Merchant payment profile · Germany vs. United States
Germany vs. the U.S.:
Two Payment Markets, Two Different Merchant Playbooks
Merchants in Germany and the United States want the same things: more approved sales, less fraud and predictable payment costs. But the two markets move money in very different ways. Germany relies more on debit cards, bank transfers and regulated authentication. The U.S. relies much more on cards and merchant-side fraud decisions. If you sell in either market—or both—those differences should shape your checkout, fraud rules and dispute strategy.
The 30-second merchant view
The biggest difference is not the criminals. It’s the payment system they attack.
German card fraud is much lower than the latest U.S. benchmark, but that does not make Germany a low-risk market. In Germany, a large share of payment value moves through bank transfers. In the U.S., cards—especially remote card payments—play a much bigger role. For merchants, that shifts both the fraud exposure and the tools that matter most.
€2.20
Germany reported fraudulent card value per €10,000 processed
2024 · issuer-side card data
$11.01
U.S. reported card fraud loss per $10,000 processed
2023 · latest all-card benchmark
12.2%
Germany remote share of card payment count
2025 · cards issued by resident PSPs
37%
U.S. card-not-present share of debit payment count
2024 · PULSE debit issuers
Merchant takeaway: A German merchant entering the U.S. should expect more card-not-present fraud pressure and a bigger chargeback workload. A U.S. merchant entering Germany should expect stronger authentication and lower card fraud, but greater importance of transfer scams and local payment choice. The 12.2% and 37% figures cover different card populations, so use them as directional exposure signals rather than a precise like-for-like rate.
Where fraud shows up in Germany
Most fraud incidents involve cards. Most fraud value moves through transfers.
Frequency and financial impact point to different controls. Cards create most reported fraud events, while credit transfers account for about two-thirds of reported fraudulent transaction value.
Share of reported fraudulent transaction value
€698M
Approximate sum across the reported EBA/ECB payment instruments.
Share of reported fraud events
1.60M
Approximate fraudulent transactions across the same instruments.
| Germany · 2024 | Fraudulent value | Fraudulent value per €10,000 processed | Fraudulent transactions | Fraud rate by count |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Credit transfers | €474.2M | €0.10 per €10,000 | 153,909 | 0.002% |
| Cards | €124.5M | €2.20 per €10,000 | 1,358,683 | 0.010% |
| Direct debits | €72.2M | €0.10 per €10,000 | 1,520 | ~0.000% |
| Cash withdrawals | €27.1M | €0.80 per €10,000 | 82,332 | 0.006% |
Data note: Direct-debit fraud may be understated because payment service providers do not always have to investigate whether a refunded direct debit was fraudulent.
Card fraud
Card fraud is the clearest gap between the two markets.
Germany reported about €2.20 in fraudulent card value per €10,000 processed in 2024. The latest U.S. all-card benchmark was $11.01 in fraud loss per $10,000 processed in 2023—about five times higher. The 2024 EEA benchmark was about €3.30 per €10,000. The measures are not perfectly identical, but the gap shows a very different card-risk environment.
Reported card fraud value/loss per €/$10,000 processed
Online card payments widen the U.S. gap
U.S. debit data show card-not-present fraud losses of $20.20 per $10,000 on dual-message networks and $23.00 per $10,000 on single-message networks in 2023. Card-present losses were $14.20 and $5.10. That helps explain why U.S. merchants spend so much effort on identity checks, fraud scoring, device signals and dispute controls.
For German merchants entering the U.S., a checkout that feels safe at home may need more CNP screening. For U.S. merchants entering Germany, SCA changes the checkout flow, so fraud control and conversion need to be tuned together.
Data note: Germany reports fraudulent transaction value, while the U.S. benchmark reports fraud losses. The reference years and card populations also differ. Treat this as a market benchmark, not a perfectly controlled comparison.
How customers pay
A German checkout and a U.S. checkout start from different habits.
Payment habits shape fraud risk, conversion and cost. Germany still uses cash heavily and has a strong debit and bank-transfer culture. U.S. consumers use cards for about two-thirds of their payments, with credit cards nearly as common as debit. Merchants should design for the habits customers already bring to checkout.
🇩🇪 Germany: more payment-method variety
- Cash still led day-to-day purchases in 2025 at 45%.
- Debit cards were 26% of purchases, with girocard the most-used debit card.
- Mobile payments reached 10%; e-payment services reached 6%.
- PayPal held about 86% of the German e-payment-services market.
- By payment value, debit cards led at 28%; cash and credit transfers each had 23%.
🇺🇸 United States: cards set the pace
- Credit and debit cards together made up about two-thirds of consumer payments in 2025.
- Consumers averaged 16 credit-card payments, 15 debit-card payments and six cash payments per month.
- For in-person payments, 40% said they preferred debit and 38% preferred credit.
- Across the broader U.S. noncash system, cards made up more than three-quarters of payment count in 2024.
