encountered a merchant where the reciept said "NO SIGNATURE REQUIRED"

[whar8]

Has anybody encountered a merchant where the reciept said "NO SIGNATURE REQUIRED" but the cashier insists you sign? I had this happen to me at a deli in NYC. My purchase was $14 ($25 was the minimum for signature under QPS rules.) I protested that the reciept said not to sign, but the cashier blew up and said I HAD to sign. The cashier even made a mark on it to show me where -- even though there was no line. I walked out without signing and followed up with my card issuer to file a merchant violation--who in turn was not very helpful at all.

 

Anybody have similar experiences with merchants that participate in QPS Quick Payment Service, where generally purchases under $25 are exempt from signatures.

[Uncle Leo]

Oy vey. Pick your battles.

 

There's a local Burger king here that started asking people to sign slips and it's clearly printed "No Signature" Required" at the bottom. They didn't used to do this. So what? I was willing to sign before they came out with the concept, and it doesn't change a single thing regarding whether I owe the money or not.

[thelowpriceleader]

They may have been told by someone they wouldn't have chargebacks if they got signatures. I've had to sign no signature required merchant copies, customer copies with no signature line (when a merchant copy has not printed due to a place being on the no signature program but not knowing it), and all kinds of weird things.

 

A few years ago I used to frequent a gas station who wanted signatures for PIN-debit transactions (no line; sign the bottom of the merchant copy).

 

There is a lot of confusion here, but I don't think it is a violation. The merchant should be collecting a signature to cover themself in the event of a chargeback. What this may be a violation of is the corporate policy of whatever merchant this is. The merchants who have signed up for no signature required did so for a reason, and it was to speed up the transaction process and reduce paperwork at the store level. A location that is wasting time getting signatures could be in hot water with their management over this matter as it would be viewed as a waste of time by the merchant's management.

[orangecrush]

It is my understanding that QPS and No Signature Required gives merchants who sign up for the program, the option of not requiring signatures. If they want to require it, they can.

 

It has been a while since I looked through my merchant stuff regarding that, so it may have changed.

[webworm98]

It is my understanding that QPS and No Signature Required gives merchants who sign up for the program, the option of not requiring signatures. If they want to require it, they can.

 

It has been a while since I looked through my merchant stuff regarding that, so it may have changed.

 

 

Actually a lot of signed up for that and it is true. However, there is a debate going on--who is responsible for fraudulent charges. MasterCard and Visa said merchants would not be help responsible for fraudulent charges. I think some merchants processor/banks are having a problem with this. The processors/banks do not force the id rule and some are even for showing ID. I would not be surprised if some require signatures regardless of what MasterCard and Visa told them.

Edited June 15, 2008 by webworm98

[whar8]

It is my understanding that QPS and No Signature Required gives merchants who sign up for the program, the option of not requiring signatures. If they want to require it, they can.

 

It has been a while since I looked through my merchant stuff regarding that, so it may have changed.

 

You probably are right. But I guess the fact the receipt said don't sign, the cashier wrote on the receipt (defacing it or if you really stretched it - fraudulent signature) makes me think my issuer, or the merchant's bank or even MA would stand up and say, "yes cardholder, you are within you rights." I am sure thier sales rep from the processor has had lots of turnover and is not 100% on top of things probably told them to just get them to sign anyways not thinking someone would protest.

 

As far as I know, the merchant is always liable for fradulent charges. That is the risk you take when signing-up for QPS. They figure that if it is under $25 thier loss is limited. MA and V certainly do not pay for fradulent charges, nor to the processor or issuer--at point of interaction it was up to their mechant to verfiy who I was.

 

I mean who knows if after I left, they did not get me to sign, they just did so for me?!?!? I have no way of knowing. I only hope a mesage will get to their processor whereby the rule will be reiterated as I would like to visit them again as it is very convenient to me.

[webworm98]

whar8

 

A snip from Mastercard

 

Chargeback Protection – On MasterCard QPS transactions under the pre-specified floor limit, an issuer cannot charge back a below-the-floor limit transaction for: non-receipt of item, requested item illegible or fraudulent transactions.

