Electronic Money Association
EMA
The Electronic Money Association (EMA) is the European trade body for electronic money issuers and payment institutions.
ID: 84308599569-14
Lobbying Activity
Response to 28th regime – a single harmonized set of rules for innovative companies throughout the EU
30 Sept 2025
The EMA is the EU trade body representing electronic money issuers and alternative payment service providers. Our members include leading payments and e-commerce businesses worldwide, providing online payments, card-based products, electronic vouchers, and mobile payment instruments. Most members operate across the EU, most frequently on a cross-border basis. A list of current EMA members is provided at the end of this document. The Commission proposal to elaborate a unified regulatory framework known as the '28th Regime' - to streamline operations for innovative companies across the European Union, is a step in the right direction to eventually reduce national barriers and create a more attractive environment to encourage start-ups, allow companies to scale up across the EU, to stimulate investment and accelerate technological innovation, eventually fostering economic growth. The EMA supports the proposal and is pleased to offer its contribution to the European Commission consultation by drawing from the first-hand experience of its members, which include many small-and medium size firms providing innovative payments and retail financial services across the EEA. Rather than offering feedback on the legal options of the new legal framework at this stage, the EMA has chosen to contribute to the consultation by providing a list of challenges and obstacles that EMA members face daily in the EU Single Market, including in areas that have already been harmonized by EU rules. We hope the below is of help for your work, and we stand ready to continue contributing to the goal to make the EU Single Market a model for competitiveness, growth and scalability for innovative businesses providers.
Read full responseMeeting with Costantino Lanza (Acting Head of Unit Taxation and Customs Union)
31 Jan 2025 · • Exchange of views on the implementation of CESOP • Discussion on potential future simplification measures for PSPs by COM
6 Dec 2023
We welcome the opportunity to provide input on the European Commission draft Delegated Regulation specifying certain criteria for classifying asset-referenced tokens and emoney tokens as significant (The Delegated Act or Act). The EMA represents payments, crypto-asset and FinTech firms, engaging in the provision of innovative payment services, including the issuance of e-money, stable coins (including e-money tokens as covered by the EUs MiCAR), open banking payment services, and crypto-asset-related services. The EMA was established some 20 years ago and has a wealth of experience in regulatory policy relating to payments, electronic money and more recently crypto-assets. A full list of our members can be found here: https://e-ma.org/our-members The EMA participated actively in the EBAs work on the Technical Advice (Advice) to the EC regarding The Delegated Act now submitted by the EC for consultation. The proposed Act follows closely the EBAs Advice on the matter. We therefore include below the EMAs response to the EBA consultation on its draft Advice in full. The concerns expressed in this earlier response extend to the proposed Act, and remain valid.
Read full responseResponse to Banking Union: Review of the bank crisis management and deposit insurance framework (DGSD review)
15 Aug 2023
Morning Please find attached the Electronic Money Associations response to the European Commission consultation on the Review of the bank crisis-management & deposit-insurance framework (DGSD review). Kind regards Judith
Read full responseMeeting with Mairead McGuinness (Commissioner) and
28 Mar 2023 · Round-Table on Digital Euro (with EVP Dombrovskis and DG FISMA)
Response to Instant Payments
5 Jan 2023
The EMA welcomes the Commissions proposals to improve the supply of instant payments across Europe, and tackle the key issues that have hampered the uptake of instant payment in euro. We share the Commissions view that SEPA instant payments have the capacity to form the foundations to support the EU retail payments strategy. Whilst also creating the opportunity for PSPs to develop innovative payment solutions based on instant payment infrastructure, often to address market issues that arise when payments are expensive, slow, and inconvenient for both business and consumer users. We detail our observations on the proposed amendments to the SEPA regulation (EU 260/2012) below. Article 5a. - Instant credit transfer transactions We welcome the proportionality applied in the Commissions proposal, which will exclude electronic money (EMI) and payments institutions (PI) from the initial scope of the requirement to provide instant credit transfers, as they do not have the right to directly access some key payment systems