A checkout, a phone, an approval in a banking app: a few seconds later, the merchant can have access to the money. All without going through the usual card networks. Long confined to settling up with friends and family, instant euro transfers now have the ingredients to become a credible competitor. Looking ahead to September 2026, the question is no longer purely technical: who can turn this banking infrastructure into a way to pay that feels as natural as contactless?
This analysis draws on adopted European rules and publicly known initiatives, notably the launch of Wero in 2024. The commercial outlook for September 2026 remains a projection, not evidence of adoption already measured.
Regulation changes the playing field
The 2024 European regulation on instant payments has changed the game. For the euro area institutions covered, subject to certain exceptions and specific deadlines, the timetable required them to receive instant transfers by 9 January 2025, then send them by 9 October 2025. The goal is clear: to move this service beyond its status as a premium option available only at certain banks.
The pricing principle matters as much as availability: an instant transfer must not cost more than the corresponding standard transfer. Where the latter is free for an individual customer, the instant transfer must therefore be free too. This does not make every associated service universally free, but it ends a surcharge that inherently discouraged use.
Another crucial change is verification that the beneficiary’s name matches the account identifier, with a deadline of 9 October 2025 for the euro area providers covered. This check should help identify an error or substituted bank details before funds are sent. It does not, however, certify either the recipient’s honesty or the legitimacy of the order.
A tangible promise for merchants
The first benefit can be summed up in a few words: the money arrives in seconds, around the clock. A tradesperson paid on a Saturday, a furniture seller waiting for a deposit or a wholesaler awaiting payment before delivery may see an immediate advantage. Rapid confirmation that funds have been credited can make it easier to hand over goods or begin providing a service.
The second argument is cost. An account-to-account payment can avoid certain card-related fees. But “no card” does not mean “no intermediary”. Payment initiation, the interface, fraud prevention, payment reconciliation and support may all carry charges. For merchants, the relevant calculation is the total cost per paid order, not an individual fee.
Cash flow also needs to be assessed without resorting to slogans. Card acceptance agreements offer varying settlement times, sometimes short ones. The advantage of an instant transfer therefore depends on the existing agreement, sales volumes and the timing of expenses. It will be more noticeable for some businesses with limited financial flexibility than for a large retailer that is already well funded.
Infrastructure alone does not create a habit
Cards have a formidable advantage: nobody needs to explain how they work. In a shop, customers hold their phone or card near the terminal. Online, their details are often already saved. Networks, banks and providers have spent years making this process almost invisible.
Against that backdrop, asking customers to copy an IBAN would be a step backwards. The serious contender is instead account-to-account payment integrated into checkout: a button, perhaps a QR code, bank authentication and immediate confirmation. The transfer remains the engine; the buyer should not have to look under the bonnet.
Wero illustrates this ambition. Launched in 2024 by the European Payments Initiative, this European wallet began with person-to-person payments in several markets, with an announced expansion into commerce. Its potential role by September 2026 depends on execution: banks that are actually supported, merchants that are equipped to accept it and sufficiently consistent user journeys. An announced timetable does not guarantee universal coverage.
The real test: conversion rates
For an online shop, saving money on payments is pointless if more customers abandon their baskets. A confusing redirect, an unsupported bank or a delayed confirmation can be enough to derail a sale. Conversely, a smooth process may appeal to a buyer who does not want to enter card details. Trials must therefore compare completed orders, failures and customer service enquiries.
Fraud takes on a different form
Instant transfers do not eliminate fraud: they shift the points of attack. With cards, merchants are particularly concerned about the use of stolen data and certain payment disputes. With transfers, scammers may try to persuade payers to authorise the payment themselves: someone posing as a bank adviser, a falsified invoice, a fake merchant or a substituted beneficiary.
Speed then becomes a problem. Once executed, a transfer cannot be cancelled like a shopping basket. Recall and recovery procedures exist, but they do not guarantee that the funds will be returned. It is also important to distinguish an unauthorised transaction from a transfer approved under manipulation: reimbursement options depend on the circumstances and the applicable legal framework.
Strong authentication proves approval, not necessarily informed consent. Beneficiary verification provides a useful safeguard without stopping every scam. Banks and providers must also analyse unusual behaviour, detect suspicious accounts and tailor their warnings. The challenge is a delicate one: providing enough protection without turning every legitimate purchase into an endless series of checks.
Trust also depends on what happens after purchase
For consumers, paying is only the beginning of the relationship. What happens if the parcel never arrives, the merchant disappears or the product is returned? Cards benefit from dispute mechanisms and, depending on the networks and agreements, chargeback procedures. These do not amount to universal insurance, but they shape expectations.
Payment by bank transfer must not leave these questions unresolved. Consumers retain their rights against the seller, but exercising those rights and recovering their money are two different matters. A compelling commercial solution must provide straightforward refunds, tracking and clear dispute rules.
What next? The most credible scenario for September 2026 is gradual coexistence rather than the replacement of cards. Instant payments could initially gain ground in situations where their speed and cost savings are most apparent. For merchants, the right strategy is to run trials without removing familiar payment methods, then measure conversion, fraud and satisfaction. Regulation opens the door; only a reassuring experience will make people want to walk through it.