So people expect credit card/debit card level protection without paying the credit card/debit card fees or going through the process of merchant vetting by a payment processor?
In other words, banks shouldn’t be allowed to drop those protections to provide a cheaper service. And the fees are mostly just profit. Banks are responsible for knowing their customers.
>In other words, banks shouldn’t be allowed to drop those protections to provide a cheaper service.
Some much for freedom of choice. We the state, decided that you can't be trusted with making decisions about who to transact with, so we mandate that you use a transfer service with arbitration/escrow so you won't be financially harmed. It doesn't matter if you're sending money to a landlord that you lived at for a few years, or splitting a restaurant bill with friends. You must use a transfer service with this service provided, and pay the 1% fee used to fund such a scheme (note this is actually less than credit card interchange, which is around 2-3%).
> Some much for freedom of choice. We the state, decided that you can't be trusted with making decisions about who to transact with, so we mandate that you use a transfer service with arbitration/escrow so you won't be financially harmed.
You say this like these regulations magically just appeared fully formed from the head of Zeus ...
These regulations exists precisely because the fraud was rampant enough that it became a sufficient threat that people would quit using the financial system altogether.
People already have the option to not use zelle. If you want payment protection, use a service with it. Sometimes I just want to easily send money to friends/family without transaction fees.