Has anyone been banned from a store due to their signature? I have!

[virtualtreasure]

I guess the OP felt this was a battle worth fighting.

 

Does goading store mgmt into moving to act against you (due to misguided behaviour) qualify as, 'a battle',.. really?

 

I vote for OP could do better w/ a lot less effort.

[hegemony]

is Freedom Unlimited what you consider your legal signature? if not, you may be misusing your card and not protected by card TOS.

[Uncle Leo]

I'm failing to see the point behind the OP's exercise.

[eiui thelus]

Play, I'm surprised at you! Didn't you know he set out to commence an exercise of Futility?

[Uncle Leo]

Play, I'm surprised at you! Didn't you know he set out to commence an exercise of Futility?

Doh! How silly of me.

[scottwagnon]

ok. merchants are not required to ask for id and in fact i believe i have read somewhere, for privacy reasons, they are not allowed to ask for id; UNLESS the signature is not on the back of the card. then they are to confirm the print of the name on the card matches the printed name on the DL/ID card. otherwise, ONLY the signature on the back of the credit card need to match that of the pin pad/recepit signature. BECAUSE the signature need not match that of the printed name, it dosent really matter wether or not how the AU writes the signature, so writing f*** y** is irrelevant. this guy might be an a******, but that does not matter. the merchant has no reason to refuse service, even though he has the right to do so.

 

at my store i work at, no one ever asks for an dl/id to confirm this. none of the cashiers even care wether or not the signature even matches the card. some times i write santa claus on the signature or a scribble. but i never even sign my cards anyway. but if someone needs to see my cards, i am happy to present my id.

[eiui thelus]

ok. merchants are not required to ask for id and in fact i believe i have read somewhere, for privacy reasons, they are not allowed to ask for id; UNLESS the signature is not on the back of the card. then they are to confirm the print of the name on the card matches the printed name on the DL/ID card. otherwise, ONLY the signature on the back of the credit card need to match that of the pin pad/recepit signature. BECAUSE the signature need not match that of the printed name, it dosent really matter wether or not how the AU writes the signature, so writing f*** y** is irrelevant. this guy might be an a******, but that does not matter. the merchant has no reason to refuse service, even though he has the right to do so.

 

at my store i work at, no one ever asks for an dl/id to confirm this. none of the cashiers even care wether or not the signature even matches the card. some times i write santa claus on the signature or a scribble. but i never even sign my cards anyway. but if someone needs to see my cards, i am happy to present my id.

 

The OP was buying liquor= ID required The OP had a comment not a Signature on his CC= Card Not Valid

[Need More RWHP]

Although MC T&C may say ID is not required, I would like you to link where MC explicitly forbids asking for ID.

Then your reading comprehension maybe lacking. It reads that requiring is not allowed.

 

Let me tell you the difference:

Asking ok, response not required

Them: Hi, how are you doing today?

You: "I prefer not to say"

Them: rings up, "$123.32 please"

 

Asking ok, answer required:

Them: Hi how are you?

You: "I prefer not to say"

Them: You must answer it in a way that's satisfactory or we're refusing service

 

That's within the rights of store

 

Now, credit card contract states that as a condition of being a merchant, they're obliged to follow the contract. Because it states that valid MasterCard may not be refused without a valid cause and the contract that the store signed states that merchant may not refuse for customer's choice to not show ID, refusing service would be a breach of contract.

 

So, the store is guilty of misuse of MC brand, misrepresentation of accepted payment methods and breach of contract. MasterCard logo means all validly presented card is accepted. If the purchase was refused for no ID, you look 19 and you were buying booze,the refusal is valid as long s the refusal occurred at the time of attempting to purchase, not after the payment method is selected.

 

If I go to a liquor store and no ID is asked when I start to pull out cash, but change my mind and pull out a card and they do, that's an issue.

 

The no routine ID check makes sense. Allowing it to become regular practice harbors opportunity for merchant to profile customers for perceived age, race, color, class and gender.

 

 

 

 

Since I had a card skimmed and a fake card created which was used to purchase thousands of dollars* of stuff I'm all for requiring ID. The intrinsic security aspects of a CC are out of date. They should issue a more secure card.*While I wasn't out money from this the bank was and I was cardless for a few days.

So that crooks have a chance to gain access to your DOB and state ID number or even make a covert digital image of your license in order to make it easier to steal your identity? Great thinking there buddy!