Bancomat, the Antitrust rejects the new commission model: it damages competition

The Antitrust rejects the Bancomat circuit’s idea of ​​modifying the model of commissions on withdrawals from ATMs. According to the Antitrust, in fact, the new remuneration model would constitute a restriction of competition to the detriment of consumers.

The proposed amendment was now presented more than two years ago.

According to the current remuneration system, the bank that issued the card used for the withdrawal pays an interbank commission (MIF) to the institution that owns the branch where the withdrawal takes place, and can ask its customer for a commission. With the change envisaged by the Bancomat circuit, it would instead have been the bank from which the money is withdrawn to request a commission directly from the cardholder. A setting, reconstructed a few days ago the Only 24 Hours, which would have gone above all in the direction expected by large groups with many branches, rather worrying digital banks or those that do not have a similar penetration of ATMs. In a revised proposal, Bnacomat had also provided for a ceiling on the withdrawal commission (1.5 euros), evidently judged insufficient.

In fact, in the note in which the AGCM closes the investigation, the Authority states that “the new project constitutes a restriction of competition as it establishes a series of common rules which determine effects of an anti-competitive nature”. In particular, a “significant increase in the average commissions for circular withdrawals for users by the member banks” is expected and then the “creation of obstacles for competition between banks in the provision of services to customers, since for these minus the possibility of influencing a competitive variable (namely the possibility of determining the withdrawal commission in circular form and the possibility of not making the customer pay it)” and finally the increase “in the incentives for the participating banks to collude”.

Faced with these findings, according to the Authority, Bancomat “has not provided evidence, individually and in detail, that each of the four conditions envisaged by article 101.3 exists, which could have led to an exemption in derogation. In particular, the circuit has not demonstrated the presence of a direct relationship between the decrease in the ATM network and the current remuneration model and, therefore, any efficiencies that would have derived in this sense from the introduction of the new model”. For the Authority, on the contrary, “the main causes of the downsizing of the ATM network are due to an overall evolution of the market, characterized by various factors. Among these, the rationalization of the network following bank mergers, corporate decisions of credit institutions and also of optimization logics that may not depend on mere withdrawals in circularity. For example, even in areas with a high density of withdrawals, such as tourist or highly commercial areas, too many branches can be inefficient. circumstance which is confirmed by the acquired data according to which – against a contraction of the network (between 2015 and 2021 the number of branches fell by 28.4% and that of ATMs by 13.9%) – there was a growth of ATMs for each branch, which entails an increase in ATMs per branch: in the period 2015-2021 the average number of ATMs per branch rose from 1.44 to 1.73 with an increase of over three 20% (Bank of Italy data). The evidence on the absence of a link between the drop in ATMs and the remuneration model used is also consistent with the findings received in the preliminary investigation from the other national competition authorities”.