under The Settlement Finality Directive (Directive 98/26/EC). Furthermore, we maintain our view that access to designated SFD settlement payment systems should be extended to allow direct participation by PIs and EMIs through an amendment to the Settlement Finality Directive (SFD). Open, non-discriminatory access to payment systems will create a level playing field for non-bank PSPs, and is crucial for widening the uptake of instant payments (IPs) to the degree envisaged by the Commission. We also note that customer demand for offering the ability to send and receive instant euro payments is not present in all existing uses of standard SEPA credit transfers. And the requirement to provide instant credit transfers through all customer interfaces (or channels) through which standard credit transfers are available is a complex. A clear success factor for increasing the supply of instant payments and driving consumer and business usage of instant payments will be PSPs ability to develop competitive, user-friendly, and reliable instant payment services that deliver convenience and advantages for end users. Therefore, we consider that further clarification on the scope of which PSU Interface, or channels, that IPs should be made available to customers (under proposed Art 5a (2a)) could provide the maximum opportunity to achieve the Commissions objectives for instant payments. Article 5c - Discrepancies between the name and payment account identifier of a payee in case of instant credit transfers The EMA supports the Commissions aims for the account identifier-payee name check requirements, or confirmation of payee (CoP) to help protect consumers and build trust in instant payments. We also agree with the Commissions impact assessment that CoP checks can be a valuable tool for reducing the number of erroneous and misidentified payees, which in turn can lower the risk of payments being misdirected by accident or because of fraud. We recognise that including the requirement for CoP checks in the proposed IP regulation provides a way to galvanise and co-ordinate the market in providing greater protection for transactions at risk of misdirection. However, we note a number of practical implications of the proposed requirements in Article 5c. of the proposed instant payment regulation, which if left unaddressed, may risk widespread customer confusion when initiating IPs, and be counterproductive to the Commissions objective of fostering the development of competitive home-grown and pan-European market-based payments solutions. We discuss these in more detail below.
Read full responseResponse to Distance Marketing of Consumer Financial Services - Review of EU rules
8 Jul 2022
The EMA is the EU trade body representing electronic money issuers and alternative payment service providers. Our members include leading payments and e-commerce businesses worldwide, providing online payments, card-based products, electronic vouchers, and mobile payment instruments. Most members operate across the EU, most frequently on a cross-border basis. Our members are listed at the end of this letter.
We have reviewed the European Commission’s proposal for a directive. We are generally supportive of repealing the Distance Marketing Directive (EU) 2002/65/EC. We also support the Commission’s proposal to retain the consumer’s 14-day right to withdraw from the contract and insert this provision into the Consumer Rights Directive (EU) 2011/83/EU as we agree it is one of the few terms of the Distance Marketing Directive that remains relevant.
In relation to the new proposed directive, we have the following comments for your consideration:
Please note that we disagree with proposed new Article 16(a)(3) which requires firms to issue a right to withdraw reminder in certain circumstances.
We disagree that this reminder is of any benefit to the consumer or the service provider. Consumers will already be provided with a contract containing 22 separate information disclosures pursuant to article 16(a)(1). The consumer will not appreciate receiving another, separate disclosure on a durable medium. This is not efficient and conducive to a positive consumer experience; nor has the Commission proven in the course of the Impact Assessment or the behavioural study published in 2019 that receiving another document would make any considerable impression on the consumer or otherwise give effect to their rights.
Please note that the consumer will be presented with the “prominent and permanently available” Withdrawal Button in their online account. They will see this clearly and will be reminded of their right to withdraw each time they visit the online account. We therefore consider another disclosure on a durable medium will have little effect as it will lose significance amongst the other 22 disclosures made prior to the consumer’s entering into the services contract. The consumer will already be well aware of their right to withdraw pursuant to the prominent Withdrawal Button.
