3 ms·
The US market has been historically different for other reasons. The big one is liability. In the US the cardholder is rarely liable for fraud charges. Which i
by atonse 4y ago
The US market has been historically different for other reasons.
The big one is liability. In the US the cardholder is rarely liable for fraud charges. Which is why the minutiae of credit card security mechanisms just kind of doesn’t matter to us.
But from my understanding, in Europe and places like India, the cardholder is usually liable. Which also explains why cardholders seem to be a lot more anxious about these things in those countries and don’t really understand how Americans don’t care too much, say, that a waiter can walk off with your credit card at a restaurant.
Not claiming one system is better than the other… actually no, maybe I’m biased but I’m happy that the US system places liability on businesses rather than consumers. Which is why most US customers don’t care about these things and freely use their cards for everything.
- seszett 4y ago> in Europe and places like India, the cardholder is usually liable I suppose it depends on what you mean by "usually" but no, in the EU generally you just go to the police station which has a form for declaring credit card fraud and the bank often reimburses you before receiving it. Your replacement card is free on this situation. It is up to the bank to get their money back if they want to bother. I don't know of a situation where you wouldn't get reimbursed by your bank.
- atonse 4y agoOk that’s possible but still a pain in the butt to do. My point was mainly that technical differences don’t tell the whole story.
- kalleboo 4y agoThe US market also has a lot higher margins to absorb any fraud - they have higher fees (since fees are capped to 0.2-0.3% in EU) and historically have had higher credit utilization. So they decided that "friction" costs more than fraud.