On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 2:52 PM, Robert A. Rosenberg <hal9...@panix.com> wrote: > At 08:42 -0600 on 11/22/2015, Joel C. Ewing wrote about Re: Were you at > SHARE in Seattle? Watch your credit card st: > >> The biggest incentive was on merchants to get chip-card-capable readers >> in place to avoid higher fraud liability, and at least most of the >> merchants I frequent have complied, With enough compliance by the >> merchants (which lowers odds of offloading fraud liability to >> non-complying merchants), there appears to be much less incentive for >> the credit card issuers to hurry up with the new cards -- only 1 in 5 of >> the cards I regularly use have been updated to chip technology so far. > > > I may have the wrong impression but unless the card is chipped there is no > difference in the current fraud liability for a merchant who has a > chip-capable reader. The merchant has the liability if a chipped card is > presented and there is no chip reader. Thus it is in the Bank's best > interest to roll out the chipped cards. > The previous rules had Visa / MC / AmEx being liable for fraud. Now, if the vendor doesn't have a chip card reader, the vendor is liable. If the vendor does have a chip card reader but the bank has not issued you one, the bank is liable.
-- Mike A Schwab, Springfield IL USA Where do Forest Rangers go to get away from it all? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