Durable medium
New proposed Article 16(a)(4) provides:
(4) The information referred to in paragraph 1 shall be made available to the consumer on a durable medium and laid out in a way that is easy to read, using characters of readable size […]
This new article contains the ubiquitous consumer protection requirement to disclose information to the consumer on a durable medium. The meaning of “durable meaning” should be updated to reflect technological developments and new consumer habits. Updating the Distance Marketing Directive to reflect technology was one of the central reasons for the EC carrying out this review.
We consider that “keeping tracking of technological evolution” as anticipated by the EBA opinion on disclosure to consumers of banking services through digital means under Directive 2002/65/EC includes providing information through an app or a dedicated online interface (e.g. an online account) as a means of providing information on a durable medium. The times have changed and it is not beneficial to consumers to keep the rules that do not reflect how the consumers behave. For example, consumers today will use their app notifications the way letters, or even emails, used to be used a few years ago. Consumers have access to their online interface with all the information about the transactions in one place and use the interface to keep informed. Notifications sent to these online interfaces/accounts should be treated as a durable medium.
Read full responseMeeting with Ondřej Kovařík (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)
15 Mar 2022 · TransferS of Funds
Response to Revision of EU rules on Anti-Money Laundering (new instrument)
18 Nov 2021
The Electronic Money Association is the trade body for electronic money issuers and innovative payment service providers. Our members include leading payments and e-commerce businesses providing online/mobile payments, card-based products, electronic vouchers, crypto asset exchanges, electronic marketplaces, merchant acquiring services and a range of other innovative payment services. Most EMA members operate across the European Union (“EU”) and globally on a cross border basis. A list of current EMA members is provided at the end of this document.
We welcome the efforts of the European Commission to provide more consistency across the EU in the application of AML legislation; this will drive greater efficiencies in the operational of the AML/CTF framework, and reduce the opportunity for criminals to exploit the financial services system. However we have concerns that some elements of the Regulation are more likely to reduce efficiencies, and drive firms to allocate considerable resource towards activities that do not directly benefit the AML/CTF effort, moving the EU away from the risk-based approach, and more towards a tick-box approach to addressing AML/CTF risk.
We have set out our views in the attached document, and would be grateful for your consideration of our comments.
Read full responseResponse to Revision of EU rules on Anti-Money Laundering (recast)
18 Nov 2021
The Electronic Money Association is the trade body for electronic money issuers and innovative payment service providers. Our members include leading payments and e-commerce businesses providing online/mobile payments, card-based products, electronic vouchers, crypto asset exchanges, electronic marketplaces, merchant acquiring services and a range of other innovative payment services. Most EMA members operate across the European Union (“EU”) and globally on a cross border basis. A list of current EMA members is provided at the end of this document.
We welcome the efforts of the European Commission to provide more consistency across the EU in the application of AML legislation; this will drive greater efficiencies in the operational of the AML/CTF framework, and reduce the opportunity for criminals to exploit the financial services system. However we have concerns that some elements of the Regulation are more likely to reduce efficiencies, and drive firms to allocate considerable resource towards activities that do not directly benefit the AML/CTF effort, moving the EU away from the risk-based approach, and more towards a tick-box approach to addressing AML/CTF risk.
We have set out our views in the attached document, and would be grateful for your consideration of our comments.
Read full responseResponse to Revision of EU rules on Anti-Money Laundering (recast of a former instrument)
18 Nov 2021
The Electronic Money Association is the trade body for electronic money issuers and innovative payment service providers. Our members include leading payments and e-commerce businesses providing online/mobile payments, card-based products, electronic vouchers, crypto asset exchanges, electronic marketplaces, merchant acquiring services and a range of other innovative payment services. Most EMA members operate across the European Union (“EU”) and globally on a cross border basis. A list of current EMA members is provided at the end of this document.
