TIM RESPONSE TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE ON THE ELECTRONIC MONEY DIRECTIVE (2000/46/EC)

Transcription

1 TIM RESPONSE TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE ON THE ELECTRONIC MONEY DIRECTIVE (2000/46/EC)

2 a) Has a level playing-field between ELMIs and other credit institutions issuing e- money been achieved? b) Has a level playing-field between ELMIs and other prepaid institutions issuing e-money been achieved? c) Is competition between institutions issuing e-money fair? d) Has the Directive encouraged new market entrants? So far the e-money directive has not achieved the objectives to create a level playing field between ELMIs, especially between hybrid operators (such as mobile operators which offer e-money services, as an ancillary activity, in addition to their core business services, voice and data traffic), and other financial institutions. Indeed, the directive not considering a different regulatory framework for hybrid operators caused the following negative effects: - As first the risk of the introduction of inappropriate and disproportionate e-money regulation, discouraged the entrance of hybrid operators in the market, such as mobile operators; - Secondly the disproportionate obligations in terms of reedemability, guarantee schemes and accounting separation, do not create conditions of fair competition between hybrid operators and other financial institutions. 2. The Explanatory Memorandum of the original E-money proposal argued that there was no clear legal framework for electronic money issuance and that if the regulatory issues were not addressed this business would be carried out on an unregulated basis. It was claimed that the directive would create legal certainty, encourage new market entrants, encourage competition, and contribute generally to the development of electronic commerce. a) Have the harmonised provisions of the E-Money Directive eliminated legal uncertainty in the field of e-money? b) Does the directive establish the conditions necessary to ensure that any kind of e-money issuance takes place within a clear legal framework? c) Does the directive establish market confidence in and public awareness of E- money? The national application of e-money directive on mobile communications sector is fragmented and based on different principles. Just to make an example, taking into account the big five European countries (Germany, France, Spain, Italy and UK) only in UK the National Authority (FSA) issued different licences (full and small) for the provisioning of e-money services. Therefore, the not harmonised approach above indicated has the negative effect of hampering the development of innovative services and technologies, not providing a clear legal framework. 2

3 TIM appreciated the efforts of the Commission to clarify the question of the application of the e-money directive to mobile operators and the Guidance note issued on July 2004, nevertheless in Italy like in other countries the Commission view has not been yet implemented by the national regulatory Authorities and there is still need of further clarifications. 3. The Explanatory Memorandum of the original proposal argued for a regulatory framework for the business of ELMIs which aimed to ensure the stability and soundness of issuers, thereby ultimately safeguarding customers interests. It argued that the financial integrity and the operations of electronic money issuers needed to be secured, on the one hand in order to ensure the stability and soundness of issuers of electronic money, on the other hand in order to ensure that the failure of any one individual issuer would not result in loss of confidence in this new and developing means of payment. a) Has the regulatory prudential framework achieved its objective of ensuring stability and soundness of issuers? b) Has the regulatory prudential framework increased business and consumer confidence in e-money products? TIM considers that the mobile customers are already adequately protected by national legislation 1. Therefore, the application of the prudential framework of the e-money directive to the mobile operators could be disproportionate in order to pursue the same objectives of national regulation. In particular, premium rate services do not raise any new consumer protection issue which would require special financial legislation in addition to the consumer protection legislation already applicable to mobile operators. As stated above, financial regulation is not designed to take into account the risk levels of micro-payments of hybrid service providers. TIM underlines that the risks of the mobile services cannot be compared with the risks of the financial activity considering the following main characteristics: low value payments instead of high value payments and no person-to-person payments offered. 1 Order No. 78/02/CONS, on consumer protection: The Italian Authority (AGCOM) approved new selective call barring rules. This service allows subscribers to bar outgoing calls to specific numbers (related to special charge rate/audiotext, international or mobile services), and to protect minors from some contents; Order No. 9/03/CIR (related to criteria for the use of numbering). The AGCOM established some provisions about information on tariffs and transparency; Order No. 179/03/CSP provides specific contractual schemes in terms of price details, time delivery, complaints procedures, that the operators should adopt while offering a service; Order No. 182/02/CONS: the Authority approved the Regulation concerning the settlement of disputes arising between telecoms operators and users, thus implementing Article 1(11) of Law No. 249/97. National legislation implementing Data Protection Directive (2002/58/CE) concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector. the Order no. 196 of 30 June 2003 (Privacy Order) enables the provision of value added services based on location and traffic data, subject to the prior consent of subscribers; National legislation (articles of the Law no. 39 of 1st March 2002) implementing the E-Commerce Directive 2000/46/EC on the taking up, pursuit and prudential supervision of the business of electronic money institutions. Finally the Order no. 70/03, implementing the Directive 2000/31/EC on electronic commerce in the internal market ( the Electronic Commerce Directive ). 3

