4 ms·

Well, It does not change the fact that my cc was suspended because of that transaction. And I am not saying it's DO's fault. Though for me, this is an indicati

• dangrossman 14y ago
  The primary purpose of these systems is to detect when a card has been stolen before you do, so that the bank (and you) can avoid the costly and time-consuming chargeback process, and you can avoid temporarily being out the funds the thief used. If they believe something about the transaction or series of transactions might indicate that your card is being used by someone other than yourself, then they flag it. It doesn't indicate anything about trust of the merchant or their gateway. If you live in New Jersey, a purchase at Wal-Mart in Idaho will probably trigger a review. That's because the card issuer doesn't trust that the card is in your hands. It does not indicate, in any way, that they don't trust Wal-Mart or Wal-Mart's payment gateway. There would have been nothing Wal-Mart could do to avoid triggering that hold. To then go and warn people not to shop at Wal-Mart because it'll get your credit card suspended would be, well, unhelpful to say the least. I doubt your bank knows what internet gateway the merchant uses at all, so that can't even be part of the equation. The bank is far separated from that during an authorization transaction: Merchant submits transaction: -> Payment gateway, i.e. authnet, paypal pro -> Front-end network, i.e. global payments east, tsys -> Back-end network, i.e. first data omaha, fnbo -> Association network, i.e. visa, mastercard -> Card issuer