On January 19, 2026, the Japan Association of New Economy submitted comments in response to the public consultation by the Financial Services Agency regarding the Draft Cabinet Order and Related Ordinances for the Amendment of the Payment Services Act.

Please click here for the full text of the submitted comments. (Japanese only)

【Summary of Comments on the the Draft Cabinet Order and Related Ordinances for the Amendment of the Payment Services Act】
1. Verification Methods for Merchant Agreements and Standards for Exemptions
Clear standards should be presented for determining whether payment service providers fall under the exemption from foreign exchange transactions in transactions conducted under merchant agreements with contracters for handling credit card numbers or third-party issuers. Since it is difficult in practice for third parties to verify the details of merchant agreements, we seek clear standards on whether it is acceptable to determine that the requirements for exemption are met by conducting interviews with merchants or by having them provide representations and warranties that “an appropriate agreement has been concluded.”

2. Management Systems for the Combined Use of Multiple Safeguarding Methods
The management systems for cases where multiple methods, such as security deposits and guarantee contracts, are used in combination to safeguard user funds should be revised. While the proposed amendment requires management that links specific safeguarding methods to each individual user at all times, this imposes a significant administrative burden in practice. Therefore, the wording of the administrative guidelines should be revised to more flexible language, such that it is sufficient to have a system in place where the repayment amount from each safeguarding method can be identified only when the need for reimbursement arises.

3. Scope of “Users” in Cross-Border Payment Services
The scope of “users” under the Payment Services Act should be clarified in the context of cross-border payment services provided in partnership with overseas payment service providers (overseas PSPs). In cases where a domestic payment service provider does not have a direct contractual relationship with the consumer, it is difficult in practice to implement protective measures, such as providing information, for that consumer. Therefore, we understand that it is sufficient to treat the overseas PSPs—which are the direct contractual counterparties and the originating entities of the remittance instructions—as the users, and to implement protective measures accordingly.

4. Handling of Remittance Upper Limits in Bulk Settlements
Regarding the application of the 1,000,000-yen remittance upper limit to cross-border payment services provided by Type II Funds Transfer Service Providers, even if individual payments are always 1,000,000 yen or less, the amount of a single remittance may exceed 1,000,000 yen when they are aggregated for bulk settlement for the sake of practical convenience. We would like to confirm whether our understanding is correct that registration as a Type I Funds Transfer Service Provider is not required, as long as such bulk settlements are an aggregate of individual transactions that are each 1,000,000 yen or less.

5. Application of Transitional Measures for Existing Registered Providers
With regard to “Specified Payment Services,” which are newly classified as exchange transactions under the amended Act, the same transitional measures as those for unregistered entities should be provided even to already registered funds transfer service providers. While unregistered entities are granted a grace period for registration, there is no such explicit grace period for existing providers. This creates an imbalance where stringent obligations are imposed immediately from the enforcement date. To ensure fairness and reduce the administrative burden, an appropriate preparation period should be established for fulfilling obligations such as asset preservation and transaction verification.