Has Level III data evolved or dissolved?

Level III data in conjunction with Commercial Card transactions is still not as widespread as buyers would like. Most suppliers, excluding the largest ones, are not even familiar with the term Level III. However, when a supplier does provide it, you expect the transactions to show details about each product and/or service purchased. Instead, you might see the data as one line item only, specifying an invoice number, quantity of one, and item amount that matches the grand total. Why? It can depend on various factors. 

Lack of Integration and B2B Expertise

Diane Merrigan, Director of Enterprise Solutions, CardConnect®, agrees that one generic line of Level III data is not uncommon. She says, “The trick is the integration, if it happens at all on the supplier’s side. The supplier’s ERP/invoicing system must be integrated with card payment processing for the Level III data population to be automated. Without this, suppliers have to enter the data manually. If a purchase is comprised of, say, 50 items, few—if any—suppliers will manually input line-item detail for all 50. They will take a shortcut of entering one generic line.”

She also points out that a supplier’s credit card processor is likely not a business-to-business (B2B) specialist, so they do not understand what happens on the customer’s side and why the customer wants the data. The supplier is trained to input any data just to get a better rate [for card acceptance]. 

I also contacted a network professional for further insight about Level III data quality. He commented that the card networks are starting to incorporate some edits on data as it is submitted for settlement. He conceded that, while still not foolproof, it is getting better.

Differences in Commercial Card Products

I obtained a third perspective from another B2B payments expert in the acquiring business. He reminded me how Level III data was originally designed and intended for traditional Commercial Card products for which a transaction represents a particular purchase or invoice payment. He noted the advent of electronic payables solutions, like one-time use Virtual Cards, was a game changer. A single transaction often covers multiple invoices, creating a dilemma for suppliers since this scenario does not align with the design of Level III data. Fortunately, for buyers, the nature of electronic payables typically makes Level III transaction data unnecessary because they can capture purchase and invoice details in their ERP system.

Level III data can roll different ways. You do not always know what you’ll get.

Level III data can roll different ways. You do not always know what you’ll get.


Approaching Offending Suppliers

Whatever the reason, irrelevant Level III data with “regular” Commercial Card transactions can be frustrating. Buyers might be hesitant to raise the issue with suppliers, afraid that the supplier will stop accepting card payments altogether. Diane Merrigan observes, “The conversation is not an offensive one and suppliers should not take it as such. Buyers may have to explain how the information that the supplier inputs on their end transmits to them, as the buyer, so they can review and reconcile the purchase. When a supplier passes the enhanced data, it is like transmitting an electronic invoice at the time of the transaction.”

The other acquiring professional with whom I spoke recommends, “For traditional Commercial Card products, buyers have the right to ask for the correct data. If suppliers do not pass it, the end-user organization can raise the issue with their card provider.” This is certainly worth a shot, but it might not resolve the problem because the card provider and network are not responsible for data quality. There are no quick solutions.

What if you cannot convince a supplier to improve their Level III data by providing real line-item detail? Diane Merrigan suggests, “If the buyer is only receiving one line item, then make it count. Buyers should guide the supplier to input the best possible data into that one line to help with reconciliation or other activity on their end.”


Observations

In your experience, has Level III data progressed over the years, whether in frequency or quality? This has been a topic of discussion ever since I started in the card industry. I know end-users want enhanced data, but some do not use it even if they have it. One program manager told me they would incorporate a consistent process to use the data different ways if more suppliers provided it, but, for now, the limited availability does not justify extensive use. It will be interesting to watch whether Level III data becomes more or less important to organizations, especially as the usage of electronic payables solutions continues to grow.  


About the Author

Blog post author Lynn Larson, CPCP, is the founder of Recharged Education. With more than 15 years of Commercial Card experience, her mission is to make industry education readily accessible to all. Learn more

Subscribe to the Blog

Why one bank opted out of Virtual Cards.

Like end-users, providers have faced the question of which type of electronic accounts payable (EAP) solution to adopt and make part of their commercial payment offerings. Some providers focus on Virtual Cards, also known as supplier-initiated payments (SIP), which come in various forms. Others have gone the route of buyer-initiated payments (BIP). There are also providers who make both types available to clients. One bank who is forging a clear EAP path with a particular type shares the rationale for their decision.  