4 4. The Explanatory Memorandum further argued that within the wider context of the rapidly evolving electronic commerce, it was desirable to provide a regulatory framework that assisted electronic money in delivering its full potential benefits and avoided hampering technological innovation in particular. Question: a) Has the regulatory framework of the E-Money Directive assisted the development of E-money in the context of electronic commerce and avoided hampering technological development? b) Has the directive encouraged technological innovation? The approach not harmonised at EU level, as indicated in answer 2, have had the negative effect of hampering the development of innovative services and technologies, not providing a clear legal framework. Indeed, in Italy mobile operators are forced to develop some mobile payments services in partnership with financial institutions not being allowed to do it alone. TIM is launching some pilot services of ticketing and parking, which TIM can provide only through partnership with Credit card institutions. Since, the customer to subscribe these services must be owner of credit card, the development of the above mentioned services is below expectations. 5. The Explanatory Memorandum argued that the E-Money Directive would facilitate access by ELMIs from one EU Member State, into another EU Member State (remotely or via a branch), contributing to the free movement of capital and to the freedom of cross-border services. a) Has the E-Money Directive facilitated access by ELMIs from one Member State to another? b) To what extent has the E-Money Directive facilitated integration of E-Money Market across the EEA? See answer to question 2 and The Explanatory Memorandum argued that it was vital that development of E-Money be allowed to take place unimpaired by strict technological rules which would hamper innovation and restrict competition. a) Has the regulatory framework of the E-Money Directive enabled the development of E-Money unimpaired by strict technological rules? b) To what extent has the regulation of E-Money succeeded in its original aim of remaining technologically neutral? 4

5 7. Goals of the e-money directive a) Do you agree that the original goals of the E-Money Directive are those which the Commission has identified above? b) Is there a risk that the goals as set out above conflict with one another (e.g. the need to ensure stability and soundness vs. encouraging new market entrants and assisting the development of E-Money)? c) Is there a need to re-assess the original goals and to perhaps establish new goals? If so, what should these be? d) Should e.g. establishing consistency with the New Legal Framework for From a general point of view, the original goals of the E-money Directive should be to preserve a level playing field between ELMIs and other credit institutions and the development of new services and new markets. Nevertheless, the application of e-money directive on mobile communications sector without considering the nature of hybrid operators, has had the negative effect of extending traditional financial regulation on new market players and services, hampering the development of innovative services and technologies. To re-assess the original goals and create a level playing field, the new directive should take into account the hybrid operators, clearly taking out from e-money scope, the mobile services whereas: - there is not a direct transfer of the amount paid from the customer to the service provider; - the unit stocked on the prepaid cards do not circulate from the customer to the merchant: in fact, the customer buys the service at the retail tariff and the corresponding units stocked on the prepaid cards are destroyed immediately as they are consumed; - the use of prepaid card does not bypass the traditional financial flows: on a periodical basis, TIM provides, via traditional means of payment, to the payments to service providers, for the content delivered to the customers. Indeed in the provisioning of such services, as described above, mobile operators currently use a wide range of contractual arrangements and business models and they cannot be qualified as mere technical intermediaries only since they offer third parties services (logos, horoscope, ring tones, tickets etc.) through a channel other than their portal, considering that also in this case mobile operators play an active role. II. Review of the Directive in accordance with Article 11 of Directive 2000/46/EC Article 11 of the E-Money Directive originally mandated the Commission to present a report to the European Parliament and the Council on the application of this Directive, in particular on: 5