 

 

Anyone care to translate this to English for the non-technical?

[whar8]

whar8

 

A snip from Mastercard

 

Chargeback Protection – On MasterCard QPS transactions under the pre-specified floor limit, an issuer cannot charge back a below-the-floor limit transaction for: non-receipt of item, requested item illegible or fraudulent transactions.

 

 

Anyone care to translate this to English for the non-technical?

 

Maybe the issuer takes the fall - cash loss- if one of the those three dispute reasons if under $25 and cant pass it on to the merchant/merchant processors, thus the merchant is protected in the end if under $25 and it ends up being fraudulent, or disputed for X reason

[orangecrush]

whar8

 

A snip from Mastercard

 

Chargeback Protection – On MasterCard QPS transactions under the pre-specified floor limit, an issuer cannot charge back a below-the-floor limit transaction for: non-receipt of item, requested item illegible or fraudulent transactions.

 

 

Anyone care to translate this to English for the non-technical?

 

 

Your link is for Canadian merchants.

 

What whar8 said is essentially correct.

[whar8]

whar8

 

A snip from Mastercard

 

Chargeback Protection …quot; On MasterCard QPS transactions under the pre-specified floor limit, an issuer cannot charge back a below-the-floor limit transaction for: non-receipt of item, requested item illegible or fraudulent transactions.

 

 

Anyone care to translate this to English for the non-technical?

 

 

Your link is for Canadian merchants.

 

What whar8 said is essentially correct.

 

Yep, so it goes back to my original point -- why they ask for signature (when it says don't give one) if they don't have to take the cash loss for it should it be chargedback -- in Canada mind you.

[orangecrush]

Yep, so it goes back to my original point -- why they ask for signature (when it says don't give one) if they don't have to take the cash loss for it should it be chargedback -- in Canada mind you.

 

 

There are more reasons for charge backs than the three they cover.

[webworm98]

I had a interesting chat with my bank the other day in the U.S.. The problem is MasterCard and Visa create new rules (Like the zero liability for debit and Credit cards). However, they expect either the issuer or the merchant processor to eat the loses from that. This makes the banks/processors mad.

 

In the U.S. the new Mastercard paypass and Visa paywave the Merchants and the consumer is protected but the banks/processors are not.

 

I was always told in the past Mastercard and Visa eats the cost from fraudulent/unauthorized signature transaction. Found out this is not true.

Edited June 18, 2008 by webworm98

[orangecrush]

It is a mess. I don't have the strength to go into all of the crap that goes on.

[cljohnr]

Has anybody encountered a merchant where the reciept said "NO SIGNATURE REQUIRED" but the cashier insists you sign? I had this happen to me at a deli in NYC. My purchase was $14 ($25 was the minimum for signature under QPS rules.) I protested that the reciept said not to sign

You should also realize that what prints on the receipt may have nothing to do with the credit card company. Generally, the retailer decides what prints on the receipt. I'm not surprised the credit card company didn't care about your complaint.

[orangecrush]

You should also realize that what prints on the receipt may have nothing to do with the credit card company. Generally, the retailer decides what prints on the receipt. I'm not surprised the credit card company didn't care about your complaint.

 

 

What prints on the receipt is often done by the processor. Most merchants don't know how to program their machines to change what prints and when.

[cljohnr]

You should also realize that what prints on the receipt may have nothing to do with the credit card company. Generally, the retailer decides what prints on the receipt. I'm not surprised the credit card company didn't care about your complaint.

What prints on the receipt is often done by the processor. Most merchants don't know how to program their machines to change what prints and when.

I sometimes forget the type of merchants I deal with. That's probably true for small shops where the credit card processing is not tied into the POS system.

[orangecrush]

[webworm98]

You should also realize that what prints on the receipt may have nothing to do with the credit card company. Generally, the retailer decides what prints on the receipt. I'm not surprised the credit card company didn't care about your complaint.

 

 

What prints on the receipt is often done by the processor. Most merchants don't know how to program their machines to change what prints and when.

