Why you should never sign the back of credit cards

Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports
1

Well, I have to say there is one reason to sign the card:

Its required for the card to be considered valid.

If you read the Visa Merchant Rules (available here )

on page 34 of the PDF it states that a card without a signature is invalid and is not to be accepted. I havent looked at Master Card’s rules, but I am sure that they have similar requirements.

This is a case where you are spreading ignorance, not combating it…please check the facts, and dont just rely on folklore.

Link to Staff Report: Should you sign the back of your credit cards? – CKDH

2

For years, I’ve done exactly what has been suggested, putting “SEE PHOTO ID” in the signature space on the back of my credit cards.

What the article doesn’t address is that there are some businesses and govt agencies (USPS) whose employees will sometimes/often play it by the book: if it isn’t signed with a signature they will not accept it. I have tried to make purchases at several different Post Offices over the years where they have just flat out refused to accept my credit card because of this, as well as several other businesses.

So in the last several years I have taken to both signing my cards and adding ‘SEE PHOTO ID’ in the space next to my sig. Seems to work. But candidly, over the last few years a LOT of businesses seem to be asking to see a photo ID with any credit card purchase just as a matter of course, which is something they should have been doing all along, IMHO.

3

Just do both: sign it AND add ‘SEE PHOTO ID’ in the same space. Works for me, it’s very rare that I am not asked for my ID when making a cc purchase.

4

That is a violation of the Merchant Agreement. It is NOT permissible for a merchant to request a secondary ID if the card is signed, even if the card also says “SEE ID”. Unless your legal name is SEE ID, writing such on the card technically invalidates it although most merchants won’t bat an eye even if the card isn’t signed at all. Even fewer actually bother to compare signatures. If you want to blame, at least in large part, someone for rampant CC fraud, blame the countless merchants who refuse to follow proper CC acceptance procedures and fail to train their employees to do so. Blame also the many whiny customers who kick up a fuss when proper CC acceptance procedures inconvenience them; most clerks will simply make the sale just to make them shut up and go away.

Remember, it’s NOT your card. It’s the property of the issuing bank.

5

Uh… OK… Whatever.

6

What specific point(s) do you object to? Everything I typed is correct, in a general sense. Merchant agreements can vary, but typically they do prohibit a merchant from requesting a secondary ID if the card is properly signed.

And the card (or the cardholder agreement) says right on it that it’s the bank’s property.

7

I think you’re missing the point: I couldn’t care less if the merchant is following their own rules/procedures or not. That isn’t my concern or problem. What I want is to protect myself from fraud.

I’ve never had a merchant refuse my dual signed card. Since dual signing my cards, almost 100% of the time merchants have asked to see my ID when making a purchase. End of story.

8

Sure. And again, ok, whatever. Except nothing you said about card ownership really is relevant.

9

But that WON’T protect you from fraud. Not to any significant degree. Folks who commit CC fraud know exactly where to make purchases where the clerks won’t even look at the back of the card. If every merchant followed their procedures correctly and checked signatures, fraud would be greatly reduced.

10

I really hate to have to show ID for a mere credit card purchase. I do NOT want to have an ID with me at all times.

Remember, you are only liable for $50 for fraudulent purchases on a creidit card, so the whole “it’s for your protection” BS is crap.

If you are so stupid to lose your credit card, then call your bank.

11

That’s a little harsh, don’t you think? It is entirely possible to lose a CC through no fault of your own; accidents do happen, you know.

As for the $50 thing, that is generally time-limited. If you fail to report the fraudulent charge(s) within the speficied time period, you may very well be held liable for the full amount. In addition, personal liability is but one facet of the effects that fraud have. Others include higher finance charges, higher annual fees and increase retail prices. CC fraud hurts everyone including people who don’t even HAVE cards.

12

First, welcome to the Straight Dope Message Boards, JDHawke, we’re glad to have you with us.

Second, when you start a thread, it’s helpful to others if you provide a link to the Staff Report you’re commenting on. Helps keep us on the same page, and saves a lot of search time. I have appended such a link to your initial post.

It should also be noted that the Staff Report in question was written several years back, based on the advice provided by some of the credit card companies. I don’t know if the situation has changed, but certainly identity theft has become a WAY bigger issue than it was 8 or 10 years ago. The $50 limit is reasonable protection for you for any purchases made on a stolen credit card, but it doesn’t extend to all the other aspects of identity theft. One thing that is sometimes done is that the person who stole the card uses it to apply for additional cards: store cards are usually issued on the spot, if you have a major other credit card. So, your credit card is stolen, and a few months later, you start receiving bills from credit cards you don’t own. It’s not the $50, it’s the time, energy, effort, and hassle of unwinding the mess.

And the assumption that the loss of the credit card was due to stupidity is a pretty rash over-simplification.

