US banks may have found a loophole to interchange caps on debit cards
Bank of America, Wells Fargo, JPMorgan Chase and other US banks have reportedly inquired about purchasing a debit card network from Fiserv.
According to reports, US banks are exploring a deal that could provide a workaround to the 2010 Dodd-Frank law while also addressing frustrations around interchange fees placed on debit card transactions.
If banks purchased the network from Fiserv, it would allow them to set their own fee structure and avoid relying on a middleman such as Visa or Mastercard.
Interchange fees are by far the most controversial part of card transactions and have been the reason behind several lawsuits against card networks. These fees are the charges paid by merchants’ banks to card issuers every time a debit or credit card payment is processed.
Despite their negative reputation, interchange fees play an important role in the payments ecosystem. They help cover the costs of authorising, processing and securing payments and also support fraud prevention.
The inspiration for banks’ idea is likely Capital One Financial, which bought Discover Financial in February 2024 and gained ownership of its own payments network.
At the time, Richard Fairbank, Founder, Chairman and CEO of Capital One, described the deal as an opportunity to bring together two successful companies and to “build a payments network that can compete with the largest payments networks and payments companies.”
A proposal laced with greed?
In addition to providing banks with closer relationships with merchants, there are concerns that the proposal is mainly about finding a loophole in the 2010 Dodd-Frank law. The law states that financial institutions with more than $10bn in assets must limit the maximum interchange fee when using an outside debit network.
Therefore, if one of the banks purchased Fiserv’s network, it could potentially set its own fee structure because it would no longer be relying on an external network.
Banks say that any additional revenue could be used to improve rewards programmes and offer other benefits to customers.
However, interchange fees are still a controversial part of card payments across the world and have contributed to the growth of account-to-account payment alternatives in markets such as the UK and Europe.
There have also been recent changes to interchange fee rules in the US. In February, a federal judge cleared the way for Illinois’ Interchange Fee Prohibition Act, confirming merchants cannot be charged card swipe fees on sales tax or tips.
The ruling followed a challenge from banks, which argued that federal law prevented the ban. Judge Virginia Kendall rejected this argument, noting that swipe fees are set by Visa and Mastercard rather than banks themselves, calling this “the core snag” in the case.
While interchange fees are already unpopular among merchants and some consumers, allowing banks to set their own limits could create even greater criticism and potentially attract attention from President Donald Trump.
Trump has not been shy about challenging banks while pushing for greater competition and growth across digital assets.
Is Fiserv interested?
The reports all depend on whether Fiserv is willing to sell its network, which would likely command a significant price. The potential deal could be attractive for the payments company, which has found itself facing several legal challenges in recent months.
Fiserv is currently dealing with a lawsuit from investors who claim the company misrepresented its 2025 financial performance and growth outlook.
The case, filed in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, names Fiserv, former CEO Michael Lyons and former CFO Robert Hau as defendants.
The company has rejected the allegations, with a Fiserv spokesperson telling Payment Expert in November 2025 that “Fiserv disagrees with the claim and will vigorously defend itself in the lawsuit.”
The latest case follows a separate $8.9m settlement relating to historical operations of Fiserv’s output solutions business and alleged non-compliance with US Postal Service regulations.