Union Bank’s View

Fancy checks. This is one way Diane M. Kush, Sr. Product Manager, MUFG Union Bank N.A. (“Union Bank”), describes supplier-initiated payments. She shares supplier challenges with SIP:

  • Payments made to suppliers one email at a time
  • Email requests coming from multiple buyers/customers
  • Supplier labor costs associated with handling these emails
  • Missed emails = missed payments, resulting in reconciliation issues for both buyer and supplier

After considering the options, Union Bank decided to offer their commercial clients a BIP solution. Supplier benefits include lower card acceptance costs and lower labor costs. Payments are automatically and electronically deposited into the supplier’s account. Consider Diane’s example of a buying organization who approves three invoices from one supplier, totaling $50,000:

  • With SIP, the supplier proceeds in trying to process separate transactions, one for each invoice, and gets declined. Then the supplier must contact the buyer to determine what’s going on.
  • With BIP, the buyer’s approved $50,000 is directly deposited for the supplier. In this way, BIP shares attributes with ACH payments. Plus, the supplier has access to a portal that provides invoice payment detail, if desired.

To learn more about Union Bank’s solution, contact William Kniering at William.Kniering@UnionBank.com.

Related Blog Posts

For Union Bank, the key to their electronic accounts payable future is buyer-initiated payments. For others, it might be a different option.

For Union Bank, the key to their electronic accounts payable future is buyer-initiated payments. For others, it might be a different option.

What Do Suppliers Think?

Are suppliers more receptive to SIP or BIP? I have heard mixed opinions on this. One provider who offers both relayed to me that suppliers lean toward SIP for different reasons; for example, the design of their receivables process, which they might be unwilling or unable to change. Others have told me that, with appropriate education, suppliers see the value of BIP. I agree with the power of education, no matter what payment option you are trying to sell to suppliers, and buyers must ensure suppliers receive benefits, too.

Final Thoughts

There are many successful EAP programs out there, both BIP and SIP. As with any business decision, one size does not fit all. Each party needs to evaluate what will work best for their goals and business. Because my mission centers on education, I would be happy to publish additional views on EAP options, so feel free to contact me. Blog comments below are welcome as well.


About the Author

Blog post author Lynn Larson, CPCP, is the founder of Recharged Education. With more than 15 years of Commercial Card experience, her mission is to make industry education readily accessible to all. Learn more

Subscribe to the Blog

Surcharge laws challenged at state level.

We are two years into the U.S. surcharging era. While the media coverage has seemingly quieted, heated debates are still occurring in some states. The eventual outcomes could drive other states to reconsider their stance. When the card networks lifted surcharge bans in 2013, New York, California and Florida were all “no surcharge” states. Then various types of merchants (most of whom are small) initiated litigation based on First Amendment rights, which muddied the waters.

How many other “no surcharge” states will go to court in response to merchant lawsuits? Maybe the Supreme Court will step in first. 

How many other “no surcharge” states will go to court in response to merchant lawsuits? Maybe the Supreme Court will step in first. 

Lawsuits

  • New York, case number 1:13-cv-03775; filed June 4, 2013
  • California, case number 2:14-cv-00604; filed March 4, 2014
  • Florida, case number 1:14-cv-00025;
    filed March 5, 2014

The Claims

In general terms, the merchants associated with the lawsuits and their legal representation are centering their cases on communication versus economic injustices. They have argued that the laws allow them to promote discounts for cash payments, but prohibit them from enlightening customers about card acceptance fees, which customers end up paying in the form of higher prices—essentially, a surcharge.

The Rulings

The judges in these cases have mixed opinions. In October 2013, U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff in Manhattan ruled in favor of the merchants, rendering New York unable to enforce the law. In Florida, U.S. District Judge Robert L. Hinkle dismissed a similar lawsuit in September of last year. The merchants there are appealing, while the state’s attorney general supports the original “no surcharge” law and is encouraging the court to uphold the judge’s decision. The pendulum shifted yet again when U.S. District Judge Morrison England in California agreed with the merchants on March 26 this year. The attorney general is asking the court to overturn this ruling.

Given the controversy, some legal experts think the issue will land in the Supreme Court. 

Surcharges and Commercial Cards

In the Commercial Card industry, we know the issue has not disappeared for end-users. A June 2014 article by First Annapolis relayed a lack of surcharging in the United States, which was good news. However, such industry observations do not help when end-users continue to encounter suppliers who apply a surcharge to their Commercial Card payments. I recently heard one end-user in Kansas describe that an in-state supplier surcharges even though Kansas is a “no surcharge” state. If you are in a similar boat, consider contacting your state’s attorney general about the surcharge violations.

Has your organization discussed surcharges and taken any actions? It is beneficial to implement strategies and train cardholders accordingly. Check out the educational resources available from Recharged Education


About the Author

Blog post author Lynn Larson, CPCP, is the founder of Recharged Education. With more than 15 years of Commercial Card experience, her mission is to make industry education readily accessible to all. Learn more

Subscribe to the Blog