The Worldline case and what it means for high-risk businesses

Late last year dozens of coffeeshop owners in the Netherlands received a letter: their card-payment contract was being terminated unilaterally. Not for individual violations or incidents, but collectively. The trade association took the case to court on behalf of more than fifty businesses, and it drew political attention too. That is no surprise: card payment is by far the most common way to pay in this sector, and without it revenue shifts to cash, with all the safety risks that brings. At the hearing Worldline argued that its acquiring bank no longer wanted to process transactions for Dutch coffeeshops. Notably, there were no individual complaints on the table: the problem sat in the chain behind the payment provider, not with the businesses themselves.

The ruling was clear on three points. The reason given, that the bank behind Worldline no longer wants the sector, is not enough to terminate. A payment provider holds an important position in payment traffic and must therefore handle its customers' interests with care. And, the core principle: refusing coffeeshops because they are coffeeshops, without individual assessment, is categorical exclusion, and that is not allowed. The court weighed heavily that switching was not a real option: coffeeshop applications are blocked elsewhere in practice, so losing this provider would effectively leave the sector without card payment. The result: Worldline must continue the service unchanged, at least until the main proceedings reach a ruling or the parties settle. Those proceedings are still running at the time of writing.

1. 01
   One: you stand stronger than you think. Access to payment traffic is not a favour. Anyone terminated without individual assessment does not have to simply accept it. Always ask for the concrete reason for a termination; the difference between "you did something wrong" and "we no longer want your sector" matters legally.
2. 02
   Two: the problem is often in the chain, not with you. Here the cause sat with a bank behind the payment provider. That is exactly the risk of a chain where everything hangs on one party.
3. 03
   Three: continuity is arranged beforehand, not in the courtroom. The coffeeshops won, but spent months in limbo, and the final outcome is still pending. Set up your acceptance so that one dropout does not touch you: with multiple licensed acquirers behind your payments, another takes over if one withdraws.

This article describes the position at the time of publication. The main proceedings between the parties are still running; as soon as a ruling or settlement is known, we update this article.