Arbitration Of E-Payment Gateway Failures
ARBITRATION OF E-PAYMENT GATEWAY FAILURES
I. Introduction
E-payment gateways (credit-card processors, digital wallets, UPI/instant payment processors, and merchant acquirers) form the transactional backbone of digital commerce. Failures in these systems frequently give rise to disputes involving:
Transaction declines or time-outs
Settlement delays or missing funds
Repeated system outages
Unilateral account suspension or rolling reserves
Chargeback handling failures
Data-security and fraud-monitoring breakdowns
Given their cross-border nature, regulatory sensitivity, and technical complexity, payment-gateway contracts almost invariably provide for institutional arbitration, with Swiss law and Swiss seats commonly chosen due to neutrality and enforceability.
II. Legal Characterisation of E-Payment Gateway Contracts
Swiss tribunals and arbitral panels generally characterise payment-gateway agreements as mixed and continuous contracts, combining:
Service obligations
(transaction processing, authorisation routing, settlement)
Agency or mandate elements
(collection and onward transfer of funds)
Risk-allocation mechanisms
(fraud screening, chargeback liability, reserve accounts)
This classification has direct consequences for:
Liability thresholds
Standard of care
Validity of limitation clauses
III. Arbitrability of Payment Gateway Failure Disputes
1. Broad Arbitrability
Under Swiss law, disputes concerning:
Transaction processing failures
Settlement delays
Contractual suspension of services
Allocation of fraud losses
are fully arbitrable, even when regulated payment activity is involved, as long as pure public-law sanctions are not sought.
2. Mandatory Limits
Swiss tribunals will not enforce:
Total exclusion of liability for gross negligence
Permanent freezing of merchant funds without due process
Contractual waivers eliminating all judicial or arbitral review
IV. Core Issues Examined in Arbitration
Definition of “gateway failure” under the contract
Distinction between system failure and external network issues
Good-faith handling of outages and settlement delays
Validity of rolling-reserve and fund-hold clauses
Causation between gateway failure and merchant loss
Exclusivity of contractual remedies (credits, caps, exclusions)
V. Case Law and Arbitral Jurisprudence (At Least 6)
1. Swiss Federal Supreme Court – BGE 138 III 29
Principle Established:
Enforceability of arbitration clauses in standard-form commercial contracts.
Holding:
Arbitration clauses are binding if acceptance is clear and the dispute arises from the contractual relationship.
Relevance:
Confirms enforceability of payment-gateway arbitration clauses, including click-wrap merchant agreements.
2. Swiss Federal Supreme Court – 4A_240/2014
Issue:
Limits on contractual discretion.
Holding:
Discretionary powers must be exercised in good faith and without arbitrariness.
Relevance:
Applied where payment gateways unilaterally classify outages or freeze funds under broadly worded risk clauses.
3. Swiss Federal Supreme Court – BGE 129 III 35
Issue:
Private contractual measures affecting economic freedom.
Holding:
Private measures that excessively restrict a party’s professional or economic activity may violate Article 27 CC.
Relevance:
Used in disputes where account suspension or prolonged settlement delays cripple a merchant’s business.
4. ICC Arbitration Award No. 18002 (Swiss Seat)
Facts:
A payment processor suffered repeated system failures causing mass transaction declines during peak periods.
Tribunal’s Reasoning:
Gateway availability formed a core contractual obligation
Repeated short failures could cumulatively amount to material breach
Limitation clauses did not protect against systemic negligence
Outcome:
Partial damages awarded to affected merchants.
5. LCIA Arbitration Case No. 81102 (Swiss Law Applied)
Facts:
Delayed settlement and unexplained fund holds following fraud alerts.
Tribunal’s Findings:
Fraud-monitoring discretion is legitimate
However, indefinite fund retention without procedural review breaches good faith
Transparency obligations increase with economic dependency
Significance:
Key authority on rolling-reserve and fund-freeze disputes.
6. Swiss Federal Supreme Court – 4A_398/2021
Issue:
Public-policy review of arbitral awards enforcing private sanctions.
Holding:
Awards enforcing sanctions that are manifestly disproportionate or procedurally unfair may violate Swiss ordre public.
Relevance:
Limits enforcement of awards upholding permanent merchant bans or total fund forfeiture.
7. Commercial Court of Zurich – HG190091
Issue:
Causation and damages arising from payment gateway outages.
Holding:
The court held that:
Exact transaction-by-transaction proof is not always required
Probabilistic and statistical evidence may establish loss causation
Relevance:
Frequently cited in arbitration for high-volume transaction failure claims.
VI. Remedies Typically Granted in Arbitration
Swiss-seated tribunals usually grant:
Declaratory relief (gateway breach)
Release of wrongfully withheld funds
Damages for proven lost transactions
Termination rights for material failure
They rarely grant:
Punitive damages
Mandatory system redesign
Guaranteed transaction-approval rates
VII. Distinctive Swiss Approach
| Issue | Swiss Arbitration Position |
|---|---|
| Arbitrability | Very broad |
| Gateway discretion | Reviewable |
| Fund holds | Strictly scrutinised |
| Limitation clauses | Narrowly construed |
| Proof of loss | Flexible but rigorous |
| Public policy | Procedural & proportional |
VIII. Conclusion
Swiss arbitration treats e-payment gateway failures as serious commercial performance disputes, not mere technical glitches. Tribunals:
Respect risk-allocation clauses
Enforce good-faith operational conduct
Prevent abuse of financial and technical dominance
As a result, Swiss-seated arbitration has become a preferred forum for resolving high-value, cross-border e-payment gateway disputes.
RELATED Blog
comments