I’ve actually stopped using my credit cards so much, and I use cash whenever possible. It’s better for the merchants, and there’s less chance of me being on the receiving end of an identity theft.

charliewade, I’ve merged your post into this thread… I assume that’s what you had intended.

13

I’m not so sure about this. In all the years past in which I worked retail, I never once saw a store card app which didn’t require a primary photo ID in order to process. Additionally, nearly all the ones I’ve encountered require a social security number, as well, in order to initiate a credit check. If there are stores which will issue cards based solely on the possession of a major CC, that is extremely poor practice (and almost certainly in violation of their own policies).

14

In the UK we’ve now moved almost exclusively to a “chip & PIN” system, and we rarely need to sign for items purchased on credit / debit cards.

Instead, we have a PIN which we enter into a touchpad at every checkout aisle - I can’t remember the last time I had to sign for a credit card purchase. The cards are meant to be signed as well on the back, but no-one ever looks (in fact, often you are asked to insert the card yourself and the shop assistent won’t ever touch the card).

15

You must be able to fill out the credit application, and that means making sure you know the SSN, among other things. And yes, they will require photo ID. That doesn’t matter much; they often pay no attention to the picture on the photo ID; I used to berate the sales associates that worked in my department when I managed for Dillard’s for that rather glaring omission.

16

I once worked at a computer store as the front end manager (in charge of the cashiers and registers), and customers often made purchases of hundreds of dollars on credit cards. The store policy was to check the signature on the back of every card, for every purchase, and compare the signature to the signature on the receipt. If there was no signature, or if the signature said “Check ID,” the cashier was required to see a picture ID before completing the transaction. While we tended to relax the rule on smaller purchases during busy times, there was a LOT of emphasis on checking the signature on any purchase of more than $100.

During one transaction, a customer made a purchase of several hundred dollars, using a card with no signature on the back. When the cashier checked for the signature (bravo for her!!), she handed the card back and told the customer she couldn’t accept it without a signature. He signed it in front of her, and she actually started to accept it. I had to step in and remind her that an additional ID was required if there was no signature. The purchase was legitimate, but it proved to me the necessity of putting a signature on the back of a card.

Regardless of credit card by-lines, a store holds the final say in whether or not the payment is accepted for a complete transaction, in the long run. If there is a fraudulent check or credit card transaction, the store pays for it, unless they can prove that they attempted to prove the customer’s identity in a credit card transaction.

I do sign the back of my credit card, and I fully expect stores to check the signature on any purchase I make, to the point where I actual show the back of the card to cashiers who don’t ask for it. For large purchases, I have no problems showing an additional ID, if they ask for it. I also only carry two (out of three) cards at maximum with me at any given time, and I do NOT keep my Social Security card in my wallet. This means that if my wallet were stolen or lost, I would have another card I could use until the lost ones are replaced, and the thief/finder would not have enough information to get another card in my name. I also check that I have my wallet every evening when I get home from work, and every morning before I leave for work.

I do wish, though, that my driver’s license didn’t have my home address on it. With computerized databases, and linked police cars, this kind of information could be looked up if necessary, without having it plastered on the ID card I use on a regular basis. (Thank heavens it no longer has the SS number on it, though.)

As for only using a PIN as identification, this worries me tremendously. I am quite sure that both my kids know my PIN, since they have seen me enter it rather frequently when I make purchases using my debit card. Since the debit card has maximum allowable rates for purchases on a daily/weekend basis, and I can (and do!) check for transactions every week day, I am relatively confident that any abuse would be minimal and detected almost immediately. However, I would much prefer to use some kind of thumbprint device as a means of identification, since I can’t forget it and no one can forge it easily.

17

I agree, I am so tired of seeing this question on the internet. A simple search of Visa.com or mastercard.com, will show that a signature IS REQUIRED. Short, simple, and to the point. SEE MY ID, is not a signature. You are not stopping fraud by not signing your card, you are just in violation of the member agreements you signed with the respective companies. It really bothers me when people seem to be so ignorant.

18

I agree, I am so tired of seeing this question on the internet. A simple search of Visa.com or mastercard.com, will show that a signature IS REQUIRED. Short, simple, and to the point. SEE MY ID, is not a signature. You are not stopping fraud by not signing your card, you are just in violation of the member agreements you signed with the respective companies. It really bothers me when people seem to be so ignorant.

19

Yes, I see. Losing a wallet is out of stupidity… Just like when one of my credit cards was stolen from my wallet. Nothing else, just a credit card. I hadn’t noticed it because I never paid for anything with credit - it was there for emergencies only.

20

At one time, I had only put “see photo id” on the back of my credit card. The problem was when I was stationed overseas. The merchants had no idea what the heck it said and couldn’t understand why my signature was different.

Another problem is that, since I have been back in the USA (about five weeks), I have not had one merchant check my signature.