First, it’s not a rule - it’s part of a legally binding contract. That’s what a cardmember agreement is. You agree to the terms when you use the account.
Second, and here’s my experience speaking…honestly, there’s not much fraud in stolen cards. A lot in stolen account numbers, variations in identity theft and mail theft, but not stolen cards. So your teeny moment of rebellion against the Man and the Rules isn’t protecting you from squat. How do you know that clerk you were verbally abusing for doing his job didn’t write your number/expiration date/signature panel code down and is going on a Super Online Porno Spree?
Well, BubbaDog, if he doesn’t sign the card and a merchant takes the unsigned card for payment, then the merchant is on the hook for the amount of the purchase if the charge is later contested. The merchant agreement states that the merchant must follow the rules of the card issuer exactly. If they do not, they are not entitled to receive payment for the transaction.
If you want to make a change, don’t yell at the merchant, and certainly don’t yell at the clerk. Call the card issuer and complain. And plan to get absolutely nowhere. If you hand an unsigned card over to a clerk that clearly states “NOT VALID UNLESS SIGNED”, as I’m sure yours does, that clerk is under an obligation to not take the card. The card itself says it’s not valid.
I always assumed that the signature was required both for ID purposes and also as a way for the card issuer to easily show that you, as a signatory, agreed to the terms on the card when you signed it.
Forgot to say earlier, I’m a former card processor employee here. Worked in card fraud for a while, and did authorizations also. And my experience jibes with hardygrrl there – stolen cards are rare. They’re too difficult to use for large transactions. The money is in stolen card numbers.
I had a signed MasterCard stolen once and the thief did indeed go on a mad spending spree before I realized it and cancelled the card (the same day). So signing the card did no good for me in that aspect, in that merchants rarely take the time to compare signatures. In fact, I had a particularly stupid thief who didn’t even spell my name correctly or even sign the right name at times. However, since I had signed the card and the thief was signing my name on the receipts, I was able to show the signatures did not match and thus MasterCard did not hold me responsible for any of the charges.
If you do not sign the card the thief can sign it in your name and the signatures will match. I think you might have a harder time proving fraud if this is the case.
The idea for me is not to catch the thief (this rarely happens), but for me to not be responsible for charges made on a stolen card. The best way to do this is to have a signature on the card (I believe some cards say this in the contract you sign to get the card). The stores may not be really interested in what is on the back of your card but if your card is stolen, your bank will be.
None of which can happen with a card with a blank signature strip or “See ID” in place of a signature, right? Of course they can. And an unsigned card has the additional risk of a thief signing it in his or her own handwriting.
I can understand writing “See ID” next to the signature, and even to an extent writing “See ID” with no signature. But what is the purpose of leaving the signature line completely blank? A thief can sign your name in his own handwriting and ID will probably not be requested. (as best as I can remember, it’s against Visa’s rules for merchants to ask for ID) I personally would not like to be in the position of having charges on my card that I didn’t make and then telling Visa that I didn’t sign my card( contrary to the agreement), and that the merchant should have requested ID when presented with an apparently signed card ( contrary to their agreement.) Because I don’t think Visa will reverse the charge. I know I wouldn’t in their shoes.
She missed my point anyway. Rules, legal bindings, royal protocal - It was the defiance of logic that bothered me.
I never denied the rules. I recognized, as you did also, that this was a situation where rule following had no bearing on the merchant getting paid for his wares.
The logic of the situation was that signing the card had nothing to do with the sale ringing through. Had you been a thief, your signature wouldn’t have made the card burst into flames. And being the genuine World Eater made little difference.
Let me put it this way. Did the merchant (and Hardy) think that if you got the merchandise without signing that you could then turn around and tell your bank, “Hey, I didn’t sign the card so you can’t pay the merchant.”
I’ll crawl bank under your desk. I’ve had enough legalities for one day.
So that was you, World Eater, making all that noise. Jeez man, I could hear you all the way across the street. [Actually, today (Friday) I was in midtown, but I’m usually within spitting distance of J&R (not my spitting distance, as I was never good at that, but you get the idea). While I like to often browse at lunchtime, I find (a) J&R never has what I want and (b) I can find it cheaper online with no tax or shipping anyway.]