That would be a change from preventing illegal transactions.
As it stands currently, the risk associated to the company for allowing illegal transactions is what drives their policy since they get brought into lawsuits for allowing monetization of illegal content in some jurisdiction.
Changing it (world wide) so that payment processors are not subject to money laundering laws and cannot be held liable when a merchant sells something illegal would allow them to change their model to allow all lawful transactions and not have false negatives.
Until false positives (allowing an illegal transaction) is not a risk for them, their policies are unlikely to change.
They do allow lawful transactions. However, they do require that these transactions be properly coded. If you are processing for certain types of products (adult in nature) it has to be coded as such. If Itch and Steam aren't coding these properly, or don't have the appropriate relation and accounts to process these transactions, you run into issues like this.
People keep saying this but I don’t see any reason any administration would do this. It is that type of argument that feels good to think about but has no legal basis.
It seems to me like Visa and MasterCard controlling the payment processing market, and restricting the sale of legal goods would fall under existing antitrust laws.
I don't think the current US administration has any desire to enforce antitrust laws though.
That would be a change from preventing illegal transactions.
As it stands currently, the risk associated to the company for allowing illegal transactions is what drives their policy since they get brought into lawsuits for allowing monetization of illegal content in some jurisdiction.
Changing it (world wide) so that payment processors are not subject to money laundering laws and cannot be held liable when a merchant sells something illegal would allow them to change their model to allow all lawful transactions and not have false negatives.
Until false positives (allowing an illegal transaction) is not a risk for them, their policies are unlikely to change.
They do allow lawful transactions. However, they do require that these transactions be properly coded. If you are processing for certain types of products (adult in nature) it has to be coded as such. If Itch and Steam aren't coding these properly, or don't have the appropriate relation and accounts to process these transactions, you run into issues like this.
People keep saying this but I don’t see any reason any administration would do this. It is that type of argument that feels good to think about but has no legal basis.
It seems to me like Visa and MasterCard controlling the payment processing market, and restricting the sale of legal goods would fall under existing antitrust laws.
I don't think the current US administration has any desire to enforce antitrust laws though.