Had a little problem with Mountain Mike's (Pizza chain in San Joaquin Valley CA) a couple weeks ago. I don't like to show ID with CC purchase, but we had just gotten back from skiing and I was starving so I decide I want the pizza more than standing firm on my principles, - so I pull out my DL, only to have it rejected because the pizza delivery girl is unsure if my New York DL is valid. I called the manager on the spot while the girl was there and he backed her up and refused to give me the pizza. I was furious and reported them etc,etc.

So last night we decided to get pizza again from Mountain Mike's. (I know, but they really do have great pizza) I told DH ato call and order it and he could show his DL because it's California, to avoid any confusion. So he calls to order only to be told that they have a notation on their computer to not take any orders for pizza from this ph# or address because they had "trouble" with us in the past and they won't deliver us a pizza EVEN FOR CASH, nor will they take an order over the phone for pickup. ( I suppose I could have gone in there incognito and ordered a stealth pizza, LOL). AND PLUS they tell that that after the last incident they filed a police report on me for using a attempting to use a fake ID, which report is hanging on their bulletin board!!! I was sputtering!! The manager also told me they can refuse service to anyone for any reason they want.

Too bad I'm not in a protected class LOL

Sounds like libel to me.

I'd certainly take them on for that.

So, now I'm wondering... did they put the name and number up just because of the incident, or did they know it was the OP who filed a complaint?

They made the police report after the incident a couple of weeks ago and reported me for my attempt to use a "fake" ID.
I'm not sure how to take them on other than just reporting them. I called their corporate headquarters and the guy I spoke with there was sympathetic and groaned at the stupidity. But he also told me that in California merchants are allowed to ask for ID and that supercedes the CC policies. The law actually says somehting like "the state of CA does not prohibit merchants from requiring ID with CC purchase" Which (your tax dollars at work!) to me is meaningless. It doesn't say you can't enter into a contract that stipulates no ID and it doesn't specify how a merchant is supposed to determine if an "ID" is valid.

IMHO, go to the police dept and ask for a copy of the "fraudulent id" report. Once you have it in hand, I'd offer to show the cops your VALID NY id and then see if they can be charged with filing a false report. Wouldn't hurt to contact your local news station consumer reporter and let them know about what the pizza place did. If they have refused an ID one time, more than likely they have refused other valid IDs. And filing a police report stating you tried to use a fake ID, when the ID is real, to me is libel or slander, maybe both since once is saying something not true and the other is writing or publishing something not true. By posting the police report (if they really did) then they have to be the biggest idiots ever. Corporate could remove all the management or if it is a franchise, they might be able to void the franchise contract for doing something that caused "harm" to the company name.

I saw a McDonalds where I grew up shut down for several months. The franchise owner got busted with a large amount (several hundred pounds) of pot and he was mentioned in the news report as owning several McDonalds franchises. And McDolands didn't even have to wait for a trial. The police had pictures of him in the barn with all that pot and the arrest alone was enough for the guy to have breached the contract.

I find that CA law to be vague and meaningless. Given my results reporting merchants in CA for this matter to the credit card companies, I think they find it to be meaningless too. Someone else in the past mentioned trying to call in a complaint to Mastercard on a CA merchant and that being rejected and the MC rep giving the same statement about CA law. However, I have used the Mastercard Online Form against a couple different CA merchants and upon return visits they have stopped asking for ID. I guess it could be a coincidence but given that it was against a couple different merchants and both have stopped asking I think not.

I would have asked the person at the MM HQ what good it did to refuse the delivery? The driver made the trip, the pizza was made, and the card had been processed. Basically they had a few possible outcomes:

1. You sign and the charge is finalized with whatever tip amount you put in.
2. Pizza is not delivered, driver has wasted their time, returns pizza to store, and pizza is disposed of/eaten by employees/given to friends. They cannot sell this 30 minute old pizza that was made to your specifications.
3. You attempt to use a stolen card for the pizza. They get a chargeback. Now we have a or b:

-----a: They respond to chargeback with an imprint of your card and your signature and get paid.
-----b: They ignore the chargeback and lose the money for the transaction.

