Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act by definition applies to things bought by credit (hence the name of the Act). Thus, unless Monzo started offering credit cards (or similar credit facilities) there is no way for Monzo to offer “Section 75 protection”.
Possible alternatives are: (1) Parliament could change the law, (2) Rely on Chargebacks, which Monzo already offers, just like (almost?) all other MasterCard, Visa and AmEx providers.
See here for the differences - both have advantages and disadvantages.
TL;DR:
Section 75
for credit cards (and some other purchases made on credit), as long as you paid directly to the merchant (e.g. not through PayPal)
statutory (i.e. your card provider is legally obligated to act)
minimum value is £100
Card provider is liable AS MUCH AS the merchant. As such you can make Section 75 claims years after the purchase.
Chargeback
for MasterCards, Visa and Amex cards (credit and most debit cards)
voluntary
minimum value is usually £10.
Works more like a “buyer protection”, i.e. if the merchant did something dodgy (e.g. didn’t send your item, forced DCC on you, you had a fraudulent transaction) you can claim within a reasonably short time after the transaction.
MasterCard offers better protection than legally required, kind of like Section 75 but not enshrined in law. I think there were a couple of posts on this a while back but can’t find them right now.
Of course, the Section 75 is probably one of the reasons it costs merchants more to accept credit cards than debit cards (credit cards are usually around ~3-4% and debit cards ~20p or less for online from experience): provide protection/“insurance” for the card provider.
This is the only reason I have PayPal Credit as that is applicable under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act so I can have protection with large purchases through PayPal (Credit).
I know what you mean, but I don’t think that Mastercard charge backs are generally better than section 75. They have advantages, sure (especially that for section 75 each individual item must have cost £100 - £30k), but also disadvantages.
For once, Mastercard charge backs only apply to the amount you paid by card. If you buy a car, and put only 1p on the credit card, and pay the rest by different means, the credit card provider is liable for the whole thing under section 75, not just the 1p.
Another point where section 75 wins is this: imagine buying a PC. A few months after purchase it breaks. Your merchant and producer have gone out of business, or are just a pain to deal with (may be based abroad, and don’t speak English too well, or not subject to English law). Under section 75 the credit card provider is now liable. Under mastercard charge back, you most likely lost.
So, when it comes to “buyer protection” yes, I think charge backs usually win. But section 75 goes much further.
Finally, I think that the fact that section 75 is enshrined in law is a big win as well: makes it much more difficult for a provider to try and wiggle out of it…
But, yes, charge backs certainly have advantages as well. Which is why paying by credit card is great: you usually have both charge back and section 75