In this guide · 8 sections
Short answer
MAS has proposed, not decided, that all Major and Standard Payment Institutions subscribe to FIDReC, so eligible customers, including small businesses, could take unresolved disputes to mediation. Comments close on 30 November 2026; MAS will discuss fees and timelines with industry during 2027.
What MAS proposed on 16 October 2026
MAS published Consultation Paper P017-2026 on 16 October 2026. It proposes adding Major Payment Institutions (MPIs) and Standard Payment Institutions (SPIs) to the list of financial institutions that must subscribe to an approved dispute resolution scheme. FIDReC, the Financial Industry Disputes Resolution Centre, is the only approved scheme.
| Item | What the paper says |
|---|---|
| Who would have to join | All MPI and SPI licensees under the Payment Services Act 2019 |
| Who is already in | E-wallet providers that store e-money, required since the Shared Responsibility Framework |
| Who is left out | Money-changing licensees |
| Later addition | MAS-regulated stablecoin issuers, after the stablecoin framework comes into force |
| Fees for joining firms | Initial onboarding fee, case fee per eligible dispute and an annual general levy |
| Timeline | Fees and implementation to be worked out with industry over the course of 2027 |
| Comments close | 7pm, 30 November 2026, via MAS's online form |
Why payment providers were outside FIDReC
When the Payment Services Act took effect in 2020, it created a new class of licensed firms: MPIs, SPIs and money-changers. MAS says it did not require them to join FIDReC at the start, to ease their move into the new licensing regime. Banks, insurers and other retail financial institutions have been FIDReC members for years.
The first exception came with the Shared Responsibility Framework for phishing scams, published by MAS and IMDA on 24 October 2024, which required e-wallet providers to join. MAS reports that from the framework's start to 30 June 2026, FIDReC received 416 claims against e-wallet providers and handled 141 of them. Of the completed claims, 99% ended at mediation and 1% went to adjudication.
The paper says customers of payment providers can suffer losses from service lapses, misrepresentation, misconduct or disputes over who bears a loss, including scam losses, and should have an independent route for recourse.
What it would mean for your business
Payment Services Act licences cover account issuance, domestic and cross-border money transfers, merchant acquisition, e-money issuance and digital payment token services. Many tools small businesses use to collect or send money are run by licensed payment institutions. You can check a provider's licence in the MAS Financial Institutions Directory.
As a customer of a payment provider
- FIDReC's eligible complainants include small businesses and sole proprietors, as defined in its terms
- If the rule passes, an unresolved dispute with your provider could go to mediation, then adjudication
- You would still have to complain to the provider first
- Keep written records of every dispute with your provider from now on
As a merchant whose customers pay through one
- Card chargebacks still follow card scheme rules, not FIDReC
- A customer's dispute with an e-wallet or remittance firm is between them and that firm
- Your refund and complaints policy still applies to your own goods and services
- Clear receipts and refund terms reduce disputes that land on you
For card disputes on your own sales, the process is unchanged. Our Stripe disputes and chargebacks guide covers how to respond with evidence.
What has not changed
The consultation does not alter today's processes. Until MAS confirms the rule and a start date, keep using the routes that exist now.
- Complain to the provider first. MAS's Guidelines on Fair Dealing expect financial institutions to handle complaints independently, effectively and promptly. Ask for a written final reply.
- E-wallet scam losses: e-wallet providers are already FIDReC members under the Shared Responsibility Framework.
- Other payment providers: MAS currently fields disputes and follows up on a supervisory basis.
- Money-changers: not covered now and not in the proposal. MAS says complaints about them are usually about service and rates rather than financial losses.
- Marketplaces and platforms: if you collect money on behalf of others, the licensing question is separate; see our guide to collecting payments for a marketplace.
How to send comments to MAS
Anyone can respond, including small business owners who use payment providers. MAS asks one question: views on requiring MPIs and SPIs (and later stablecoin issuers) to subscribe, excluding money-changers, and the draft legal amendment.
Read the 9-page paper
The consultation paper is short. Section 3 covers scope and section 4 covers fees and timing.
Note your own experience
If you have had a dispute with a payment provider that went nowhere, describe it factually: what happened, how long it took, the outcome.
Decide on confidentiality
MAS publishes submissions with the respondent's name unless you ask otherwise. Say clearly if you want your identity or parts of your answer kept confidential.
Submit by 30 November 2026
Use MAS's consultation form on FormSG. Technical problems go to payment_services@mas.gov.sg.
Practical steps for merchants now
Whatever the outcome, disputes go better when your payment set-up is clean and documented.
Payment hygiene checklist
Do it yourself or get help?
Reading the consultation and deciding whether to comment takes an hour. The longer-lasting win is a payment set-up that makes disputes rare and easy to resolve: the right provider in your company's name, clear receipts and terms, and someone who knows where the dispute screen is.
Our Online Payment Setup (S$290) sets up Stripe or HitPay in your company's name, enables PayNow, cards and wallets, adds checkout or payment links, configures branded receipts and payouts, and runs test transactions before handover. This guide is general information, not legal advice. IT Sorted is a Singapore-based team of developers with over 10 years of experience; you pay upfront, send the brief in writing and follow progress on your order page.
Frequently asked questions
Only if the provider is an e-wallet provider that stores e-money, which already has to belong to FIDReC under the Shared Responsibility Framework. For other payment institutions, MAS currently handles disputes on a supervisory basis. The October 2026 proposal would bring all Major and Standard Payment Institutions into FIDReC, but no start date has been set.
The consultation, numbered P017-2026, opened on 16 October 2026 and closes at 7pm on 30 November 2026. Comments are submitted through MAS's form on FormSG. MAS publishes submissions with the respondent's name unless the respondent asks for confidentiality.
No. MAS does not propose requiring money-changing licensees to join FIDReC. It says their business is simpler, they handle much smaller sums at physical premises, and complaints about them usually concern customer service or exchange rates rather than financial losses. MAS considers the requirement would be too burdensome for them.
FIDReC's eligible complainants include individuals, sole proprietors, charities and small businesses as defined in its Terms of Reference, provided they are customers of a FIDReC member. Disputes must first be raised with the financial institution. Check the Terms of Reference for the current definition and claim conditions.
MAS has not said. Joining firms would pay an onboarding fee, case fees and an annual levy, with the structure to be worked out with industry in 2027. Whether providers pass any cost on to merchants is a commercial decision. Watch for pricing notices from your provider once the rule is confirmed.