Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) questioned whether EMV technology isadequately protecting competition and consumers, according to aletter the senator sent to the chairman of industry groupEMVCo.

The letter, dated March 17 and addressed to EMVCo ExecutiveCommittee Chairman Mike Matan, included a list of 10 questions thatasked, among other things, about the influence of foreign cardnetworks, the apparent lack of merchant and small payment networkrepresentation on EMVCo leadership teams, competition with smallernetworks and whether EMVCo believes chip and PIN authenticationshould be discontinued in non-U.S. markets.

“Magnetic stripe debit and credit cards have long been a keyvulnerability that has put consumers' sensitive financialinformation at risk,” Durbin said in a statement. “Chip technologyis designed to be safer and more secure for customers, but thereare significant questions about whether the deployment of thistechnology in the United States is adequately protectingcompetition and consumers. Today I am seeking answers from EMVCo,an organization owned by six giant card networks that sets therules for chip card technology. I hope their answers willhelp clarify how security and competition in the U.S. payment cardmarket can be further improved.”

EMVCo was formed in February 1999 by Europay International,MasterCard and Visa to manage EMV specifications for EMV chips andtokenization. Sen. Durbin is the namesake of the Dodd-Frank Act'sDurbin Amendment, which took effect in 2011 and capped debit interchange fees in an effort to reduce the cost ofaccepting card payments.

Durbin's recent letter also asked for details about thedecision-making authority of card networks JCB and UnionPay, whichare two of EMVCo's six member organizations; the others includeAmerican Express, Discover, MasterCard and Visa. JCB is based inTokyo, Japan; UnionPay is a Chinese bank card association.

Durbin also asked whether the two networks share non-publicinformation about EMVCo's specifications, certification processesor other operations with the Chinese or Japanese governments.

Additionally, Durbin asked why smaller payment networks andmerchants are relegated to associate status at EMVCo, a status hesaid appears to be only advisory in nature.

“EMVCo does not appear to provide other U.S. stakeholders in theelectronic payment system with any meaningful decision-makingauthority in the development of its specifications or certificationprocesses,” he said.

Competition was also a topic of inquiry. Durbin asked whetherall U.S. payment networks have access to EMVCo's technical specs atthe same time, as well as whether EMVCo's six major card networkspicked up market share after the EMV liability shift on Oct. 1,2015.

“In light of the enormous influence EMVCo wields over thedeployment of EMV technology in the United States, it is importantfor lawmakers to have a clear picture of how EMVCo operates and howits work affects American businesses and consumers,” the lettersaid.

EMVCo has 30 days to respond.