4 ms·

Oh wow, that makes perfect sense, thank you for writing the long reply. So you're basically telling me that it's only "authorisation" that checks the balance, a

Oh wow, that makes perfect sense, thank you for writing the long reply. So you're basically telling me that it's only "authorisation" that checks the balance, and "settlement" doesn't? (I guess that also makes sense, now that I think about a few other things I noticed). How about the case I mentioned? If I told the bank "I did not authorise Avis, would Avis have been able to somehow "prove" that I authorised the transaction (I obviously didn't; the card was expired when they charged it; but I did have a signed contract with them, is that enough to directly take money from my account? Feels like it shouldn't be enough, not without a court getting involved).

tialaramex 8y ago
What Authorisation checks is up to the issuer. For most accounts the bank does NOT promise to prevent you from spending beyond the limit. That limit is for their benefit not yours. A regular EMV card has some limits programmed into it by the issuer like "I'm not allowed to say yes to more than $500 of spending without going online to my issuer" but the issuer chooses what those are, not you. Whether the bank has to take your side will depend on law where you are more than any technical facts. That signed contract is going to be a factor, and you giving Avis the card (even though months before and without expecting to pay this) would probably matter too, I'd be surprised if the issuer or the law was OK with something like "We found this card number on an unrelated payment from years ago so we charged it". I mostly think this should be "fixed" to be stricter, but let me briefly take the merchant's side. Suppose I check out from a hotel one morning. $120 for one night sir, thanks for staying with us. Two hours later cleaners find the room is trashed. I've ripped up the carpet, a chair is in pieces, the wall TV has been attacked with a knife. Why the hell shouldn't they be able to try putting it on my card? Should my bank really refuse if I have the money, and force them to take me to court to try to get their money just because I didn't authorise the charge? Realistically it's not in anyone's interest to insist on that except bad actors.
- nybble41 8y ago
  > Should my bank really refuse if I have the money, and force them to take me to court to try to get their money just because I didn't authorise the charge? Yes, absolutely. Are you seriously arguing that anyone should be able to claim money from your bank account without either prior authorization by the account holder or independent arbitration? Bypassing the courts in cases like this serves no one's interests except bad actors.

tialaramex 8y ago

What Authorisation checks is up to the issuer. For most accounts the bank does NOT promise to prevent you from spending beyond the limit. That limit is for their benefit not yours. A regular EMV card has some limits programmed into it by the issuer like "I'm not allowed to say yes to more than $500 of spending without going online to my issuer" but the issuer chooses what those are, not you. Whether the bank has to take your side will depend on law where you are more than any technical facts. That signed contract is going to be a factor, and you giving Avis the card (even though months before and without expecting to pay this) would probably matter too, I'd be surprised if the issuer or the law was OK with something like "We found this card number on an unrelated payment from years ago so we charged it". I mostly think this should be "fixed" to be stricter, but let me briefly take the merchant's side. Suppose I check out from a hotel one morning. $120 for one night sir, thanks for staying with us. Two hours later cleaners find the room is trashed. I've ripped up the carpet, a chair is in pieces, the wall TV has been attacked with a knife. Why the hell shouldn't they be able to try putting it on my card? Should my bank really refuse if I have the money, and force them to take me to court to try to get their money just because I didn't authorise the charge? Realistically it's not in anyone's interest to insist on that except bad actors.

nybble41 8y ago
> Should my bank really refuse if I have the money, and force them to take me to court to try to get their money just because I didn't authorise the charge? Yes, absolutely. Are you seriously arguing that anyone should be able to claim money from your bank account without either prior authorization by the account holder or independent arbitration? Bypassing the courts in cases like this serves no one's interests except bad actors.