6 the measures to protect the bearers of electronic money, including the possible need to introduce a guarantee scheme, capital requirements, waivers, and the possible need to prohibit interest being paid on funds received in exchange for electronic money. 8. As regards the protection of E-money bearers, the Directive introduces controls on the activities of e-money institutions, limits investments to sufficiently liquid assets, establishes prudential controls on own funds and the minimum level of initial capital, requires internal control mechanisms and introduces a right for the bearer to redeem E-money at par value. a) Has the Directive created an appropriate legal background to protect e-money bearers? b) Have there been cases of consumer detriment caused by the lack of adequate measures to protect E-money bearers? c) Is there a need for additional measures aimed at the protection of bearers of electronic money? d) Do you think that e-money should be covered by a guarantee scheme? e) If so, how should it be funded? The application of e-money directive to the mobile operators could be disproportionate in order to pursue the same objectives of national regulation. In particular, VAS services do not raise any new consumer protection issue which would require special financial legislation in addition to the consumer protection legislation already applicable to mobile operators. Therefore we think that any other guarantee scheme is not necessary. 9. As regards capital requirements, Article 4 establishes rules on initial capital and ongoing own funds requirements: ELMIs must have initial capital of 1 million and own funds of 2% or above of financial liabilities related to outstanding electronic money. a) Is there a need to review provisions on initial capital and ongoing own funds requirements? b) Are the requirements of the Directive proportionate to risks e-money institutions are exposed to? As stated above, mobile operators are hybrid operators, as they offer e-money services, as an ancillary activity, in addition to their core business services (voice and data traffic). Another important element to consider is that for mobile operators prepaid payments are on average low value payments. Finally, it is worth underline that no person to person payments are offered. 6

7 Therefore, considering the low amounts indicated, the capital requirements of the E- Money Directive are inappropriate and not proportionate whether applied on the mobile sector, since financial risks appear to be very low for mobile payments services. TIM considers there is a need to review the scope of application of the prudential requirements, in order to avoid the over-regulation of hybrid operators. 10. As regards waivers, Article 8 grants Member States the possibility to waive some or all of the provisions of the Directive for ELMIs where the total E-money business does not normally exceed 5 million and never exceeds 6 million, or where the E- money is accepted by only by the ELMI s subsidiaries, or where the E-money is accepted only by a limited number of localised undertakings or undertakings which have a close financial or business relationship with the ELMI. a) What has been your practical experience of the application of waiver rules? b) Do the existing rules correspond to the needs and realities of e-money business? c) Should the rules on waivers be changed, and if so in which way? d) Could the extensive and consistent application of waivers encourage e-money issuance at national level? e) Should the threshold of financial liabilities ( 6 million) related to outstanding e-money be amended or removed? f) Is the amount of maximum storage at the disposal of bearers for the purpose of making payments ( 150) still relevant in the case of a waiver? g) Is there a need to allow the competent authorities of Member States to waive the application of provisions of the Directive in other specific cases not provided for in the Directive? In Western Europe, around 60% of mobile customers are prepaid. In particular, in Italy this percentage increases to over 90%. Pre-paid cards are used mainly for mobile communication services and, only for a part of their value, are used for purchasing premium rate services. Moreover, according to GSM Europe Association, content services account for only 1 to 2 per cent of ARPU because the sums involved are so small and the market so new 2. On the basis of the above mentioned elements, TIM thinks that the payments regarding Premium Rate Service, whose value is below a threshold of 100 euros (as also proposed by GSME in the response to the Consultation of e-money directive of July 2004) per transaction should be considered micro-payments and therefore exempted from the application of the Directive. 2 Mobile communications May, 11 th 2004 page 5 7