I guess next time you can try Round Table. They know credit card policy very well. Let me know if you have any problems with them.

The problem is, because the OP refused the simple request for ID, the business naturally (if not rightfully) assumed that the customer had something to hide. That something being the ID. Its human nature really. If someone is adamant about not revealing something... once revealed the thing will be scrutinized by everyone around. Something as innocent as a out of state license will automatically be scrutinized. And unless they have seen their fair share of NY DLs they will assume that it is fake. Why else would they put up so much fuss about showing it.

Now the interesting part is that CA law gives the business the right to ask for ID with CC transactions.
Basically nullifying that part of the VISA/MC agreement.

We all see the sale print: blah blah blah unless prohibited by law...

Personal Rant...
Its amazing that so many of my CB brothers and sisters will stand inline and make a big stink and call every number in the phone book to complain about being asked for ID for a CC transaction. I pray half as much energy is spent complaining about wiretaps without warrants and the holding of persons without charge indefinitely.

Nevermind....

Thanks genseeker, those are good ideas, I'm going to try to talk to the police, though I feel a little embarrassed using up their time for such a foolish problem. Unfortunately, there is no local TV station here even though it's a fairly large area. The guy in corperate that I talked to today seemed copacetic however he did not call me back as he said he would, and he didn't do it last time either. Sooo - I don't know.

And lowprice, I did point out how stupid it was to take back the pizza and to even require checking DL's when they have no way of determining if it's valid or not.

What really amazes me is the utter vehemence that salesclerks in this area have about this ID thing. Like it was their own personal mission form God or something. Weird

its their little power trip.. remember the pay sucks and they are treated like crap so half of them think they can treat their customers like crap.

No, KYBOSH,read it again, I DIDN'T refuse the request for DL. I was gonna be a whore for that pizza. That's why I was so frustrated! And why IMHO it's such a bad idea to ask for DL to use a CC.

I don't think that's what the law says - I think it means that I have no standing to sue anybody under California law, which of course I don't anyway, because in this scenario I'm not the party with violated contract, I actually have no idea what was in the minds of people who inserted that particular line into the code. Perhaps it's just intentionally misleading.

I preferred Round Table when I was in Cali

The merchant is more likly to have someone pass them a fake $20 yet they don't treat CASH customers like criminals. I don't like to buy from merchants who violate their contracts.

Not the one I visited this past September.

Round Table: Excellent pizza... very expensive.



...unless they enter into an agreement to not ask for ID. The law, as I read it, merely allows for ID checking, it does not mandate it and it does not supercede private agreements.

Green24 you are right.
I misread. They mistook your out of state passport as fake right off the bat.

I dont agree with you interpretation of that law though.
How could you a business for asking for ID anyway?
No damages or anything.
I would say that there isn't even any inconvenience as your DL is most likely in the same carrier as the CC you just pulled out.

Now, i do see a problem if you were outa town and lost your ID.
And everywhere you went you were denied service. Hotel, food, clothing.
But even though how could you (the card user) sue the merchant for breaking a contract that you were not a party to?
That would strictly be between the merchant and the LOGO right?

I've had out of state ID refused for credit card use too. In my case it was a neighborhing state within about 150 miles of the state line. One instance was a single fountain drink at a gas station. Stupid, really stupid. Another case where they could not simply take and put the item back on the shelf after I walked out the door thanks to their rejecting my credit card to spend $1.17.

Idiots indeed. They should not be asking for ID at all and should be shut down for assuming out-of-state driver's licenses are fake, filing bogus fake-ID police reports, etc..

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."

A gas station won't accept an out of state license

What if you had gotten gas? Would they had to call the cops to verify your out of state id or would you got a free tank of gas? You should tell them to do a code 10 authorization. That gets the merchant off the hook.

QUOTE(KYBOSH @ Jan 14 2008, 08:12 PM) Now the interesting part is that CA law gives the business the right to ask for ID with CC transactions.
Basically nullifying that part of the VISA/MC agreement.

