north of the U.S. border. ID A-OKAY

[hegemony]

http://canadianpress.google.com/article/AL...DmVGR-0oab-U_DA

[GEORGE]

So CREDIT CARD POLICY gets to be over-ruled???

 

[BBQ123]

The privacy watchdogs don't set the rules.

 

Visa/MC or the Candian government does

[thelowpriceleader]

Again the privacy head does not understand the credit card rules. Merchants are not on the hook if the transaction proves to be fraud.

 

This is actually evidence that consumers do not like being asked for ID and this privacy office got so many complaints about it that they were too lazy to continue to handle the complaints.

 

Sort of like those merchants who cry about fraud but are too lazy to send back receipts when they get a chargeback (it costs me $200 to recover a $20 transaction). Give me a break.

[webworm98]

Again the privacy head does not understand the credit card rules. Merchants are not on the hook if the transaction proves to be fraud.

 

This is actually evidence that consumers do not like being asked for ID and this privacy office got so many complaints about it that they were too lazy to continue to handle the complaints.

 

Sort of like those merchants who cry about fraud but are too lazy to send back receipts when they get a chargeback (it costs me $200 to recover a $20 transaction). Give me a break.

 

You just gave the answer to why some merchants ask for ID. So they can avoid charge backs from lost or stolen cards. Sending in a receipt would do not good of the purchase was fraudulent.

 

I do not really care if they ask for ID or not. I will show it. Anyways, people could find me. I am listed in the phone book. My drivers license does not have my ssn# on it.

[thelowpriceleader]

No, they still get paid even if a lost or stolen card is used. They just have to provide a copy of the receipt and show that someone signed for the transaction.

 

The only time that anyone at the bank after the chargeback actually reviews if the signature matches the real cardholder is on a very large transaction (into the thousands of dollars). In this case if there is a chargeback and the signatures do not match then the merchant loses out. On the $100 or $200 transaction, the merchant is paid regardless. It simply costs too much to investigate.

 

The merchants ask for ID because they are too lazy to deal with chargebacks. Sorry, but, if you do not wish to follow the credit card terms and conditions then you should not accept them.

 

If I were a merchant with those large transactions in the thousands, I'd do a code 10 call and get authorization every time. When the code 10 gives authorization, the merchant is guaranteed payment.

 

Keep in mind what happens:

 

9/15 ED goes to CALDOR using a Chemical Bank Visa card that says MARY on it which he found in the parking lot and spends 27.00.

Caldor uses National Payment Processing to process card payments at their store.

 

9/16 MARY finds her card is missing and calls her bank. The bank verifies transactions with Mary and finds that the only transaction that was not hers was 27.00 at Caldor. The bank immediately reverses this transaction for Mary pending investigation (should the bank get some kind of proof that Mary made or authorized the transaction, they will re-charge her).

 

9/16 Chargeback retrieval is issued to Caldor by National Payment Processing. They have a month to send a copy of the sales draft for the 27.00 transaction to National Payment Processing. If after 30 days Caldor fails to send this sales draft in, they will be issues a chargeback reversal and lose the money for the transaction.

 

I would have no problem with a merchant who did a code 10 call for any "large transaction" in the thousands of dollars. This would also be permissible according to the merchant guidelines. I have a problem with the merchant who wants ID when I go charge a 1.50 soda, or a 4.50 sandwich, or a 15.00 DVD.

[webworm98]

Could you tell me, where it says a merchant is not responsible for fraudulent transactions?

 

I have read in some news articles. That the merchant got stuck with a chargeback even after appealing it. This was do to a fraudulent charge from a stolen card.

[cljohnr]

The privacy watchdogs don't set the rules.

 

Visa/MC or the Candian government does

The "privacy watchdogs" are the government in this case.

[cljohnr]

Keep in mind what happens:

 

9/15 ED goes to CALDOR using a Chemical Bank Visa card that says MARY on it which he found in the parking lot and spends 27.00.

Caldor uses National Payment Processing to process card payments at their store.

 

9/16 MARY finds her card is missing and calls her bank. The bank verifies transactions with Mary and finds that the only transaction that was not hers was 27.00 at Caldor. The bank immediately reverses this transaction for Mary pending investigation (should the bank get some kind of proof that Mary made or authorized the transaction, they will re-charge her).

 

9/16 Chargeback retrieval is issued to Caldor by National Payment Processing. They have a month to send a copy of the sales draft for the 27.00 transaction to National Payment Processing. If after 30 days Caldor fails to send this sales draft in, they will be issues a chargeback reversal and lose the money for the transaction.

 

9/16 Caldor has to pay National Payment Processing a $30 chargeback fee.

You left out one key aspect there, I added it for you. Merchants have to pay a fee to the processing bank for every single chargeback. Even if they get 100% of the purchase price back, they're still losing $25-$50. No one ever seems to mention that part in this forum. Edited September 24, 2007 by cljohnr

[BBQ123]

Merchants only pay a fee if they lose the chargeback.

 

I would rather have my $1.50 purchase get a code 10 call than have ID asked for.

[cljohnr]

Merchants only pay a fee if they lose the chargeback.

That is incorrect. The merchant has to pay the chargeback fee regardless of the outcome. The banks consider it payment for their time investigating the chargeback, and it is deducted from the merchant's account immediately when the chargeback is issued.