8 Secondly, e-money regulation must be limited to that portion of the mobile activity that can be considered e-money, on the basis of an ex post monitoring activity carried out by the mobile operator, in order to avoid regulation of the entire prepaid float. Regarding the nature and limit of waivers included in e-money directive, TIM thinks that the threshold identified in the directive (6 million euro) is absolutely incoherent with the dynamic developments of the mobile services, since the threshold indicated represents a very low percentage of the total turnover (around 0,05 %). Therefore considering the high level of TIM customer base (26 million of lines at June 2005) any new services of TIM could easily exceed the level of threshold provided by the directive. Moreover a fixed threshold, in terms of absolute value of turnover, it is not suitable considering that it would not be linked to the development of business. It would be then better thinking to apply a threshold based on the operator s turnover (i.e. percentage of total revenues). In UK, for example, the operator offers a service called m-pay bill. Subscribing the service, users of mobile commerce services are charged for small sums, debited on their prepaid account. In order to provide such kind of services, Vodafone got a waiver under the directive provision, but it cannot allow customers to store more than 90 ( 133) on their prepaid accounts. Similarly, in Germany, payments are limited to 102 and advertising of the product is restricted. Actually, in Italy the national Financial Regulator (Banca d Italia) decided neither about the stored value, nor about the waiver and the respective threshold of financial liabilities. Since the situation is so unclear, the operators are loath to launch m-payment services until they know how this matter will be regulated in the next future. 11. During negotiations prior to the adoption of the E-Money Directive, certain Member States sought to insert a provision prohibiting ELMIs from paying interest on funds received in exchange for electronic money, in order to prevent the lighter regulated ELMIs from competing with banks for deposits. a) Are there any examples of ELMIs having offered to pay interest on E-money? b) Is there a need to prohibit interest being paid on funds received in exchange for electronic money? No, as far as Tim knows in Italy there aren t such examples. III. Review of Other Provisions of the Directive Article 1: Scope of the Directive, definitions of electronic money institution and electronic money and restriction of activities 12. In article 1.3(a), electronic money institution" is defined as an undertaking or any other legal person, other than a credit institution as defined in Article 1, point 1, first subparagraph (a) of Directive 2000/12/EC which issues means of payment in the form of electronic money. At the time of its adoption, the E-Money Directive was concerned with electronic money per se, and had not been conceived to cover prepaid phone cards which might also give rise to the issuance of E-money. The extent to which mobile operators should to be covered by the Directive has been the subject of a specific Commission review in In its Guidance note on the application of the 8

9 E-Money Directive to mobile operators, the Commission services noted that there had so far been no evidence of harm done to consumers or to the stability and good functioning of payment systems as a result of the issuance of e-money by mobile operators. Rather, the debate had centred on the obligations of mobile operators as issuers of e-money and the need to create a level playing field with existing e-money institutions. a) Does the definition of E-Money institution need to be broadened to cover institutions issuing e-money as a non-core part of their business (e.g. mobile operators and other hybrid institutions )? b) Should a special EU regime be introduced for institutions issuing e-money as a non-core part of their business (e.g. mobile operators and other hybrid institutions )? The definition of E-Money institution needs to be clarified to limit the application of e- money rules to hybrid operators (such as mobile operators) which offers such services as a non-core part of their business. Indeed, the E-Money Directive provisions are inappropriate and not proportionate if applied to mobile operators which offer e-money services, as an ancillary activity, in addition to their core business services (voice and data traffic). For mobile operators prepaid payments are on average low value payments, and prices of TIM prepaid services, vary according to the specific service and technology used to deliver it. Therefore, considering the low amounts indicated, and the established set of rules for consumer confidence, the financial risk appears to be very low for mobile payments services. Prudential requirements of e-money directive should be limited to that portion of the mobile activity that can be considered e-money, excluding all the mobile transactions which do not involve a direct relationship between the user and the merchant (see answer 7). 13. In article 1.3(b), E-Money is defined as a monetary value as represented by a claim on the issuer which is: (i) stored on an electronic device; (ii) issued on receipt of funds of an amount not less in value than the monetary value issued; (iii) accepted as means of payment by undertakings other than the issuer. According to Recital 3, electronic money can be considered as an electronic surrogate for coins and banknotes. In its Guidance note on the application of the E-Money Directive to mobile operators, the Commission services supported the view that e-money was created when the monetary value stored on a pre-paid card was accepted as payment by a third party merchant in line with Article 1.3(b)(iii) of the Directive. However the Commission services also argued that in practice there were few instances where mobile operators were acting simply as payment agents for customers vis-à-vis third party merchants, and that the Directive would only apply in a correspondingly limited number of cases. A payment relationship was only established when: 9

