What determines whether a company can take credit cards without requiring a signature? I’m used to gas stations not needing it, and that seems like something borne from necessity. But I was rather surprised today; I used one at FedEx and had to sign nothing at all.
Any ideas?
Merchants set their own policies whether or not to require a signature. Obviously if you use a credit card online there is no way to obtain a signature. Many fast food places don’t require it, since it slows down the assembly line significantly.
I have seen some stores with a policy that if the purchase is under $20 or $50 or some arbitrary threshold that a sig is not required.
The company is liable if they take a purchase from a stolen credit card. Some merchants think that it’s worth taking the chance for the increased efficiency.
According to this guy you can pretty much write down anything you want.
Although buying multiple plasma screen TVs may require an actual signature. But nothing less, it seems.
Hmmm… I wonder if those articles have anything to do with the fact that I had my signature checked at Best Buy the last couple of times I’ve been.
Fry’s Electronics seems to make a point about checking the signature.
As a store clerk I often processed credit cards where peole didn’t sign. They would sign the receipt instead of the credit voucher, or they would take the wrong slip with them and hurry away. It’s only a problem for the clerk if they dispute it and that never happened, proving it was unintentional.
My educated guess is that the amount of purchase is under the vendor’s floor limit. A floor limit is individually set by the stores/companies (thus the fact that some places you sign, some you don’t, some places you sign at a certain amount, below that you don’t). A signature is another security measure for the vendor if the customer disputes the charge to the cc company. However, vendors often are willing to take the risk that an amount of x won’t be disputed - and even if it is, they’ll just eat it instead of fighting it, and therefore the degree of efficiency lost (and therefore lost time to ring up more sales) doesn’t outweigh the risk run by not getting a sig.
Having had to deal with issues related to the OP I can tell you that at least here in ontario, Nothing but an imprint/scan of the original card signed by the card holder is guaranteed. And under certain circumstances, a proof of ID is necessary.
Anything else and the customer can argue the charge and the onus is on the merchant to prove its a valid charge.
This at least is interesting:
Also:
Anyway, they say that the merchant should compare your signature with the one on the back of your card, and never mention that there is a sort of minimum limit. I’ve noticed that Starbucks et al. no longer require a signature, and I think they can do that up to ~20 bucks. Checking for a signature is merely a safety precaution ensuring the merchant is not subject to fraud, so if you have the incoming bucks to afford increased fraud in the place of a faster moving line, it seems like a good way to go.
Not quite. Vendors such as fast food restaurants, gas stations and others where average purchase totals are relatively low or where rapid turnover is expected can negotiate a merchant agreement with the major credit card companies to allow accepting payments below a certain dollar amount without obtaining a signature. Purchase which exceed this total as specified in the agreement must be accompanied by a signature. This agreement usually results in higher transaction fees for the merchant, and is the cost of doing business. Merchants cannot, by law, impose additional fees to cover these transaction fees. The normal merchant agreement requires the obtaining of signatures for CC payments, but has lower transaction fees. Failure to properly check signatures under this type of agreement may result in chargebacks if a customer files a claim stating he did not make such-and-such a purchase, and the CC company investigation determines that, in fact, the signature was not present or did not match.
to get gas i just need my zip code, for any fast food restaurant i dont need to sign anything. the fact of the matter is that the bank will make more money off these common companies not requiring id and sig, than would be the loss of paying for one happy meal.
Wow! I’ve been to exactly one place that asked for my ZIP code, and it was along a busy freeway. I thought it was some demographic-gathering thing. But now that I see otherwise, I wonder why this isn’t universal? I’ve driven throughout a LOT of the US, and the one time I’ve been asked to enter my ZIP really stands out (also the one time in Arizona some hick station was “cash” or “ATM card” only).
One cashier explained to me that the signature thing was just a way to get you to stand still long enough for them to make sure your credit card would be valid, since there’s a delay of anywhere between a few seconds to a few minutes for that to happen. Dunno if she knew what she was talking about or not though.
I’ve had to enter my ZIP code while traveling in Florida last Spring. Never anywhere else.
My understanding is that thieves like to take stolen credit cards to gas stations, where they can see if the card still works without a clerk to bust them if its bad.
Every gas pump I’ve been to in the SF Bay Area has been requiring ZIP codes for Visa/Mastercard sales since around January of this year. ATM cards don’t, as they already require the card-holder’s PIN.
Does anyone know if the average convenience store has access to see what your signature is supposed to look like? I had been told that it’s better to leave the signature line blank, then have to show id, whenever using the cc. Even with no signature on the card, I only get asked for id about 50% of the time. A Bestbuy clerk asked me this week why I didn’t sign my card, as it would be easy for someone to just sign it themselves before using it, if it were ever stolen. Any thoughts? I’m wonder if I’m really lessening my liability or not.
This is very bad. First of all, this invalidates the agreement between you and the CC company. Second, if you lose your card and dishonest person fi itnds it, he need only to sign it and the subsequent purchase signatures will, of course, match. In most cases, you are only responsible for the first $50 of such charges, but why make it easier for the thief to use your card for his own gain? In the end, CC fraud costs YOU as the consumer more money in the form of higher finance charges and/or annual fees.
I’ve been told to put, in the place for a signature, “Require photo ID”.
It’s been working.
While this may work to prevent fraud, it’s important to understand that this does, in fact, invalidate the CC agreement you are bound by, and merchants may (and have every right to)refuse to accept a card signed in such a manner–though in practice this rarely happens.