The Administrative Council for Economic Defense (Cade) formally accused Itaú of abuse of dominant power and opened a process to punish the bank. The complaint, filed by the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office (MPF), points out that Itaú makes it difficult to carry out transactions via credit card in competing digital wallets, such as PicPay, Mercado Pago, and RecargaPay, while allowing similar operations in its own channels. This practice was understood to be anticompetitive, discriminatory, and exclusionary in the payment systems market.
Implications and Consequences
Itaú’s conduct may have significant implications in the payment services market, especially in a context of high inflation and rising interest rates, which may lead to greater demand for alternative payment services. High inflation can reduce consumers’ purchasing power, leading them to seek more affordable options for transactions. Furthermore, competition in the payments market is essential to ensure innovation and cost reduction for consumers. Cade had already determined a preventive measure to require Itaú to stop unfounded refusals under penalty of a daily fine of R$ 250,000. The punishment can exceed R$ 27 billion.
Free competition is essential for the efficient functioning of the market, and Itaú’s practice may have raised barriers to the development and expansion of competitors in the payment services market. The use of generic error codes to justify refusals also hinders visibility and transparency about the real criteria adopted to deny transactions. This can be seen as a strategy to avoid sanctions and maintain market power. The economic order is protected by laws and regulations that aim to ensure fair competition and prevent anticompetitive practices.
In a payment services market in constant evolution, competition is fundamental to ensure innovation and cost reduction for consumers. The Cade’s decision to open an administrative process for the imposition of administrative sanctions for infringements to the economic order is an important step to ensure free competition and protect consumers. Monitoring the evolution of this case may be important to understand how regulatory authorities deal with anticompetitive practices in the payment services market.
