Do VRPs replace cards on file for recurring billing?

They run alongside them. On NORBr, routing rules decide which method and provider handle each payment, so a merchant can collect some customers by VRP and others with network-tokenized cards. The merchant sees one set of reports whatever the rail, and the operator chooses where VRPs make sense first, such as usage-based subscriptions, utilities and installment plans.

Side by side, not instead

VRPs and network-tokenized cards both allow recurring collections without customer action. They differ in cost, reach, dispute rules and customer habits. Most merchants will run both for years, choosing per customer, per market and per product. The billing engine should not care which one it charges.

How routing decides

• Routing rules select the method and provider for each payment, per merchant and market.
• A customer who set up a VRP mandate is collected by VRP; one who saved a card is collected on the card.
• Fallback can move a failed collection to another method where the customer has one.

Where VRP makes sense first

Usage-based subscriptions with variable amounts, utilities, installment plans and any flow where card interchange weighs on margin. Cards stay strong where customers expect dispute rights or where VRP schemes are not live. Merchants see one set of reports whatever the rail, with approval rates, failures and cost per method, and the operator can shift volume as the data and the market evolve. That is the point of running billing on infrastructure rather than on a rail.