Embodiments of the invention relate generally to payment systems, and more particularly, to payment systems having rules controlling access to funds (i.e.—authorization), application of funding sources and alerts or feedback for a transaction, which rules are in some degree configurable by individuals associated with the account, such as the accountholder, the holder of a payment card or other payment token associated with the account or a third party designated by the accountholder.
Current payment card systems provide little to no control mechanisms for the cardholder or accountholder to use to regulate and monitor usage of the card. While the use of electronic payment systems has grown dramatically over the years since credit cards were introduced, the sophistication of the user experience offered has not.
Presently, card transactions are for the most part authorized or declined by using a set of authorization rules that are primarily under the control of the issuing bank or its delegate, the transaction processor. Other entities may participate in this authorization chain, such as a card alliance (e.g. —Visa, Master Card) for network-branded cards, but only by way of agreements with the issuing bank. The fundamental parameters used to authorize or decline a transaction are effectively opaque (and rigid) to the cardholder or accountholder. While the cardholder or accountholder is expected to pay his or her bill and carefully control spending so as not to go over his or her credit limit, there is no mechanism that the cardholder can use to actively set limits on card usage. It is all a manual effort on the part of the cardholder or accountholder.
Further, a cardholder or accountholder cannot help enforce legitimate usage of his or her card—cardholders/accountholders are completely reliant on the card issuer's and alliance's fraud detection mechanisms, coupled with—again—manual effort on the cardholder's/accountholder's part.
Embodiments of the invention allow adaptation of rules and rule configurations for payment transaction systems based on circumstances of and responses from a payment cardholder or accountholder. For example, in some embodiments, people are provided with the ability to set the rules controlling use of the payment system in a natural and interactive way. Embodiments of the invention may allow users to alter the behavior of the payment system to react to, for example, what they are doing, where they are, what they are attempting to do at the moment, what they will do in the future, or what they have done in the past. The payment system may be a card-based system (using tokens such as physical mag-stripe cards or virtual cards), a person-to-person payment system, a person-to-business payment system, or the like.
In some embodiments of the invention, transactions are authorized or declined based on application of a set of rules to the transaction (and possibly transaction context, including user context) at hand; and rules may be adapted—changed, added, configured, deleted, etc. —based on interactions with the cardholder or accountholder (or other relevant individual).
Example systems and methods for payment transactions are described in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/771,815, entitled “CONTROLLABLE PAYMENT SYSTEM” and filed Apr. 30, 2010, the entire disclosure of which is considered to be part of the disclosure of the instant application and is hereby incorporated herein by reference in its entirety for any purpose.
An example embodiment is illustrated in
In this example, communication 107 (e.g., an incoming request) causes the RE 109 to seek further information from the CH 101. This further information may be an authorization to proceed with the transaction, a designation of a funding source, acceptance or denial of future similar transactions, etc. In this example, the request is made via mobile device. In alternative embodiments, the request may be made by alternative communication mechanisms. The outgoing request for information (110) arrives, in this case, on the CH's mobile device (111). The CH 101 then provides input and the response (112) is sent back to the CE 108 (typically ultimately to the RE 109 within the CE).
In this example, the CE 108 returns a response to the merchant 103 beginning with item 113, flowing back through the Network 106 and finally presented to the merchant 103 as item 114.
The RE 109 is employed by the CE 108 to make judgments on requested transactions. Rule sets (which may include one or more rules) are used in the RE 109 and the parameters for application of those rules may be altered according to the input from and context of an individual pertinent to the transaction, for example, the CH 101 or perhaps the accountholder (“AH”, item 215 in
Consider the following example interactions.
A CH 101 has configured a card rule set (including rule “RS1”) so that every first-time transaction at a new merchant 103—one at which the card 102 has never previously been used for transactions—must be approved by the CH 101 via mobile phone. In this scenario, the CH 101 proceeds to the merchant 103 and begins a transaction with a typical card swipe. The CE 108 sees the incoming transaction authorization request and the RE 109 notes that this is a request from a merchant 103 at which this card 102 has never been used. Following the rule RS1, the RE 109 requests from the CH 101 verification that this merchant 103 is acceptable (via request for information 110 and response 112 of
A CH 101 has configured a virtual card 102 so that it will be usable only at one particular on-line merchant 103, and has declared that the first transaction on the card 102, to be no more than 1 hour from the current time, will come from the merchant 103 (rule “RS2”). The CH 101 then begins a transaction with the merchant 103. The RE 109 notes this transaction request and communicates with the CH 101 in order to verify that this is, indeed the merchant 103 to which the card 102 should be locked. Utilizing the CH's response, the RE 109 updates the parameters of operation of RS2 so that the card 102 is usable in the future only at this merchant 103. Alternatively, the RE 109 may delete RS2 altogether and create a new rule RS3, which specifies that the card 102 is locked to the relevant merchant 103.
An AH 215 (
Mobile Interactions
Mobile interactions may be an effective mechanism for obtaining CH and/or AH input for rule set adaptation. While user input may be sought by the system via means such as email or IM, contacting the user via mobile device may add a facet of immediacy and may allow the system to incorporate information related to the user's context.
This application claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/273,089, filed Jul. 30, 2009, and U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/273,891, filed Aug. 10, 2009. The entire disclosure of the prior applications is considered to be part of the disclosure of the instant application and is hereby incorporated by reference therein.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
7290704 | Ball et al. | Nov 2007 | B1 |
7401731 | Pletz et al. | Jul 2008 | B1 |
7413113 | Zhu | Aug 2008 | B1 |
7487170 | Stevens | Feb 2009 | B2 |
7584152 | Gupta et al. | Sep 2009 | B2 |
7831521 | Ball et al. | Nov 2010 | B1 |
8103545 | Ramer et al. | Jan 2012 | B2 |
8140389 | Altberg et al. | Mar 2012 | B2 |
8336770 | Grillion | Dec 2012 | B2 |
20020123938 | Yu et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20050199714 | Brandt et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20070100773 | Wallach | May 2007 | A1 |
20080021787 | Mackouse | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080033880 | Fiebiger et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080099552 | Grillion | May 2008 | A1 |
20080177663 | Gupta et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080306790 | Otto et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20090063312 | Hurst | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090171683 | Hoyos et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
20090192904 | Patterson et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
20090198614 | De Ruiter et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
20100063903 | Whipple et al. | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100228669 | Karim | Sep 2010 | A1 |
Entry |
---|
“Alaric: Euronet Worldwide to implement Alarics Fractals fraud detection solution; Fractals will provide a comprehensive fraud solution for the prevention and detection of fraudulent transactions”, M2 Presswire [Coventry], Nov. 7, 2006, pp. 1-2. |
Related U.S. Appl. No. 12/771,815, filed Apr. 30, 2010. |
Related U.S. Appl. No. 12/853,152, filed Aug. 9, 2010. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
61273089 | Jul 2009 | US | |
61273891 | Aug 2009 | US |