10 There was a direct transfer of e-value The (mobile) operator was acting as a facilitator (or intermediary) in the payment mechanism in such a way that customer and merchant would also have a direct debtor-creditor relationship. a) Is the definition of E-Money sufficiently clear, or has it given rise to different interpretations, either across different business models or as a result of different Member States interpretations? b) Does the definition of E-Money correspond to the way the market has developed or is likely to develop? c) Is there a need to review the definition of e-money? d) Do the three criteria in the definition of e-money (stored on electronic device, issued on receipt of funds not less that monetary value issued, accepted by undertakings other than the issuer) constitute the determining elements as to what really constitutes electronic money? e) Which payment instruments in your experience/country fall under the definition of E-money? Up to now the current financial regulation in force and the different interpretations of e- money definition (which was not intended to regulate our activities) introduced legal uncertainty to our sector due to, among other things, the rapid evolution of services. If interpreted inconsistently or not modified timely, this could unintentionally lead to the discouragement of future services. Therefore, TIM would like to see in the review of the Directive a clarification which will allow us to render our services in a proportionate regulatory environment. From a general point of view TIM considers that The Commission should follow the approach taken by the Commission in the Guidance note from the Commission services on Application of e-money directive to mobile operators, based o the direct or indirect relationship, in order to exempt most of the mobile transactions. In conclusion, as explained above, TIM reckons that the Commission should define the perimeter of e-money activity, considering a range of criteria such as: - the type of relationship between the customer and the mobile operator (whether it is only a payment relationship or a service relationship); - the level of risk involved and the level of mobile payments (low risk linked to micro payments) - the nature of the principal activity of the operator (e-money is an ancillary activity for mobile operators) - the relation between mobile operators and content/service providers:( whether the mobile operator produce/coproduce the content or, at least, monitors the services delivered directly by third parties. 10

11 14. In Article 1.5, the activities of ELMIs are restricted to closely related services such as issuance of E-money and administering other means of payment, but excluding the granting of any form of credit and to storing data on the electronic device on behalf of undertakings or public institutions. Furthermore ELMIs are forbidden from having any holdings in undertakings other than when these undertakings perform operational or other ancillary functions relating to E-money issued or distributed. Recital 2 explains that the rational for these restrictions is the need to ensure a level playing field between ELMI s, which benefit from a lighter prudential supervisory regime, and other credit institutions which are subject to the full regulatory regime. a) Is the limitation of E-money institutions activities too restrictive? b) Does the limitation of activities discourage new entrants? c) Does the limitation of activities contribute to preserving a level playing field between ELMIs and other credit institutions? d) Does the restriction on the granting of any form of credit have an impact on the payment possibilities offered through e-money instruments? For example, does the delay in some payment transactions constitute credit in your experience/member State? See answer n. 7, 10, Article 2: Application of banking directives 15. Article 2 applies a number of provisions in Directive 2000/12/EC to ELMIs. This is supplemented by Directive 2000/28/EC relating to the taking up and pursuit of the business of credit institutions, which modifies the definition of credit institution to include ELMIs, thus ensuring that in particular those provisions in Directive 2000/12/EC referring to the freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services - can also apply to ELMIs. a) Has the application of the passporting provisions of Directive 2000/12/EC given rise to any specific problems? b) To what extent has the single passport been used by licensed ELMIs? We think that in the application of passporting provisions of the directive, Waivers should be passportable. As far as we know, the single passport has never been used by ELMIs, due to the different ways in which the Directive has been interpreted. 16. According to Article 2 (3) of the E-Money Directive, the receipt of funds (or in other words, the issuance of electronic money) does not constitute a deposit or other repayable funds according to Article 3 of Directive 2000/12/EC, if the funds received are immediately exchanged for electronic money. A bearer of electronic money may, during the period of validity, ask the issuer to redeem the electronic money at par value in coins and bank notes or by a transfer to an account (Article 3(1) of the Directive). However Recital 9 clarifies that redeemability does not imply, in itself, that the funds received in exchange for electronic money should be regarded as 11

12 deposits or other repayable funds for the purpose of Directive 2000/12/EC, redeemability being necessary for electronic money in order to ensure bearer confidence. Moreover the explanatory memorandum of the original proposal explains that, unlike a depositor, a user does not advance funds to an issuer in order to ensure their safe keeping and handling. a) Is it still valid to distinguish between the different nature of the issuance of electronic money and a deposit-taking activity? b) If funds received are immediately exchanged for e-money, at which point in time does the conversion into e-money actually take place? c) Should the notion of deposit-taking in Article 3 of Directive 2000/12/EC be clarified? Yes, it is still valid to distinguish between the different nature of the issuance of electronic money and a deposit-taking activity, regulated by banking directives. Indeed, ELMIS are not deposit taking and should be restricted from granting interest. Refunds are generally only offered where there has been a mistake in a purchase or fraud has occurred. Yes, the notion of deposit-taking in Article 3 of Directive 2000/12/EC should be clarified. Article 3: Redeemability requirements 17. Article 3 of the E-Money Directive introduces a right for the bearer of electronic money to ask the issuer to redeem the electronic value at par value in coins and bank notes or by a transfer to an account. It also allows for the contract to stipulate a minimum threshold for redemption which should not exceed 10. The European Central Bank argued 3 at the time that the redeemability requirement was necessary in order to preserve the unit of account function of money, to maintain price stability by avoiding the unconstrained issuance of electronic money, and to safeguard both the controllability of liquidity conditions and the short-term interest rates set by the ESCB. a) Does redeemability at par value pose any special problems for e-money issuers? b) Is a minimum threshold of EUR 10 for redemption at par value still relevant? 3 Opinion of the European Central Bank, 18 January 1999, official Journal of the European Communities, , C189/7 12

