Suppose you resist a bank that forces you to access your account exclusively via some shitty phone app, which also requires you to buy a new smartphone. And suppose you refuse, so your only access to the bank account is via the card.
What happens when the time comes that (e.g.) the gov or a creditor demands a payment by credit transfer, not by card? Are you consequently forced by your obligation to make a payment to then buy a phone? Or do you have a right to manually order a payment from your bank by sending a written letter or something?
There is this law but I’m not sure it’s applicable:
REGULATION (EU) No 260/2012, Art.4: Interoperability
…
3. The processing of credit transfers and direct debits shall not be hindered by technical obstacles.
I think that law was really intended for the bank-to-bank segment of the transaction, not consumer to bank. I get the impression we have no codefied rights, just recommendations to lawmakers, such as:
The European Commission, in its 2012 Green Paper, insisted that standardisation in the mobile payments area should ensure full interoperability between mobile payment solutions, and favour open standards to ensure the mobility of consumers when they wish to change their telecom operator or bank.
…
In its Mobile Payments Initiatives Overview, the European Payments Council stated that different mobile payment solutions from multiple payment service providers should be able to coexist in the same mobile device. In its opinion, consumers should not be bound to a specific network operator or particular mobile equipment, but should be able to switch between payment service providers, with interoperability as a key feature needed to achieve these goals.
But to be fair that was written 10 years ago. Any headway?
Yikes. That’s a shame. There is the EC Recommendation of 22 March 2010 (2010/191/EU) which wisely states:
I am surprised Germany has gone against that. I thought cash was loved by Germans.
Oh yeah, cash is king here (to my personal demise I have to admit).
I guess it’s the other easy around, Germany never updated: BGB 241 allows for deviations of cash within individual terms. The state itself uses that privilege at least for some transactions (had to pay a service invoice via bank transfer only, no other payment methods accepted).
I looked it up now, I guess it’s even clearer: since 2023 only bank transfer or similar trackable transactions are allowed for real estate transactions.
Fascinating, thanks for the rabbit hole!
There was a story about a German guy insisting on paying his radio licensing fees in cash. He setup an escrow account and paid his invoices into that, so that the state could not claim he was just using cash refusal as an excuse not to pay. I don’t think I ever heard what came of the legal case.