- ACH carried almost three-quarters of noncash payment value.
45%
Germany 2025 share of day-to-day purchases paid with cash
26%
Germany 2025 share of day-to-day purchases paid with debit cards
≈2/3
U.S. 2025 consumer payments made with credit or debit cards
Market note: The German and U.S. consumer studies use different survey designs and payment categories. Use these figures to understand checkout habits, not as one harmonized dataset. System-level figures such as ACH and German credit transfers describe where payment value moves, not only what shoppers choose at retail checkout.
How fraud controls differ
Germany leans more on required authentication. U.S. merchants make more fraud decisions themselves.
Both markets use strong fraud tools, but the responsibility is spread differently. In Germany, EU rules make Strong Customer Authentication part of many online payment flows. In the U.S., there is no broad SCA requirement, so merchants and issuers rely more on risk scoring, identity signals and transaction monitoring.
Germany: authentication is built into the flow
2 of 3
Strong Customer Authentication generally uses two independent factor types: something the customer knows, has or is. Exemptions and out-of-scope payments still exist. Since October 2025, Verification of Payee also checks the recipient name against the IBAN for euro transfers.
United States: more merchant-side decisioning
CNP
3D Secure is available in the U.S., but it is not required across the market the way SCA is in Europe. Merchants often depend more on CVV/AVS, device and identity signals, velocity checks, fraud scoring and chargeback monitoring.
Authentication does not stop every scam
Germany’s BKA survey found online-banking attack prevalence rose from 2.0% in 2020 to 3.2% in 2024. A customer can also pass SCA and still be tricked into sending money. The same basic problem exists in the U.S.: a payment can be technically authorized and still be driven by deception. Merchants need controls for customer manipulation as well as stolen credentials.
Costs, refunds & disputes
The cheapest payment can carry a very different kind of risk.
Processing cost is only one part of payment economics. Refund rights, fraud exposure, settlement speed and dispute rules can matter just as much. For merchants moving between Germany and the U.S., the biggest mistake is assuming every payment method behaves like a card.
German retail payment cost per transaction
Average total retailer cost in the Bundesbank’s 2025 study. The chart uses the same unit across all four methods.
Another way to measure cost: as a share of turnover, the same study found cash at 2.3%, girocard at 0.8%, international debit at 2.1% and credit cards at 2.4%. That makes girocard the least expensive option relative to sales value.
Germany limits checkout surcharges
German merchants generally cannot add an extra fee just because a consumer pays with a SEPA credit transfer, SEPA direct debit or a covered consumer payment card. Germany implements this rule in §270a BGB, and the Bundesbank describes the PSD2 merchant effect as a surcharge ban for cards, transfers and direct debits.
What this means for pricing: if one payment method costs you more, the answer is usually not a checkout surcharge on a covered method. Merchants need to manage the difference through product pricing, payment-method mix, provider negotiation and—where legally and contractually allowed—discount structures.
Important nuance: the statutory rule is clearest for the covered SEPA and consumer-card methods above. Other payment services can have different legal and contractual rules, so do not assume every wallet or third-party service is treated identically.
Payment method risk & dispute matrix
These are the operational differences merchants should plan around. Exact liability and eligibility can still depend on the payment scheme, transaction type, provider contract and facts of the dispute.
| Payment method | How it works | Main merchant risk | Refund / dispute path | Merchant priority |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cards | Customer authorizes a card payment; SCA often applies to German online card transactions. | Stolen credentials, CNP fraud, account takeover and customer disputes. | Card-scheme chargebacks and issuer disputes. 3DS/SCA can change liability in some transactions, but scheme rules and evidence still matter. | Keep fulfillment evidence, tune 3DS by market, monitor chargeback ratios and separate true fraud from service disputes. |
| SEPA credit transfer | Customer pushes funds from a bank account to the merchant or beneficiary. | Payer manipulation, wrong-beneficiary scams and fraudulent account access. | SEPA provides recall/request-for-recall processes, but this is not the same broad refund model as SEPA Core Direct Debit. | Treat beneficiary changes as high risk, use Verification of Payee signals and do not assume bank authentication means the customer was not manipulated. |
| SEPA Instant credit transfer | A push payment designed to make funds available in under 10 seconds. | The same manipulation risk as a transfer, with almost no time to interrupt a bad payment. | The scheme includes recall and request-for-recall procedures, but the payment itself is designed to complete almost immediately. | Use real-time controls before payment, beneficiary verification and strong exception handling. |
| SEPA Core Direct Debit | Merchant collects from the customer’s bank account using a mandate. | Invalid mandates, unauthorized collections and returns. | The payer can request a refund within 8 weeks without giving a reason; unauthorized direct debits can be challenged for up to 13 months. | Keep clean mandate records, monitor returns and build the refund window into cash-flow and reserve planning. |
| PayPal | PayPal sits between the buyer, merchant and the buyer’s funding source. | Account takeover, item-not-received claims, unauthorized-payment claims and buyer disputes. | PayPal Buyer/Seller Protection rules apply to eligible transactions; card chargebacks or bank-funded reversals can also affect a PayPal payment. | Follow Seller Protection eligibility rules, retain delivery/service evidence and manage PayPal disputes as a separate layer from card or bank-payment disputes. |
Merchant takeaway: cards, bank transfers, direct debits and PayPal are not interchangeable risk products. Build separate refund, evidence and fraud workflows for each rail instead of forcing every payment into a card-style chargeback process.