If you read the whole of California civil code 1747.08 there is a whole list of things that merchants can and cannot do and section (d) stipulates that according to California law merchants are not prohibited from asking fro DL whith CC purchase. Looking at the context of the whole legislation to me this simply means that the state of California is not interested in taking any action to enforce private business agreements. It does NOT say that all merchants shall have the right to ask for ID, that all merchants are required to ask for ID, that merchants in the state of CA may not enter into a contract that prohibits asking for ID, and does not provide for any remedial action to anything. So to me that line item is essential meaningless, because the only way you actually find out what laws mean is to test them in court, and who's going to do that? Not the CC companies because they already have a means of enforcement.

Webworm, most stations in California are on a prepay basis, so you have to pay before pumping. At this particular station I had already bought gas by paying at the pump. In some of the more rural parts of California you will still find an occassional non-prepay station.

Green, the law seems written in a vague manner and it appears a few merchants try to spin this to justify what they are doing. Given that Mountain Mike's is smaller and primarily does business in California this makes sense to me that they are playing this game. Though if other large chain retailers such as Lowes or Circuit City in CA are requiring ID and the local based management tries to give that legislation as an excuse for requiring ID, their corporate offices will set them straight. I have yet to find a major chain retailer who has a special credit card policy only in the state in CA. Their policies are the same everywhere and requiring ID or even asking for ID on a signed card is not part of the procedure.

I have found there is reportedly similar legislation in Washington. What is interesting is I was in Washington twice in the pst year and used my card many, many times and was not asked for ID once on one of the trips and only asked a few times on the other. On the trip where I was asked, the signature panel on my card was in bad shape and one of the places who asked explicitly said it was because they could not make out my signature. Okay, that is fair.

I agree....kinda...

BUT I think it can also be interpreted as meaning that if the business chooses to card you, they may do so without fear of fines or actions from any third party agreement.

The merchant agreement with a LOGO cannot conflict the State's law anymore than a State's law can preempt a Federal one.

I'm sure there are court cases about this issue in Cali unless the merchant agreement has an iron clad arbitration clause.

I disagree with your interpretation. I see it the state having washed their hands of the situation, basically taking a non-position. They have no problem with ID being required, but do not address the issue directly, nor do they even address the aspect of private agreements. If people are allowed to forfeit their Constituional rights to seek redress in the courts and accept arbitration instead, then this is the same concept. Checking ID is fine... unless you voluntarily give up that right.

Kybosh, what are your reasons for wanting to show ID so, so badly? You must enjoy "showing your papers." Why? Are you insecure? Do you feel a need to prove yourself to people? I don't understand.

This CA legislation does not address the merchant agreement, either. It is very vague and open to interpretation. I doubt there are court cases on this issue, either. It is really not a big deal to most merchants, especially as the issue is raised to higher levels of corporations. It may be a big deal to the store manager at store 998 but to the regional manager this is a joke and regional will immediately tell store 998 to stop IDing for credit card use if the issue ever gets up that far.

Wait a minute!
I think I'm pretty HOT!

Insecurity is NOT feeling comfortable showing your ID isn't it?

But seriously, I mentioned before that if you did not have a $0 liability for unauthorized charges ppl would expect, nay, DEMAND that merchants check ID each and everytime.

Some of these transactions can be quite costly. How does a signature only requirement for access to potentially tens of thousands of dollars even make ANY sense to anyone? Would you expect to walk into a bank and get $$$ from an account with only the check book and a signature? NO IDENTIFICATION?

If its my money you better make sure its me spending it.
Fraud raises the cost for everyone so even if you dont pay for it directly you.... you pay for it.

On another note....
What about cards with your picture on it as a security feature?
What do you think about those?

