Challenge

Dynamic currency conversion (DCC) is a currency exchange service that enables customers to pay in their home currency or in local currency according to their choice. It is offered at ATMs and credit card transactions in shops. The service providers had raised concerns over the card scheme behavior of credit card companies aimed at limiting competition in currency conversion services across several jurisdictions, including in the European Union.

They contacted Alber & Geiger to provide political support with the European Commission’s Directorate General for Competition on their repeated complaints over card schemes’ excessive rules, fees and compliance regimes. Moreover, the companies relied on Alber & Geiger to help them identify political avenues to raise their concerns in the European Union, via regulatory and legislative paths, in parallel to their competition channel.

Strategy

From the outset, we created a strategy that focused on three works streams: political support into the complaint with DG Comp, advocacy with lawmakers and officials to raise awareness of DCC and highlight concerns against credit card schemes, and finally, to build support with merchant, consumer and other sectorial associations that are affected by currency exchange services. 

Results

Our team was able to raise awareness of the situation on currency exchange services, informing officials and politicians on the differences between the model offered by the credit cards, and that offered by the DCC providers, putting the emphasis on the DCC currency exchange service that brings more transparency and consumer choice. Simultaneously, through regular exchanges with lawmakers we have laid the foundation for support for our amendments on the ongoing EU legislation on the cross border payment regulation and the payment service directive. Finally, we managed to shift alliances in support of the issues highlighted by DCC providers.     

Challenge

Alber & Geiger represented Panama in the aftermath of the “Panama papers” with regard to the new EU anti money laundering blacklist. As a result of the “Panama papers” the EU decided for the first time to set up its own blacklist. Before that, the EU would copy the international Financial Action Task Force (FATF) lists.

In Summer 2019, Panama was added to the grey list of FATF, at a time when the country was finalizing its reforms. Alber & Geiger was called to halt the result in FATF from spilling over in the EU and to weigh in the new EU methodology and the procedural gaps in the EU listing. Panama was caught in a timing paradox: Its automatic EU listing would be followed by a potential delisting from FATF, without clear assurances that the latter would be reflected in an EU delisting.

Strategy

Our goal was straightforward: raise awareness for Panama’s advances in combating money laundering and through that ensure that the EU will not unjustly list Panama as a high risk third country. Our message had to circle in the three key EU institutions. The architect of the procedure and list of high risk third countries, the European Commission, and the gatekeepers of the procedure, the European Parliament and the Member States.

Our message was tailor made for each front, appealing the several working levels and directorates of the Commission, the Committees of the European Parliament and different levels of organization in the Member States. Alber & Geiger grasped the opportunity of the drafting of the new methodology for the EU listing of high risk third countries, to engage with the different Commission directorates involved in the process and apply Panama’s position. In the Parliament, we focused on rewarding a third country such as Panama, which is determined to turn a bad precedent into a success story and we stressed upon the bilateral relationships of Panama towards the Member States.

Results

The EU did not implement its list and methodology as planned. Panama being listed by the EU as a high risk third country within the EU anti money laundering framework now is based on an automatic listing/delisting process with FATF. Our lobbying efforts enhanced the visibility and acknowledgement of Panama’s efforts in modernizing its anti-money laundering regime and changed the original EU methodology draft according to the demands of Panama.

Challenge

Flock, a medium sized entity, with a fledgling web-browser, reached for support in the Microsoft case. Microsoft was using its market presence to tie its web browser, Internet Explorer to its dominant client PC operating system. This led to accusations by the European Commission that it had infringed competition rules. Microsoft reacted by proposing a limit on the access of browsers with a market share higher than 0.5% by means of a ‘ballot screen’. Flock was at risk of being blocked out of the market.

Strategy

The strategy relied on turning technical and soft law instruments into political messages resonating with the European Commission’s language. It outlined that Microsoft’s solution would have amounted to an oligopoly. In doing so, it demonstrate that, by its very essence the ballot screen proposal was contrary to the European Commission’s  goal for open and competitive communications markets. We created a nexus of effective communications and activities that proved to be decisive.

Results

Alber & Geiger was able to keep its client’s innovative business services available to consumers. Microsoft consequently, had to revise its ‘ballot screen’. Its new proposed ballot screen would allow consumers to choose from a number of 12 suggested web browsers. These included Flock and other alternatives.