 

True

 

The credit card companies have nothing to do with the receipt requirement. It is a Federal Law that requires merchants not print the full card number and some other info.

[Uncle Leo]

Oy vey. Pick your battles.

 

There's a local Burger king here that started asking people to sign slips and it's clearly printed "No Signature" Required" at the bottom. They didn't used to do this. So what? I was willing to sign before they came out with the concept, and it doesn't change a single thing regarding whether I owe the money or not.

Went to the same BK today. Used a CC. Was asked to sign the receipt. Looked at receipt out of curiosity. They no longer say "No Signature Required" and they include a signature line.

 

Not that I really care either way, but I found it mildly interesting.

[webworm98]

Oy vey. Pick your battles.

 

There's a local Burger king here that started asking people to sign slips and it's clearly printed "No Signature" Required" at the bottom. They didn't used to do this. So what? I was willing to sign before they came out with the concept, and it doesn't change a single thing regarding whether I owe the money or not.

Went to the same BK today. Used a CC. Was asked to sign the receipt. Looked at receipt out of curiosity. They no longer say "No Signature Required" and they include a signature line.

 

Not that I really care either way, but I found it mildly interesting.

 

Was it over or under $10.00?

 

My Bk said there is not signature for under $10 and anything 10 and above they need a signature.

 

I asked, why is sometimes I have to sign and others time I do not.

Edited June 9, 2009 by webworm98

[Continental]

There's a local Burger king here that started asking people to sign slips and it's clearly printed "No Signature Required" at the bottom. They didn't used to do this. So what? I was willing to sign before they came out with the concept, and it doesn't change a single thing regarding whether I owe the money or not.

Went to the same BK today. Used a CC. Was asked to sign the receipt. Looked at receipt out of curiosity. They no longer say "No Signature Required" and they include a signature line.

Probably got tired of people pointing that out and holding up the line.

[GEORGE]

Oy vey. Pick your battles.

 

There's a local Burger king here that started asking people to sign slips and it's clearly printed "No Signature" Required" at the bottom. They didn't used to do this. So what? I was willing to sign before they came out with the concept, and it doesn't change a single thing regarding whether I owe the money or not.

Went to the same BK today. Used a CC. Was asked to sign the receipt. Looked at receipt out of curiosity. They no longer say "No Signature Required" and they include a signature line.

 

Not that I really care either way, but I found it mildly interesting.

 

Was it over or under $10.00?

 

My Bk said there is not signature for under $10 and anything 10 and above they need a signature.

 

I asked, why is sometimes I have to sign and others time I do not.

WHAT IS A DEFINITION OF A BATTLE THAT IS WORTHY OF YOUR ATTENTION???

 

[Uncle Leo]

Oy vey. Pick your battles.

 

There's a local Burger king here that started asking people to sign slips and it's clearly printed "No Signature" Required" at the bottom. They didn't used to do this. So what? I was willing to sign before they came out with the concept, and it doesn't change a single thing regarding whether I owe the money or not.

Went to the same BK today. Used a CC. Was asked to sign the receipt. Looked at receipt out of curiosity. They no longer say "No Signature Required" and they include a signature line.

 

Not that I really care either way, but I found it mildly interesting.

Was it over or under $10.00?

 

My Bk said there is not signature for under $10 and anything 10 and above they need a signature.

 

I asked, why is sometimes I have to sign and others time I do not.

It was less than $10.

 

The amount can vary, and sometimes even within the business. At my local Walgreen's it is $25 in the main store, or $50 at the pharmacy.

[GEORGE]

At my BURGER KING and TACO BELL and McDONALDS none of them make me sign..THEY JUST GIVE ME MY RECEIPT

[centex]

At my BURGER KING and TACO BELL and McDONALDS none of them make me sign..THEY JUST GIVE ME MY RECEIPT

 

My guess is that much depends on the demographics of an area...

 

Some small towns I am in whilst visiting clients, I have to sign even if I have a meal ticket less than $5...never had to do that in Austin. I also find that, outside of Austin, I hear the question of credit or debit much more frequently, suggesting that small towns are still seeing a lot of debit usage.