topic Re: EMV liability shift Question in Credit Cards

EMV liability shift Question

creditconcept — Sat, 06 Jun 2015 22:47:10 GMT

Once the Liability shift rolls arount October 1, does that mean that (theoretically) ALL sales should be done using EMV, and swiping will be a thing of the past? Or will we see a slow dragged out transition?

Re: EMV liability shift Question

chwebb1 — Sat, 06 Jun 2015 22:48:33 GMT

Very likely, there will still be many stores that won't have EMV readers, or they may not be implemented by then even if they do have it. I'd say we'll still be swiping at most places for a long time.

Re: EMV liability shift Question

taxi818 — Sat, 06 Jun 2015 22:50:55 GMT

Exactly as stated. regardless ofyour card being emv. The merchant does not have to foot bill to upgrade equiptment. you will be swiping for many many years to come. its not going anywhere. its just a way to make you feel good. or thinking its safer. when it has already been proven to be obsolete even in europe. just less risker than the current system. but since we are talking credit cards. not debit cards. The risk is not yours. But on the issuer anyway. its not our money. but theirs they are trying to protect.

Re: EMV liability shift Question

Anonymous — Sat, 06 Jun 2015 23:14:37 GMT

With how whiny some businesses are being about the whole thing I bet it takes over a decade.

Re: EMV liability shift Question

vanillabean — Sat, 06 Jun 2015 23:23:02 GMT

Simple. Don't shop at stores that don't use the chip. That'll teach them!

Re: EMV liability shift Question

Callandra — Sat, 06 Jun 2015 23:34:50 GMT

@Anonymous wrote:
With how whiny some businesses are being about the whole thing I bet it takes over a decade.

Seems like some banks are taking their sweet time as well...I still don't have a chip debit card, Freedom card (yes, I could request it but I'm curious to see how long it takes Chase to send it on their own), or Sallie Mae (Sallie Mae doesn't even have a chip yet at all -- have not heard a report of someone getting one with a chip).

Re: EMV liability shift Question

taxi818 — Sat, 06 Jun 2015 23:36:06 GMT

Ok. But I'm not driving 20 miles to shop at stores that don't use it. Who is it really teaching ? You. As you are spending more time and money.

Re: EMV liability shift Question

Sevenfeet — Sat, 06 Jun 2015 23:37:03 GMT

Gas pumps have another two years to comply over and above the Oct 1st deadline. Ironically gas pumps are one of the leading problem vectors of stolen credit card information via skimmers.

Re: EMV liability shift Question

vanillabean — Sat, 06 Jun 2015 23:45:10 GMT

@taxi818 wrote:
Ok. But I'm not driving 20 miles to shop at stores that don't use it. Who is it really teaching ? You. As you are spending more time and money.

So who is whiny then, the stores or the customers?

Re: EMV liability shift Question

Anonymous — Sat, 06 Jun 2015 23:47:22 GMT

@Anonymous-own-fico wrote:
@taxi818 wrote:
Ok. But I'm not driving 20 miles to shop at stores that don't use it. Who is it really teaching ? You. As you are spending more time and money.

So who is whiny then, the stores or the customers?

At least one group of retailers was trying to get the shift pushed back as recently as a couple of months ago.

Re: EMV liability shift Question

jsucool76 — Sat, 06 Jun 2015 23:48:04 GMT

@taxi818 wrote:
Exactly as stated. regardless ofyour card being emv. The merchant does not have to foot bill to upgrade equiptment. you will be swiping for many many years to come. its not going anywhere. its just a way to make you feel good. or thinking its safer. when it has already been proven to be obsolete even in europe. just less risker than the current system. but since we are talking credit cards. not debit cards. The risk is not yours. But on the issuer anyway. its not our money. but theirs they are trying to protect.

I thought the whole point of the liability shift was that if the bank issues an EMV card, and the merchant you are at doesn't accept EMV, then any fraudulent charges are their fault, not the banks. I'm not sure how they would figure out which store the info was stolen from...or how...but that's how I understood it.

Re: EMV liability shift Question

creditconcept — Sun, 07 Jun 2015 00:08:00 GMT

Wow thanks for the responses, yeah I thought the point was to push liability from the bank to the merchant.
I just don't every merchant switching to emv in like3 months....especially since I've only ever used an emv at walmart.
Well see what happens, but I agree that it will be years before we are fully emv

Re: EMV liability shift Question

victor7 — Sun, 07 Jun 2015 01:03:41 GMT

@creditconcept wrote:
Wow thanks for the responses, yeah I thought the point was to push liability from the bank to the merchant.
I just don't every merchant switching to emv in like3 months....especially since I've only ever used an emv at walmart.
Well see what happens, but I agree that it will be years before we are fully emv

100% EMV - probably not until it is mandatory and mag stripes have gone the way of the 8-track tape. There will always be local shops in some small town that don't need to switch over, as they actually know all their customers.

