Sure. You're right that the code tackles the issue of co-badging directly. For clarity, co-badging is the co-residency of competing payment brands on a card targeting the same transaction. So two debit brands, for example, are on the same transaction. The code also addresses the coexistence of credit and debit functions on the same card.
In its wisdom the code is not endeavouring to regulate market outcomes and say “You shall price this way” or “You shall do this that way”. It is trying to establish a framework for healthy competition to allow merchants on one side of the equation to understand the costs of various forms of payment in clear contracts, and to be able to act on those with the ability to consciously select and opt into what they will and will not offer in terms of payments at the point of sale.
On the consumer side, it allows them to choose quite consciously and without confusion what cards to place in their wallet, and then what card to pull out of their wallet to make any given transaction.
I think the concern around co-badging has certainly led to the provisions in the code and what folks viewed as the unhealthy trajectory we were on. There was confusion on both sides. The consumer wasn't sufficiently informed with clear choices, and the merchant wasn't sufficiently informed and able to make clear choices that both of those would prevail.