Self-regulation is one of those phrases that tends to polarise opinion in the mobile payments ecosystem. For some, it sounds like extra cost, friction, or self-imposed limits in markets where competitors may have none. For others, it feels abstract. Well-intentioned, perhaps, but disconnected from the daily realities of driving traffic, optimising funnels, and hitting revenue targets.
And yet, in markets where premium services and mobile payment mechanisms are under increasing scrutiny, self-regulation is becoming one of the most important strategic levers available to content service providers and aggregators.
Not because it is the “right thing to do” in a moral sense. But because it is one of the few tools the industry has to protect its own future.
What do we actually mean by self-regulation?
At its simplest, self-regulation is the act of setting, enforcing, and adhering to standards that go beyond the bare minimum required to stay live with operators. That can happen collectively, through industry frameworks, or individually, through internal policies and controls.
In some markets, self-regulation is formalised through industry bodies. South Africa’s WASPA is a good example. Members agree to a code of conduct, are subject to monitoring and enforcement, and operate on a more level playing field as a result. The same principle applies in the UK through AIMM, or in the Netherlands via Dutch Foundation.
Elsewhere, self-regulation is more fragmented. Each provider decides how far they go, what they monitor, and which risks they are prepared to tolerate. That individual approach is harder. It creates asymmetry. And it raises a very real concern: if I do more than my competitors, am I putting myself at a disadvantage?
It’s a fair question.
Why self-regulation matters more than ever
Mobile payments ecosystems tend to operate on borrowed trust. Trust from consumers who may not fully understand how a subscription works. Trust from operators who carry the brand risk. And trust from payment aggregators who own the operator relationship.
When that trust erodes, the response is rarely measured.
Operators and regulatory bodies do not typically fine-tune rules to target only bad actors. They introduce blanket measures. Caps. Bans. Mandatory flows. Restrictions that apply to everyone, regardless of intent or track record. We have seen entire markets shrink or disappear under the weight of well-meaning but heavy-handed regulation.
Self-regulation is one of the few ways the industry can demonstrate that it is capable of governing itself. That consumer harm is taken seriously. That bad practices are not simply the cost of doing business.
There is also a more commercial reality. Sustainable revenue is not built on short-lived subscriptions, refund churn, and constant operator tension. It is built on high quality services that consumers understand, trust, and choose to stay subscribed to. Self-regulation, when done properly, tends to improve lifetime value even if it slightly softens the top of the funnel.
In other words, it trades a small amount of volume for a much healthier ecosystem.
The uneven playing field problem
One of the biggest barriers to self-regulation is the fear of being the only one doing it.
If you invest in better transparency, stronger monitoring, or earlier intervention, while competitors push the boundaries, it can feel like you are playing by different rules. Especially in markets without strong operator mandates or active industry bodies.
This is where the conversation needs to shift. Self-regulation does not have to mean acting alone, and it does not have to mean unilaterally disarming your commercial model.
Practical ways to self-regulate without losing ground
Self-regulation works best when it is tied to long-term value rather than short-term performance. Flows that cause confusion or push the boundaries of compliance tend to generate early revenue but poor retention. Designing for informed consent consistently produces fewer complaints, longer subscription lifetimes, and more stable operator relationships.
Use data to guide decisions. Compliance monitoring and analysis should not only tell you when an operator is about to intervene. It should help you spot patterns that lead to refunds, complaints, or short subscription lifetimes. Those signals are telling you where revenue looks good on paper but is weak in reality.
Be selective, not simplistic. Self-regulation does not require every campaign to look the same. It requires clarity. Clear pricing. Clear consent. Clear user journeys. You can still optimise creatively and commercially within those boundaries.
Where possible, collaborate. Even in markets without formal bodies, there is often scope for informal alignment between reputable players. Shared expectations, common benchmarks, and a little peer pressure are surprisingly effective at raising standards without public declarations.
And finally, think long term. Operators remember who causes problems and who prevents them. When mandates arrive, and they usually do, those with a track record of proactive control tend to have more influence over how rules are shaped and applied.
When industry bodies don’t exist, build the case for them
Not every market has a WASPA, an AIMM, or an equivalent foundation advocating for balance between consumer protection and commercial viability. But that absence is not a reason to disengage. If anything, it is a signal.
Industry bodies exist because enough stakeholders recognised that a fragmented, unregulated environment ultimately hurts everyone. They create a forum for dialogue, a shared code of practice, and crucially, a level playing field.
Advocating for that kind of structure, even informally at first, is not altruism. It is market protection. It reduces the likelihood of external regulators stepping in with blunt instruments. It gives reputable parties a voice. And it separates sustainable businesses from those extracting short-term value at the expense of the ecosystem.
A different way of looking at self-regulation
Self-regulation is often framed as a constraint or a box to tick. In reality, it is one of the few levers CSPs and aggregators can pull to influence how their markets evolve.
The question is not whether self-regulation limits growth. The real question is what kind of growth you are building, and how long it is likely to last.
If you’re operating in markets where rules are light today but scrutiny is rising, now is the moment to decide whether you want regulation done to you, or with you.
Where do you see the balance in your own markets? Is self-regulation something you already practice, or does it still feel like a competitive risk?
Want to sense-check your approach to self-regulation?
We work with CSPs, aggregators, and operators globally to help turn compliance, fraud detection and market insight into something more strategic. If this article resonates, let’s talk.