That said, I'll bet merchants start switching over very quickly once a few get hit with actual fraud. It won't seem real to them until they (or someone they know) face liability for a fraudulent transaction. Once that happens, they may decide it's better to upgrade their equipment.

Re: EMV liability shift Question

Anonymous — Sun, 07 Jun 2015 02:05:21 GMT

@victor7 wrote:
@creditconcept wrote:
Wow thanks for the responses, yeah I thought the point was to push liability from the bank to the merchant.
I just don't every merchant switching to emv in like3 months....especially since I've only ever used an emv at walmart.
Well see what happens, but I agree that it will be years before we are fully emv
100% EMV - probably not until it is mandatory and mag stripes have gone the way of the 8-track tape. There will always be local shops in some small town that don't need to switch over, as they actually know all their customers.

That said, I'll bet merchants start switching over very quickly once a few get hit with actual fraud. It won't seem real to them until they (or someone they know) face liability for a fraudulent transaction. Once that happens, they may decide it's better to upgrade their equipment.

They'd have to get rid of gift cards to be able to 100% mandate it, right? Would people be okay with that?

Re: EMV liability shift Question

cashnocredit — Sun, 07 Jun 2015 05:52:17 GMT

Here's a great paper by FICO re EMV chip and how it will impact the US market.

http://www.fico.com/en/wp-content/secure_upload/Mercator-for-FICO-EMV-whitepaper.pdf

In particular EMV chip and sig cards effectively eliminate

counterfeit EMV card present purchases where the merchant has enabled EMV only if the card has an EMV chip..

They don't eliminate:

Lost or stolen card present purchases. These could be reduced if PINs were used but they are already quite small.

And this type of fraud will increase:

Card Not Present purchases.

This last type is already the dominant form of card fraud. It will become more dominant.

Re: EMV liability shift Question

Anonymous — Sun, 07 Jun 2015 06:14:49 GMT

@cashnocredit wrote:
Here's a great paper by FICO re EMV chip and how it will impact the US market.

http://www.fico.com/en/wp-content/secure_upload/Mercator-for-FICO-EMV-whitepaper.pdf

In particular EMV chip and sig cards effectively eliminate
counterfeit EMV card present purchases where the merchant has enabled EMV only if the card has an EMV chip..

They don't eliminate:
Lost or stolen card present purchases. These could be reduced if PINs were used but they are already quite small.

And this type of fraud will increase:
Card Not Present purchases.

This last type is already the dominant form of card fraud. It will become more dominant.

Looks good though it's weird that they don't consider signature a valid EMV cardholder verification method yet US cards are doing exactly that (and they even mention that further down).

Re: EMV liability shift Question

Anonymous — Sun, 07 Jun 2015 08:49:25 GMT

EMV eliminates much of the cloning problem from magstrip swipers. PIN would raise the bar further, but at a cost for card issuers dealing with numerous PIN resets, and more declined transactions due to forgotten PINs. Personally, I'm glad PIN is not required, because some card issuers could use that to make disputing fraudulent charges more difficult.

You're spot on about card not present transactions fraud, presumably, skyrocketing. However, there are ways to reduce such risk, including more aggressive screening and further encouraging merchants to ship to billing address and/or performing additional verification, such as contacting the cardholder. In the same vane, more card issuers will offer real-time charge notifications along with purchase verification tools to cardholders. In my view, card not present is an easier problem to manage than physically cloned cards, which EMV addresses well.

Re: EMV liability shift Question

Revelate — Sun, 07 Jun 2015 08:53:47 GMT

@jsucool76 wrote:
@taxi818 wrote:
Exactly as stated. regardless ofyour card being emv. The merchant does not have to foot bill to upgrade equiptment. you will be swiping for many many years to come. its not going anywhere. its just a way to make you feel good. or thinking its safer. when it has already been proven to be obsolete even in europe. just less risker than the current system. but since we are talking credit cards. not debit cards. The risk is not yours. But on the issuer anyway. its not our money. but theirs they are trying to protect.
I thought the whole point of the liability shift was that if the bank issues an EMV card, and the merchant you are at doesn't accept EMV, then any fraudulent charges are their fault, not the banks. I'm not sure how they would figure out which store the info was stolen from...or how...but that's how I understood it.

Usually it's more than 1 person, given sufficient sample size it's an easy enough back track to find the common transaction place... there's not a whole lot of overlap I'm guessing even between 10 stolen accounts in some place like Los Angeles let alone hundreds or thousands.