We welcome the efforts of the European Commission to provide more consistency across the EU in the application of AML legislation; this will drive greater efficiencies in the operational of the AML/CTF framework, and reduce the opportunity for criminals to exploit the financial services system. However we have concerns that some elements of the Regulation are more likely to reduce efficiencies, and drive firms to allocate considerable resource towards activities that do not directly benefit the AML/CTF effort, moving the EU away from the risk-based approach, and more towards a tick-box approach to addressing AML/CTF risk.
We have set out our views in the attached document, and would be grateful for your consideration of our comments.
Read full responseResponse to Digital Operational Resilience of Financial Services (DORFS) Act
18 May 2021
The EMA is the EU trade body of FinTech and BigTech firms engaging in the provision of alternative payment services and the issuance of electronic money. Our members include leading payments and e-commerce businesses providing online/mobile payments, card-based products, electronic vouchers, virtual currency exchanges, electronic marketplaces, merchant acquiring services and a range of other innovative payment services. Most EMA members operate across the European Union (“EU”) and globally on a cross border basis. A list of current EMA members is provided at the end of this document.
The EMA submitted a detailed response during the earlier consultation on a draft regulation on digital operational resilience for the financial sector (DORA). We support the EC effort to address the impact of the introduction of DORA on existing Directives through the draft directive detailed in proposal COM 2020(596).
We expect that the changes to existing Directives that are detailed in Articles 5 and 7 of the Directive will impact the operational processes of EMA members.
In Article 5, we support the proposed amendment to Art. 85(2) of Directive 2013/36 to reference the requirement for credit institutions to have in place business continuity/disaster recovery plans for the ICT systems/tools introduced in Art.6 of DORA.
In Article 7 we offer the following comments to the proposed amendments to Directive 2015/2366 (PSD2):
1. We support the proposed amendment to the payment institution authorisation requirements to include an explicit reference to the ICT risk identification, management requirements detailed in Chapter II of DORA. We encourage the Commission to work with the relevant ESAs (and with national competent authorities) to ensure a consistent interpretation of the outsourcing risk management framework detail that payment institutions will be required to provide in their authorisation application across all EU jurisdictions.
2. We request that the Commission provides further clarity on the proposed change to Art. 95(1) of PSD2. Specifically, the proposed change appears to require payment service providers (PSPs) to treat security and operational risks that are detailed in the EBA Guidelines on ICT and security risk management (EBA/GL/2019/04), separately from risks detailed in Chapter II of DORA. However, there is obvious overlap between such risks and associated risk controls. Furthermore, PSPs already use existing incident detection and classification frameworks to identify incidents that arise due to events that impact their digital operational resilience (or that of Critical ICT outsourcers). We encourage the Commission to ensure that DORA does not introduce any new incident report detection/classification frameworks that are inconsistent with existing frameworks or cause duplication of reporting requirements.
3. Building on our comment above, we also encourage the Commission to clarify the proposed amendment to Art. 96(1) of PSD2. ICT-related incidents are currently monitored/detected, classified and reported to the relevant NCA by the affected PSP in compliance with the EBA Guidelines on ICT and security risk management (EBA/GL/2019/04). PSPs have made significant, recent investments in their incident detection and notification infrastructures to align with the requirements in these EBA Guidelines. At present, it is unclear where such ICT incidents should be reported under the proposed PSD2 text amendment. As noted above, there is significant overlap between security and operational events and ICT incidents that impact the digital operational resilience of PSPs.