KYBOSH I understand what you're saying and it's a good reason for showing ID. But here's the way I think about it. I think a large percentage of financial transactions in these days take place with a credit - I don't knwo the statictics but I would not be surprized if it would be around 50%. Myself I use my credit card for every single thing. I think when you multiply the number of people times the number of transactions and then thought of all of those transactions being cases where people pulled out their personal information it would be a much larger potential for fraud than the much lower number of lost or stolen credit cards. Plus withshowing ID there's the potential for abuse as far as discrimination, people who

If the consumer was liable for fraud, we would be a lot more careful with these cards. Maybe the stores would have been comparing signatures in the first place. But requiring ID is not the answer to the fraud. It is just too easy to get a fake ID. Go to Las Vegas and you can get a fake ID all over the place. What happens if a fake ID is used? You tell the bank you did not make the charge, the bank says oh they checked ID and nobody can ever use a card without ID so sorry but you are liable.

It would appear a PIN-based system would add some additional security. However we have reports of that being an issue too with debit cards. Crooks set up a skimmer on the card reader and a security camera that faces the pin keypad and records you as you type your PIN, so they get your PIN. So again this is not fool proof either. It is also extremely difficult to fight fraud that takes place in this manner. This is a reason why PIN-debit is a real loser for the consumer.

And if you are concerned about tens and thousands being stolen I would suggest getting limits cut on your cards. Credit cards have much smaller limits than the average bank account. Get multiple cards with smaller limits and carry only the cards you need to use. This is a very good idea.

I am neutral on the picture cards. I did ask a couple different banks about getting one and was told by both they do not provide them. I asked why and was not given any straight answer. In addition when I signed up with B of A and asked about getting a picture card I was also given a run around and was given the impression they did not want to do it. The industry has determined those picture cards cost too much to produce and as a result we have not seen any widespread use of them. Another issue here is the crook being able to take and put their own picture over the one on the card using a real thin paper.

The real problem is that the cost of your identity is priceless. The cost of credit card fraud may be a few hundred or a few thousand that you and the rest of us pay a small pile of pennies for, but this cost is much lower than the cost of identity theft. Showing that ID opens you up to major identity theft kybosh and that is not a pleasant surprise for you, your bank, and any institutions who did business with the person who posed as you. This is an even most costly issue to get cleaned up. Much more costly than the bank eating the $2k of charges that were made by a crook because Terry left his/her credit card on their car dashboard with the car unlocked while they were inside the gas station buying cigarettes and someone got in there and stole the card.

Actual I would not agree. Especially if you are a regular.

No doubt. But, one should view this as themvelves being #1 priority. So, if one is already covered from fraudulent charges, then they can also place importance on deterring ID theft or otherwise protecting their personal information.



I agree. It doesn't make sense. But, it's the process the card companies have chosen, so it is what it is.



Theoretically, at least, fraudulent charges aren't your money.



Again, agree. Fraud does indeed raise the cost of everything we all pay for. But, there's little a person can do about that directly and sigfnificantly by themselves. All they can do is their little piece of the world and hope that enough other people do the same to mak a difference. Protecting their identity from theft and fraud that can affect them personally and directly is more impactful on a personal level. It goes back to looking out for #1... you have every moral authority to protect yourself, too.



Pretty ambavilent about those, myself.

A handful of regulars in the policy forum shouldn't be mistaken as any kind of meaningful consensus.

Go to the police station and tell them you would like to file a crime report yourself... against the pizza place for filing a false police report.

If they don't require pre-payment for gas... you fill up, you go in and give them the credit card. If they refuse to accept it without ID, then you get free gas as they are refusing to accept valid payment.

Sorry, that does not pass the common sense test. If you drive off without paying for your fuel, then you have commited a real crime (read: not the same kind of "crime" as asking to see ID with a credit card transaction). They will call the police, give them your plate number, and you will be cited. Good luck explaining to the judge why credit card policies supercede state laws.

On another note, I don't think I've ever seen a station not require pre-payment.

Bingo. Nuances of credit card policy are one thing... real life is quite another.



Used to be common... a couple decades ago.

There are still plenty of gas stations that do not require you to prepay. Some just have stations have two pumps you have to prepay.

If someone REFUSES to accept payment you don't have to sit around trying to convince them

I'm guessing that this also includes services which cannot be returned, i.e. already-eaten meals, etc.

I challenge you to test that theory then come back and tell us how much it cost you in time, money, and/or frustration, to get it straightened out.