wordpress blog stats
Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?

Distinguish between regulations for payment aggregators, payment gateways: Dvara Research to RBI

When it comes to regulations regarding IT securities and consumer protection, the Reserve Bank of India should clearly distinguish between payment aggregators and payment gateways, Dvara Research said in its submission to the central bank. The RBI had released a discussion paper on guidelines for payment aggregators and payment gateways in September.

Dvara also said that RBI should harmonise the proposed consumer grievance redressal framework with the existing consumer recourse mechanism. However, the recommendations did not incorporate important issues regarding simplifying the KYC check system for PAs/PGs and governance of e-commerce marketplaces under the proposed framework by RBI.

The key recommendations have been summarised below:

Recommendation 1: Provide a clear articulation of regulatory objectives so that proportionality of proposed regulations can be assessed and regulatory efforts aren’t duplicated. The regulator needs to specify the financial and consumer protection risks and financial stability risks that are being addressed to assess the effectiveness of the proposed regulatory framework.

For instance, the RBI’s discussion paper suggests PAs and PGs to “consider information disclosure policies, privacy policies, and digital footprints while conducting due diligence.” However, PAs and PGs may not be well equipped to analyse merchants’ privacy policy, Dvara noted.

Recommendation 2: Clearly specify the distinction between payment aggregators and payment gateways. For regulations regarding IT securities, consumer protection, and contractual clarity, RBI should differentiate between PAs and PGs. The regulator should also specify the risks that this distinction is seeking to address at the functional level. Also, the definition of PAs in the discussion paper claims deeper consideration. This is because the 2009 directions for payment intermediaries (such as PAs and PGs) say that the nodal accounts opened and maintained for facilitating collection of payments by intermediaries from customers of merchants shall be treated as internal accounts of the banks and will not be operated by the intermediaries.

Advertisement. Scroll to continue reading.

Recommendation 3: Harmonise the proposed consumer grievance redressal framework with the existing consumer recourse mechanism. The proposed grievance redressal mechanism resembles the existing Ombudsman Scheme for Digital Transactions (OSDT). This also deviates from the government’s longstanding recommendation of creating a unified financial redress agency for consumers. Multiple, parallel and fragmented channels of redressal mechanisms create confusion amongst users.

Recommendation 4: Create symmetric regulation of all digital financial activities to ensure uniform treatment of users’ data. As the PAs and PGs play a significant role in digital payment, the regulator should consider revaluation of their cybersecurity framework. RBI should harmonise the cybersecurity requirements in its proposed framework across the financial sector, which will minimise the scope of regulatory arbitrage.

Recommendation 5: Provide more details on the options of the proposed policy alternatives as this would enable a better comparison of their relative costs and benefits. RBI’s discussion gave three policy frameworks as options for regulating PAs and PGs: continue with the extant instructions, limited regulations, and full and direct regulations. Since RBI did not elaborate on the first two, it is hard to assess and recommend a policy alternative with certainty.

Go deeper: RBI should cover all payment intermediaries for payment instructions 

[embeddoc url=”https://www.medianama.com/wp-content/uploads/RBI-PAPG-Dvara.pdf” download=”all”]

Advertisement. Scroll to continue reading.
Written By

MediaNama’s mission is to help build a digital ecosystem which is open, fair, global and competitive.



The Delhi High Court should quash the government's order to block Tanul Thakur's website in light of the Shreya Singhal verdict by the Supreme...


Releasing the policy is akin to putting the proverbial 'cart before the horse'.


The industry's growth is being weighed down by taxation and legal uncertainty.


Due to the scale of regulatory and technical challenges, transparency reporting under the IT Rules has gotten off to a rocky start.


Here are possible reasons why Indians are not generating significant IAP revenues despite our download share crossing 30%.

You May Also Like


Google has released a Google Travel Trends Report which states that branded budget hotel search queries grew 179% year over year (YOY) in India, in...


135 job openings in over 60 companies are listed at our free Digital and Mobile Job Board: If you’re looking for a job, or...


Rajesh Kumar* doesn’t have many enemies in life. But, Uber, for which he drives a cab everyday, is starting to look like one, he...


By Aroon Deep and Aditya Chunduru You’re reading it here first: Twitter has complied with government requests to censor 52 tweets that mostly criticised...

MediaNama is the premier source of information and analysis on Technology Policy in India. More about MediaNama, and contact information, here.

© 2008-2021 Mixed Bag Media Pvt. Ltd. Developed By PixelVJ

Subscribe to our daily newsletter
Your email address:*
Please enter all required fields Click to hide
Correct invalid entries Click to hide

© 2008-2021 Mixed Bag Media Pvt. Ltd. Developed By PixelVJ