Well good for you but you just proved it does indeed slow you down. Going down the road to make your purchase may have felt good in principle but it is obviously slower than showing ID.
Many employees don’t know the details of the agreement and just know store policy. I didn’t know for sure until this thread and I’m glad to know. If a customer declines to show ID for a signed card my response will be different knowing he or she is technically correct.
One question. The agreement says the signatures must be close to identical. If your signature isn’t distinct and the cashier wasn’t sure {like they need to be on an $1800 sale} would you be patient while he called to verify, or would that be cause to go elsewhere as well?
I’m curious as to what do you think you have won here? :dubious:
Merchants can choose not to follow security checks outlined in their agreement with the company if they accept the punishment for doing this; which is the inability to contest a chargeback. Accepting a punishment for breaking one rule is in no way a violation of the agreement. They would be in violation if they did not want to give the money back.
This isn’t a case of the merchant choosing not to follow the agreed-upon security checks. It’s a case of the merchant demanding an additional security check that’s forbidden by the agreement. I suspect the punishment for that is more than just an inability to contest a chargeback.
ALL of these things first three happen pretty regularly to me (possibly the first one only with ATM rather than debit). But EVERYWHERE places have minimum purchases for ATM and Credit (maybe this only applies to ATM but most places certainly don’t make that clear). Generally this doesn’t bother me than much as it usually small places who (I assume ?) get charged alot for visa transactions. Alot of places ask for ID even though my card is signed (doesn’t bother me in the slightest).
I would be VERY concerned if someone appeared to be noting down details from ID. With my credit card number, and the personal details from the license they would have everything they need to use my card online.
You do? I suspect there is no punishment at all other than the occasional disgruntled customer who walks out to teach you a lesson. There isn’t any evidence that CC companies do anything about it, even if the customer complains directly to them.
I think you make a good point here. There’s been stuff in the news about data being leaked that permits identity theft. What about stores that keep data bases and have access to CC numbers. Or, what about on line stores? Couldn’t they easily spend some time gathering info and then perpetrate a lot of CC fraud in a short time? Dam
That makes some sense but doesn’t seem very realistic in todays market place. I wish more customers used cash, especially for smaller purchases but that’s bit the case. More and more customers use credit or debit even for items under $5. Merchants would be hurting themselves to discourage CC use. In my store I’m certain asking for ID is only for security.
Sure they could. Couldn’t anyone you give a check to easily drain your account at any time?
The difference is that Visa and MC do not hold the cardholder liable for fraudulent charges. If someone else uses your card to purchase something, dispute the charge as fraudulent and you immediately are not liable for anything.
If someone uses your checking account information, you can scream fraud all you want, but unless that person is caught the money is gone forever.
How could they do that? The bank itself has some obligation to protect your account. If a teller hands over money without checking ID then you should be able to get your money back. They can’t get it from an ATM without a pin number. I know there are ways to create bogus checks but even then there must be some laws to protect the person who has the account.
I’ve talked to people who have had there account drained from someone using their debit card as a charge and in that case they can get their money back although the process is a hassle.
You’ve talked about the consumer being protected from fraudulent charges {as they should be} but I’m talking about the merchant being protected and protecting themselves. If your merchandise is long gone but you have to refund the money to the CC company that’s lost profit.
The reality is in fact the opposite of what you suggest. As Visa/MC have been consistently raising their rates, suppression has increased, especially for small purchases. If a customer is discouraged at the point of sale from using a credit card, the smaller the purchase, the more likely he will be to put away his plastic and pay with bills. As I said earlier, the customer is lured in by the promise of acceptance but discouraged from using the card at the POS. When there is a line of cranky people behind him, the customer can be pretty easily embarrased enough to pay in cash instead.
You may not do this, but believe you me, many merchants do.
Yes, but they’re basically the same laws that protect you after your wallet’s been stolen. The cash is gone – if (and only if) the person who stole your checking information (or your wallet, in this instance) is arrested, then you can hopefully collect your money from him or her.
The way this usually happens involves creating counterfeit checks and presenting them for cash at a check-cashing location along with a counterfeit ID. The check is deposited in the check-casher’s bank, then transmitted to the account-holder’s bank and cancelled. Since the person who takes the check at the check-cashing place is probably the last human being to look at the check, it doesn’t get caught as a fraud until after it’s cleared the account-holder’s bank and the account-holder sees the check on his / her statement. S/he then files a fraud report to keep any more from clearing, but by then his / her money is gone until the fraudulent checkwriter is caught. Checks are far less secure as a method of payment from the points of view of both the merchant and the checkwriter.
I can tell you all about check acceptance and counterfeiting, if you’re interested.
Right, but what I’ve been saying all along is that if you follow the card acceptance procedures, you’re protected against fraud. The CC company will eat the fraudulent charge if you can show that you followed procedures. That’s also in their agreement with you.
But the degree of effort (and tracabilty) of someone altering a cheque and cashing it is far more than to simply taking my CC details and address, etc from my license and going online to a russian porn site (and that doesn’t even consider the problem of ID theft which is FAR harder to correct than a fraudulent transaction) . I don’t have problem with checking ID but if they took it and wrote down details from it (which presumably is what the OP is suggesting) I’d be worried.
I am interested. If some check cashing place accepts false ID and it’s obviously not my signature on the bogus checks won’t I get my money back after I file? In much the same way my charge account is credited if no signature is credited.
Yes I understand that. The problem I think is for store owners and management to insure their employees are following procedure. People hurry and get careless. Honestly this thread and the other CC thread has made me more aware at work. The steps in the merchant agreement are awfully hard to show once the bogus charge has gone through. How do you show that the cashier checked the card carefully? How close do the signatures have to be to prevent charge backs?
No we don’t and I’ve yet to see a merchant do this. I do understand that some merchants have a CC minimum. We don’t. That’s against the mercant agreement and they shouldn’t be doing it. I still doubt the CC company would do anything about complaints.
I notice you didn’t provide a cite. Did you read the agreement? I said “according to” because I had already read it. I did re read it just to see which one of us was wrong. Know what? It ain’t me. Can you figure out who that leaves in the wrong column? Please check your local mirror for answer.