林佳儀

Chia-Yi Lin

第三方支付、電子支付、欺罔行為、顯失公平、公平交易法

Third-Party Payment Services, Electronic Payment Institutions , Unfair, Deceptive, Fair Trade Law

針對第三方支付服務，我國法以是否僅經營「代理收付實質交易款項」業務，且所保管代理收付款項總餘額未逾新臺幣20億元，區分為第三方支付與電子支付，並由不同之主管機關及適用不同之規範；甚且，因電子支付機構性質上屬於「其他金融服務業」，有金融消費者保護法之規定適用，導致使用者與電子支付機構所生之爭議有金融消費者保護法之適用，可以向財團法人金融消費評議中心提起申訴、尋求爭議處理，但使用者與第三方支付服務業之消費爭議則僅能循一般民事救濟途徑處理，因此第三方支付與電子支付之區分對於使用者可選用之紛爭解決機制產生差異，也產生行政管制之複雜性。
為求對第三方支付及電子支付之使用者權益保障有完整之論述，本文除討論第三方支付及電子支付之使用者依據民法、消費者保護法及金融消費者保護法作為損害賠償之請求權基礎，尚會將公平交易委員會主管之公平交易法納入討論範圍，並介紹美國法之制度及美國競爭法主管機關聯邦交易委員會介入管制之案例，進一步探討在我國現有法制架構下改善行政管制措施之可能性。

In the field of third-party payment services, the regulation in Taiwan depends on whether it only operates the business of collecting and making payments for real transactions as an agent, and the total balance of the funds collected and made of the institution as an agent under its custody does not exceed a certain amount NT$2 billion. Moreover, because the electronic payment institutions are “other financial service industry” that are subject to the application of the Financial Consumer Protection Act, the consumer of the electronic payment institutions could choose to file a complaint and seek dispute resolution in Financial Ombudsman Institution. However, the consumer of the third-party payment could only be handled through general dispute resolution mechanism, resulting in differences in the dispute resolution mechanisms that users can choose. This regulatory difference also creates administrative complexity.
In order to have a complete discussion on the protection of the rights and interests of users of third-party payment, this article will discuss the basis under Civil Law, Consumer Protection Act, Financial Consumer Protection Act and Fair Trade Act. This article introduces the system of US law and the case of Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and further explores the possibility of adopting similar administrative control measures of FTC under the existing legal framework in Taiwan.