12 C.F.R. § 235.3

Reasonable and proportional interchange transaction fees

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) In general. The amount of any interchange transaction fee that an issuer may receive or charge with respect to an electronic debit transaction shall be reasonable and proportional to the cost incurred by the issuer with respect to the electronic debit transaction.

(b) Determination of reasonable and proportional fees. An issuer complies with the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section only if each interchange transaction fee received or charged by the issuer for an electronic debit transaction is no more than the sum of—

(1) 21 cents and;

(2) 5 basis points multiplied by the value of the transaction.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2013–2024 · leading case: Nacs v. Bd. of Governors of the Fed. Reserve Sys., 958 F. Supp. 2d 85 (D.D.C. 2013).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Nacs v. Bd. of Governors of the Fed. Reserve Sys., 958 F. Supp. 2d 85 (D.D.C. 2013). · cites it 6× “12 C.F.R. § 235.3 (b). The Board increased the allowable interchange fee (from twelve cents in Alternative 2 to twenty-one cents in the Final Rule) after concluding that the language and purpose of the Durbin Amendment allow the Board to consider additional costs not explicitly…”

Corner Post, Inc. v. Bd. of Governors, 603 U.S. 799 (2024). “As relevant here, in 2011, the Board issued Regulation II, capping debit-card interchange fees at 21 cents per transaction plus 0.”

United States v. Am. Express Co., 88 F. Supp. 3d 143 (E.D.N.Y 2015). “§ 1693o-2, which was accomplished by regulation in October 2011, see Regulation II, Debit Card Interchange Fees and Routing, 12 C.F.R. § 235.3 . According to data from the Federal Reserve, following implementation of the Durbin Amendment the average debit interchange rate in the…”

Kang v. PayPal Holdings, Inc (N.D. Cal. 2022). “¶ 92 25 (citing 12 C.F.R. § 235.3 (b)). However, the underlying statutory provision required an 26 27 1 Plaintiffs also vaguely allege violations of other parts of the Consent Order and other 1 exemption for any issuer that, “together with its affiliates, has assets of less…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.