Finally, based on the experience with the development of PSD2, the EMA considers it prudent to avoid introducing detailed DORA technical implementation detail in Level 1 legislation (Directives). The experience of the payments industry is that technical guidelines that are generated by the relevant ESA (and updated on a more frequent s
Read full responseResponse to Digital Operational Resilience of Financial Services (DORFS) Act
15 Feb 2021
The EMA is the EU trade body of FinTech and BigTech firms engaging in the provision of alternative payment services and the issuance of electronic money. Our members include leading payments and e-commerce businesses providing online/mobile payments, card-based products, electronic vouchers, virtual currency exchanges, electronic marketplaces, merchant acquiring services and a range of other innovative payment services. Most EMA members operate across the European Union (“EU”) and globally on a cross border basis. A list of current EMA members is
We support the Commission’s regulatory initiative and the stated objectives of the proposed Digital Financial Package that aims to (i) Give consumers in member states more choices in financial services, (ii) deliver enhanced consumer protection and financial stability, (iii) boost competitiveness and innovation in the financial sector in the Union. We also acknowledge the need for financial service providers to manage ICT risks (including digital operational resilience and outsourcing) through an integrated risk management framework that is reviewed, monitored and audited frequently.
However, we are concerned that the current EC proposal for a regulation on digital operational resilience for the financial sector (DORA) does not deliver some of the benefits listed in Section C of the Executive Summary of the Impact Assessment accompanying DORA and in its recital 14. Specifically, we perceive DORA as introducing further administrative/reporting complexity for financial service providers and decreasing the efficiency of the supervisory regime of the sector. We are also concerned that language in the Regulation that seeks to restrict the use of Critical ICT Third Party Providers (CTPPs) - or of their subcontractors - that are located in third countries will limit the ability of financial service entities in the Union to access best-of-kind ICT services and degrade competitiveness and innovation in the sector.
We would urge the EC to consider the impact of existing ICT/outsourcing risk management requirements that already form part of the existing compliance and supervisory framework for payment service providers (PSPs) in the Union as detailed in:
• The EBA Guidelines on ICT and security risk management (EBA/GL/2019/04),
• The EBA Guidelines on outsourcing arrangements ( EBA/GL/2019/02), and
• The EBA Guidelines on major incident reporting under PSD2 (EBA/GL/2017/10). Note that the EBA completed a Public Consultation on the proposed revision of these Guidelines in December 2020 that aimed to decrease the frequency of regulatory reporting while increasing its quality.
The requirements in the EBA Guidelines (GLs) listed above address cybersecurity, business continuity and digital operational resilience risks alongside risk types that relate to the use of third-party service providers to deliver Critical ICT functions/assets to regulated entities. The requirements in these GLs align with a principles/risk-based regulatory approach and strike a balance between regulation on one hand and technology neutrality and support for payment service innovation on the other. As Guidelines, they also allow for more frequent revision as and when required to respond to technological or other developments.
In this context, the requirements in DORA appear to duplicate existing requirements that already apply to PSPs and are more detailed than necessary for Level 1 legislation. Rather than streamlining risk monitoring and reporting requirements for regulated entities, the text in DORA appears to add further complexity to these tasks and to give rise to duplication of effort by regulated entities.
We would urge the EC instead to introduce high-level, objectives-based requirements in DORA and delegate the development of detailed implementation Guidelines to the ESAs, where they can be more easily amended and adapted to address rapid innovation.
Read full responseResponse to Review of Regulation on cross-border payments
12 Jun 2018
The Electronic Money Association is the trade body for electronic money issuers and also caters for PIs offering innovative payment service providers (PSPs). Our members include leading global payments and technology businesses, representing online payments, prepaid card-based products, and those employing mobile payment solutions.
In general, the EMA supports greater transparency, but not price regulation. In this context, the EMA proposes to support the Commission’s proposals for increased price disclosure requirements. We do not support the proposals to expand Regulation 924/2009 to cover cross-border transactions outside the Eurozone, nor the temporary price cap on currency conversion charges. These constitute significant pricing interventions where there is no evidence of a market failure to justify a regulatory intervention of this scale. In many cases the market is already finding solutions through innovative new FinTech entrants who can better cater to the needs of consumers.
Read full responseMeeting with Jonathan Hill (Commissioner)
7 Apr 2016 · Pre-paid cards