Cross-market merchant playbook
Do not export one market’s payment rules into the other.
| Area | If you’re used to Germany | If you’re used to the U.S. | Merchant move |
|---|---|---|---|
| Checkout mix | Expect a more credit-card-heavy market and a bigger role for card-not-present payments. | Expect girocard, PayPal, SEPA and stronger local payment-method expectations. | Offer the methods customers expect in each channel; do not copy one checkout across both markets. |
| Authentication | U.S. checkout may feel less prescriptive because there is no broad SCA mandate. | SCA can change the checkout flow and issuer challenge behavior. | Tune 3DS, exemptions and fraud rules by market while measuring conversion and approvals. |
| Debit | U.S. debit is closely tied to the major card-network ecosystem. | girocard has distinct domestic importance in Germany. | Confirm that acquiring, gateway and terminal support match local debit expectations. |
| Bank payments | ACH is important, but it is not simply the U.S. version of SEPA. | SEPA transfers, instant payments and Verification of Payee create different workflows. | Use separate fraud, refund and reconciliation rules for bank payments in each market. |
| Disputes | Card chargebacks are a larger part of everyday U.S. merchant operations. | Cards, direct debits and transfers have different dispute and refund mechanics. | Do not force every payment method into one chargeback-style workflow. |
| Cross-border risk | Issuer geography, CNP screening and merchant decisioning matter heavily. | SCA coverage and whether a transaction stays inside the EEA perimeter matter more. | Segment fraud rules by payment method, geography and authentication status. |
| Cost structure | Covered U.S. debit has a federal interchange cap, while credit pricing follows a different structure. | EU consumer interchange is capped for covered debit and credit cards; local methods can have different economics. | Model total acceptance cost by market and method instead of comparing headline rates alone. |
Bottom line: Build one cross-border payment strategy, but give each market—and each payment rail—its own checkout, fraud, refund and dispute rules. The cheapest method is not always the lowest-risk method, and the lowest-fraud market is not necessarily the simplest one to operate in.
Sources & methodology
Primary sources used in this guide
- EBA / ECB · 2025 Report on Payment Fraud — Germany-specific 2024 fraud values, volumes and rates; EEA card benchmark.
- Deutsche Bundesbank · Payment behaviour in Germany in 2025 — cash, debit, mobile, e-payment and PayPal use.
- Deutsche Bundesbank · Costs of payment methods in retail — merchant cost evidence for cash, girocard and international cards.
- Deutsche Bundesbank · 2025 payment statistics.
- Bundeskriminalamt · SKiD 2024 — online-banking attack prevalence.
- Deutsche Bundesbank · Verification of Payee FAQ.
- Federal Reserve Financial Services · 2026 Diary of Consumer Payment Choice — 2025 U.S. consumer payment behavior.
- Federal Reserve · 2025 Triennial Payments Study initial findings — 2024 U.S. noncash payment architecture.
- Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City · 2026 U.S. CP/CNP fraud analysis.
- Nilson Report · U.S. card fraud losses in 2023.
- PULSE / ABA · 2025 Debit Issuer Study — 2024 U.S. debit CNP exposure.
- Regulation (EU) 2015/751 — covered consumer debit and credit interchange caps.
- Federal Reserve Regulation II — covered U.S. debit interchange standard.
- Deutsche Bundesbank · The costs of payment methods in the retail sector — cost per transaction and cost as a share of turnover.
- German Civil Code §270a — surcharge restrictions for SEPA payments and covered consumer cards.
- European Payments Council · SEPA Direct Debit — Core Direct Debit refund rights.
- European Payments Council · SEPA Instant Credit Transfer — instant-payment operation and current scheme framework.
- PayPal Germany · Seller Protection — eligible unauthorized-transaction, item-not-received and reversal scenarios.
How to read the data: Fraud reports, payment diaries and payment-system statistics answer different questions. We keep those datasets separate and label the year and scope. Germany’s card figure is reported fraudulent transaction value; the U.S. Nilson figure is fraud loss. Consumer payment surveys also use different categories, so we use them to show market habits rather than claim exact one-to-one comparability.
Cross-border merchant strategy
Selling in Germany, the U.S., or both? Build around the market you are actually in.
Durango Merchant Services helps merchants match payment processing, fraud controls and dispute strategy to the way customers actually pay. That matters whether you are a German business entering the U.S., a U.S. business entering Germany, or a merchant operating across both markets.