 

There is also another issue which is never mentioned in this forum. If a merchant receives too many chargebacks, the banks raise their processing rates. So even if the merchant did nothing wrong, and got back 100% of the purchase amounts from the processing bank, chargebacks can cost them a lot of money. After a certain number of chargebacks, the bank may even cancel the merchant's account. The bottom line is that merchants are not "100% protected", and chargebacks cost them a lot.

[GEORGE]

Merchants only pay a fee if they lose the chargeback.

That is incorrect. The merchant has to pay the chargeback fee regardless of the outcome. The banks consider it payment for their time investigating the chargeback, and it is deducted from the merchant's account immediately when the chargeback is issued.

 

There is also another issue which is never mentioned in this forum. If a merchant receives too many chargebacks, the banks raise their processing rates. So even if the merchant did nothing wrong, and got back 100% of the purchase amounts from the processing bank, chargebacks can cost them a lot of money. After a certain number of chargebacks, the bank may even cancel the merchant's account. The bottom line is that merchants are not "100% protected", and chargebacks cost them a lot.

Even if they have to pay for a "WON" chargeback...IS THIS "FEE" NOT TAX DEDUCTIBLE???

[cljohnr]

Even if they have to pay for a "WON" chargeback...IS THIS "FEE" NOT TAX DEDUCTIBLE???

The "tax deductable" argument you throw around so often doesn't really make sense to me. You could sell everything in your store for half of what you paid for it. After all, the loss is tax deductable. How does that somehow makes it a legitimate business decision?

[GEORGE]

Even if they have to pay for a "WON" chargeback...IS THIS "FEE" NOT TAX DEDUCTIBLE???

The "tax deductable" argument you throw around so often doesn't really make sense to me. You could sell everything in your store for half of what you paid for it. After all, the loss is tax deductable. How does that somehow makes it a legitimate business decision?

PEOPLE LOOK AT THAT CREDIT CARD DISCOUNT FEE AS IF IT WILL

PUT THEM OUT OF BUSINESS IF THEY HAVE TO PAY IT

 

SOME ACT LIKE IT IS 72% OF THE GROSS SALES

Edited September 24, 2007 by GEORGE

[GEORGE]

The privacy watchdogs don't set the rules.

 

Visa/MC or the Candian government does

The "privacy watchdogs" are the government in this case.

So the "GOVERNMENT" get to over-rule credit card policy????

 

SINCE WHEN???

[LBCS]

LOL

 

Even if they have to pay for a "WON" chargeback...IS THIS "FEE" NOT TAX DEDUCTIBLE???

The "tax deductable" argument you throw around so often doesn't really make sense to me. You could sell everything in your store for half of what you paid for it. After all, the loss is tax deductable. How does that somehow makes it a legitimate business decision?

[Continental]

CREDIT CARD SIGNATURE IS ALL THE ID NEEDED

 

When you pay for merchandise with a Visa card, MasterCard, or American Express any store that accepts these cards should accept yours too, no questions asked. It's part of the deal that merchants agree to when they become participating members.

 

They must check your signature and the card - electronically or by telephone - to be sure it's valid. Once the answer comes up yes, they can go ahead and charge. They can't ask you for any further identification - not a license plate number, Social Security number, proof of address, phone number or picture ID.

 

Your personal ID isn't needed because Visa, MasterCard, and American Express all guarantee payment on cards that have been properly checked. If the issuer mistakenly authorizes a sale on a bad card, it should make good. MasterCard says that merchants receive instant settlement.

 

Unfortunately, not all merchants play by the rules. Some, apparently, haven't read them.

 

WHAT YOU CAN DO

 

MasterCard wants to hear about merchants who break their rules. Send the name and address and an account of what happened to MasterCard International, c/o Radio City Station, P. O. Box 1288, New York, NY 10101. The merchant's bank will get a stiff letter, ordering it to investigate and bring the offending store into line - or pay a $2,000 fine.

 

Visa enforces the same rules as MasterCard. "When we hear about a violation, we ask the bank that signed the merchant to get together with the merchant and see that the practice is stopped," Visa representative states. To report a merchant, send a letter to the bank that issued your Visa card.

 

American Express also prohibits merchants from asking for IDs. "All a merchant is supposed to do is take an imprint, make sure the signature matches and swipe the card through the terminal, to get authorization."

[BBQ123]

The privacy watchdogs don't set the rules.

 

Visa/MC or the Candian government does

The "privacy watchdogs" are the government in this case.

So the "GOVERNMENT" get to over-rule credit card policy????

 

SINCE WHEN???

 

If the Congress passes a law saying "All credit card transactions must be accompanied by positive identification such as a passport, driver's license, or military ID" then we would have to show ID to use our cards.

 

But since the Congress hasn't done that... the credit card company policy is in effect.

 

Some states have a law saying that CC users can't be surcharged... that means that if you have a Discover card (Discover does not prohibit surcharges), they can't add a fee in those states.

 

It can go the opposite way. If the Congress/legislature is dumb enough to say "All credit card sales should be charged 25 cents extra" then stores have to charge the 25 cents even if Visa/MC/AmEx said not to.

[thelowpriceleader]

This "chargeback fee" varies depending on the merchant, the card issuer, and the fraud code associated with the transaction. In some cases, it is figured into their processing fees.

 

I am in the process of researching this subject of "chargeback fees" in more detail. I never heard of this nor was it dealt with. This must have been buried in our P&L statements very deeply.