Mastercard made an unusual public statement about this:
Image link for those who can't see Bluesky:
Mastercard are both:
A) Scared.
and
B) Lying directly about their own actual rules - this is easy to prove with reference to their merchant rules document section 5.12.7 "Illegal or Brand-damaging Transactions".
A Merchant must not submit to its Acquirer, and a Customer must not submit to the
Interchange System, any Transaction that is illegal, or in the sole discretion of the Corporation,
may damage the goodwill of the Corporation or reflect negatively on the Marks.
Emphasis mine.
So yeah it's true that they don't allow illegal purchases, but it's completely false for them to say they "allow all lawful purchases". They don't. By their own rules, they don't. Anything that's completely legal but they feel is - in their "sole discretion" to be "brand-damaging" is also banned. They can decide absolutely anything is "brand damaging" at any time, and there is no recourse whatsoever (beyond litigation, which would be incredibly expensive). They also note:
An Acquirer that has been notified of a Merchant’s noncompliance with this Rule and that fails promptly to cause the noncompliant practice to cease, or that has been notified multiple times regarding violations of this Rule, is subject, at the Acquirer’s expense, and in addition to any other noncompliance assessment or other discipline, or both, to any one or more of the following:
Emphasis mine again.
If it was only the former issue, it'd probably be kind of okay, because they could just notify Itch or Steam and then specific individual products could be taken down. But because of "multiple times" clause, even if you dutifully take down absolutely everything they ask you to, if they have to ask you "multiple times" ever (which is more or less inevitable with sites hosting thousands to tens of thousands of games), even if it's about different products, they can absolutely destroy you with fines (as well as stopping working with you), if they choose to it.
You notice they dodge the fact that they're not being forthright by saying "put simply". That's how they're able to lie without a journalist being able to say "You're obviously lying". Because "put simply" is a weasel bit of language designed to hide the fact that, actually, no, it doesn't work that way. It's a profoundly dishonest intentional oversimplification.
I do think this is kind of a dumb move for them because pretty much everyone who is bothering them knows this is a lie, shows weakness, and any journalist who isn't truly incompetent will be able to immediately find out that it's not true, so it kind of draws attention.
