The push to implement legislation that would allow banks to delay real-time payments (RTP) by three days if they suspect fraud has garnered a mixed response. While Congress’s sentiment to protect consumers against rising authorised push payment (APP) fraud is laudable, delaying transactions could have unintended consequences. A more measured response, including the use of innovative fraud detection systems, would be more business friendly and still protect the consumer.

APP fraud has been steadily increasing, with losses projected to reach around $3.08bn by 2026. This reflects a significant increase from previous years.

In response to this global challenge, Britain’s Treasury (HMT) published draft regulations that would allow banks to delay outbound payments for up to 72 hours if fraud was suspected. Similar legislation has been proposed to crack down on US payment scams.

RTP and FedNow are designed for immediate transaction processing, and any proposed delays would herald a significant shift in operational standards.

Proponents of this approach argue that the additional time for banks to investigate suspicious transactions is necessary to protect consumers from scams. For instance, Britain’s Economic Secretary to the Treasury, Tulip Siddiq, highlighted that this measure aims to safeguard vulnerable communities from scammers who exploit them, suggesting that the delay could help “…break the criminal spell that scammers weave.”

Critics, however, have expressed concerns that these delays could lead to increased friction in payment processes – something banks have been working hard to minimise.

How well do you really know your competitors?

Access the most comprehensive Company Profiles on the market, powered by GlobalData. Save hours of research. Gain competitive edge.

Company Profile – free sample

Thank you!

Your download email will arrive shortly

Not ready to buy yet? Download a free sample

We are confident about the unique quality of our Company Profiles. However, we want you to make the most beneficial decision for your business, so we offer a free sample that you can download by submitting the below form

By GlobalData
Visit our Privacy Policy for more information about our services, how we may use, process and share your personal data, including information of your rights in respect of your personal data and how you can unsubscribe from future marketing communications. Our services are intended for corporate subscribers and you warrant that the email address submitted is your corporate email address.

We firmly believe everything possible should be done to protect the consumer. However, this move could end up creating unnecessary obstacles for both consumers and businesses.

The US must adopt a more balanced approach than the UK

A more balanced approach with the right regulatory reforms, along with innovative fraud detection systems, would be a better option. Disrupting payment flows could lead to late fees and negatively impact businesses who rely on rapid payments for their cash flow requirements. The net result of the 72-hour delay would be a lot more anxiety and pressure on consumers and business owners alike.

Others in the industry have argued that the approach could also stifle innovation and competition within the fintech industry, which relies on efficient payment systems to thrive.

Technology options have a lot to offer

There are already a number of innovative technology solutions to fighting APP fraud, with rapid advancements being made.

Several banks have adopted Confirmation of Payee systems, which help verify that the name on a bank account matches the intended recipient’s name before a payment is processed.

Financial institutions are also increasingly deploying artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning to profile customer behaviour and detect anomalies that may indicate fraud.

By using signals from other devices, it is now possible to build up advanced recommendations for risk-based authentication (RBA). For example, behavioural biometrics allow banks to learn about a customer’s transactional behavior to determine which interactions are legitimate and which should be flagged as suspicious and stopped before they happen. This helps banks pick up user behavior that is out of the ordinary, calculate the risk posed by transactions, and decide what to do about it.

The best solution is a multi-layered approach with both visible and invisible security. Visible security refers to active authentication steps, such as a customer verifying a large payment via their mobile device. Invisible security is much more likely to detect suspicious activity, such as unusually large payments.

Drawing on the power of the collective

The rapid payments systems are by no means complacent when it comes to protecting users. FedNow already offers some risk management controls, including negative lists, which allow banks and credit unions to block certain payments either in or out.

Regulators are also working hard to include the entire financial ecosystem in the fraud fighting solution.

The Atlanta Fed has released a new report outlining some of the most effective strategies to combat APP fraud, including the importance of sharing information. The Fed’s ScamClassifier, is a voluntary tool designed for information sharing. It enhances detection and reporting as well as mitigation efforts within organisations and across the entire payments supply chain.

In addition, new National Automated Clearing House Association (Nacha) rules require institutions to establish and follow procedures for Automated Clearing House (ACH) credits received that are potentially suspicious or fraudulent. The rules aim to enable quick return of fraudulent transactions.

Unlike the UK’s mandatory reimbursement rules, US banks are not uniformly required to provide reimbursement for APP fraud. While some states have begun to implement their own regulations regarding consumer protection against fraud, these efforts are fragmented and vary widely across different jurisdictions. Smaller banks have also expressed concerns about their ability to absorb these costs.

It’s clear that the US response reflects a cautious approach. It would make sense to find a way to strike a balance between good consumer-first regulation and all the benefits of rapidly advancing fraud detection technology. This is not a zero-sum game. User protection doesn’t have to come at the expense of user experience. A balanced approach that doesn’t reduce the efficiency of rapid payments is optimal and will be both business and growth friendly.

Frank Moreno is Chief Marketing Officer at global authentication specialist, Entersekt