electronic credit transactions may be processed. Similar legislation was introduced in the previous Congress in 2022 but failed to advance. The current legislation has additional bipartisan support, and while the ultimate outcome of the legislation remains unclear, its sponsors continue to strongly advocate for its passage. Finally, some states in the U.S. have passed or are considering passing laws that regulate how interchange can be assessed. For example, in May 2024, Illinois passed a law that restricts the assessment of interchange on the state tax and gratuity portions of a transaction, and restricts financial institutions and payment networks, among others, from using payment transaction data for any purpose other than facilitating or processing a transaction. Such laws may also impose significant technical and compliance burdens on our business. In Europe, the EU's IFR places an effective cap on consumer credit and consumer debit interchange fees for both domestic and cross-border transactions within the EEA (30 basis points and 20 basis points, respectively). EU member states have the ability to further reduce these interchange levels within their territories. The European Commission has announced its intention to conduct another impact assessment of the IFR, which could result in even lower caps on interchange rates and the expansion of regulation to other types of products, services and fees. - Several countries in Latin America continue to explore regulatory measures against payments networks and have either adopted or are exploring interchange caps, including Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Costa Rica. In Asia Pacific, the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) which already regulates interchange, continues to monitor issues related to the cost of acceptance, the potential merits of mandating merchant choice routing on dual network debit cards and competition in digital wallet payments. In 2022, the New Zealand Parliament passed legislation capping domestic interchange rates for debit and credit products, and the government remains focused on lowering costs of digital payments to businesses and consumers. Interchange is also regulated in certain countries in the Central and Eastern Europe, Middle East and Africa region, including the United Arab Emirates. Finally, many governments, including but not limited to governments in India, Costa Rica, and Turkey, are using regulation to further drive down MDR, which could negatively affect the economics of our transactions. - While the focus of interchange and MDR regulation has primarily been on domestic rates historically, there are several examples of increasing focus on cross-border rates in recent years. For example, in 2019, we agreed to limit certain cross-border interchange rates in a settlement with the European Commission. That agreement has been extended through 2029. In 2020, Costa Rica became the first country to formally regulate cross-border interchange rates by regulation. Cross-border MDR is also regulated in Costa Rica and Turkey. In June 2022, the UK's PSR initiated a market review focusing on post-Brexit increases in interchange rates for transactions between the UK and Europe. - As referenced above, with increased lobbying by merchants and other industry participants, we are also beginning to see regulatory interest in network fees. For example, the UK's PSR is conducting a market review into scheme and processing fees. In its interim report, the PSR indicated that it is reviewing possible remedies, any of which, if adopted, could impose additional complexity and burdens on our business in the UK. Other regulators, for example, in Australia, the EU, and Chile, have expressed an interest in network fees, including issues related to transparency. Finally, in 2024, the Greek Parliament limited acquirer fees for certain small ticket transactions in some merchant categories for a period of three years. - In addition, industry participants in some countries, including Argentina, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Paraguay, Peru and South Africa have sought intervention from competition regulators or filed claims relating to certain network rules, including Visa's restrictions on cross-border acquiring. The Central Bank of Chile recently enacted regulation that will permit cross-border acquiring for CNP transactions under certain conditions. Other countries, like Brazil, have adopted regulations that require us to seek government pre-approval for certain of our network rules, which could also impact the way we operate in certain markets. - Government regulations or pressure may also impact our rules and practices and require us to allow other payments networks to support Visa products or services, to have the other networks' functionality or brand marks on our products, or to share our intellectual property with other networks. In addition, the EU's requirement to separate scheme and processing adds costs and impacts the execution of our commercial, innovation and product strategies. - We are also subject to central bank oversight in a growing number of countries, including Brazil, India, the UK and within the EU. In several jurisdictions, we have been designated as a "systemically important payment system." Some countries with existing oversight frameworks are looking to further enhance their regulatory powers, while regulators in other jurisdictions are considering or adopting approaches based on these regulatory principles. For example, in October 2023, VisaNet was designated as a prominent payment system in Canada. These types of designations generally result in oversight of authorization, clearing and settlement activities, including policies, procedures and requirements related to governance, reporting, cybersecurity, processing infrastructure, capital, and/or credit risk management. We could also be required to adopt policies and practices designed to mitigate settlement and liquidity risks, including increased requirements to maintain sufficient levels of capital and financial resources locally, as well as localized risk management or governance. Increased oversight could also include new criteria for member participation and merchant access to our payment systems. Furthermore, as governments increase their focus on cybersecurity, parts of our business have become considered significant or critical infrastructure by certain central banks. - As innovations in payment technology have enabled us to expand into new products and services, they have also expanded the potential scope of regulatory influence. For instance, new products and capabilities, including tokenization, push payments, and new flows (e.g., Visa B2B Connect) could bring increased licensing or authorization requirements in the countries where the product or capability is offered. Furthermore, certain portions of our business are regulated as payment institutions or as money transmitters, subjecting us to various licensing, supervisory, and other requirements. As we continue to expand our capabilities and offerings in furtherance of our network of networks strategy, we will need to obtain new types of licenses. These licenses could result in increased supervisory and compliance obligations that are distinct from the obligations we are subject to in our capacity as a payment card network. Regulators around the world increasingly take note of each other's approaches to regulating the payments industry. Consequently, a development in one jurisdiction may influence regulatory approaches in another. The risks created by a new law, regulation or regulatory outcome in one jurisdiction have the potential to be replicated and to negatively affect our business in another jurisdiction or in other product offerings. For example, our settlement with the European Commission on cross-border interchange rates has drawn preliminary attention from some regulators in other parts of the world. Similarly, new regulations involving one product offering may prompt regulators to extend the regulations to other product offerings. For example, credit payments could become subject to similar regulation as debit payments (or vice versa). The RBA initially capped credit interchange, but subsequently capped debit interchange as well. When we cannot set default interchange reimbursement rates at optimal levels, issuers and acquirers may find our payments system less attractive. This may increase the attractiveness of other payments systems, such as our competitors' closed-loop payments systems with direct connections to both merchants and consumers. We believe some issuers may react to such regulations by charging new or higher fees, or reducing certain benefits to consumers, which make our products less appealing to consumers. Some acquirers may elect to charge higher MDR regardless of the Visa interchange reimbursement rate, causing merchants not to accept our products or to steer customers to alternative payments systems or forms of payment. In addition, in an effort to reduce the expense of their payment programs, some issuers and acquirers have obtained, and may continue to obtain, incentives from us, including reductions in the fees that we charge, which directly impacts our net revenue. Finally, policymakers and regulatory bodies in the U.S., Europe, and other parts of the world are exploring ways to reform existing competition laws to meet the needs of the digital economy, including restricting large technology companies from engaging in mergers and acquisitions, requiring them to interoperate with potential competitors, and prohibiting certain kinds of self-preferencing behaviors. While the focus of these efforts remains primarily on increasing regulation of large technology, ecommerce and social media companies, they could also have implications for other types of companies including payments networks, which could constrain our ability to effectively manage our business or potentially limit how we make our products and services available.