13 It is worth underline that the introduction of a reedemability scheme would be unduly complex and costly, for mobile operators particularly given low sums involved. On the basis of proportionality principle, regulators should aim to apply the minimum regulation needed. In this light, to find alternative solution to reedemability, prudential rules must be adapted to the inherent risks to consumers. Hybrid institutions, such as mobile operators, which provide e-money alongside their own communications services, could satisfy reedemability obligations by allowing consumers to use their emoney for communications services at any time, instead of providing the customer with cash refunding. Article 4: Initial capital and ongoing own funds requirements This Article is reviewed under section II. 13

14 Article 5: Limitations of investments 18. Article 5 establishes certain limitations on the investments ELMIs are allowed to undertake. ELMIs must hold investments of no less than their financial liabilities in outstanding E-money, and these must be limited to highly liquid asset items (zero risk weighted, Zone A sight deposits, etc). These investments may not exceed 20 times the own funds of the ELMI, and are subject to limitations which are at least as stringent as those for credit institutions. ELMIs are further limited in their use of derivative instruments, which must be solely intended to fully eliminate market risks. Member States must also impose appropriate limitations on the market risks incurred by ELMIs due to the liquid asset items held, and if the value of such items falls below the amount of outstanding electronic money, the competent authorities are obliged to take appropriate measures to ensure the situation is remedied. Recital 2 explains these measures as being necessary in order to preserve a level playing field between ELMIs and other credit institutions issuing electronic money and, thus, to ensure fair competition among a wider range of institutions to the benefit of bearers. The less cumbersome features of the prudential supervisory regime applying to ELMIs are balanced by provisions that are more stringent than those applying to other credit institutions, particularly prudent limitations of their investments aimed at ensuring that their financial liabilities related to outstanding electronic money are backed at all times by sufficiently liquid low risk assets. a) Have the provisions of the Directive on limitation of investments achieved their aim of establishing a level playing field between ELMIs and credit institutions? b) Are the provisions of the Directive too restrictive for ELMIs? c) If so, have they deterred new market entrants? See answer 7, 10 Article 8: Waiver This Article is reviewed under section II. IV. E-money Market Developments 19. Preliminary indications would tend to suggest that the E-Money market has not developed in ways which had been envisaged when the E-Money Directive was originally drafted. The market remains relatively small, few E-money licences have been issued, and where E-money issuers have engaged in E-money activity, they have frequently been exempted from certain provisions of the directive by virtue of the waiver provision in Article 8. 14

15 a) Would you agree that the E-money market has failed to develop to its full potential? b) If so, what are the main reasons for the limited development of the E-money market? c) Have any particular obstacles constrained the e-money market growth across the EEA? d) What are the prospects for the future development of E-money? e) Is the E-money Directive adapted to the market conditions? f) If not, are there any amendments to the Directive which are needed in order to reflect the e-money market developments, especially as regards technological innovations? g) What changes, if any, might be needed to the e-money legal framework in the light of forthcoming Directive on Payment Services? The mobile micro-payments market is an emerging market; in Italy the market of micro-payments is still in infancy and the take up of these services will depend: on the confidence of the customers in these new payments services and on the availability of simple payments mechanism; on the convenience of Mobile Operators to launch these new services, in a new regulatory Framework which should provide a light approach towards the Hybrid Operators issuers of E-Money. The main challenge is to avoid extending prudential financial regulation to the mobile sector. In this context the implementation of disproportionate regulatory regimes could slow down the development of new and innovative services as it is happened until now. The regulator must guarantee flexibility to treat new services in a proportionate manner. Proportionality plays a vital role and is the most effective tool to remove regulatory obstacles in a technologically neutral way. The revision of the Directive is the occasion to remove the uncertainty on its interpretation and particularly on its application to mobile services. In particular a more precise definition of e-money is required to clarify in which cases it would be possible the exemption of mobile services from the application of the Directive. 15