3 ms·
> And liability is more clear-cut and reasonable for pretty much all parties? Meaning shifted entirely to the consumer?
by foobarqux 13y ago
> And liability is more clear-cut and reasonable for pretty much all parties?
Meaning shifted entirely to the consumer?
- Nursie 13y agoNo, the merchant takes reasonable liability - if they permit non-EMV transactions (in a customer-present scenario) they assume the risk. Under law in much of Europe, the consumer is not under much risk. In the UK (for example) the credit card provider is legally a party to the debt and has a responsibility to refund the consumer on demand if the consumer is willing to state (in a legally binding way) that the transaction was not authorised by them. Debit cards are governed by different rules that amount to much the same, though the legal protections are weaker.
- PeterisP 13y agoEU law shifts pretty much all liability away from consumer. There's a cap of EUR 150 consumer liability for lost&stolen (physically) cards up until you notify the bank; zero liability for lost&stolen cards after the time of notification, and zero liability for any fraudulent transactions if your card isn't lost or stolen. Only UK law (and MC/Visa rules for UK) is a bit different, but another poster describes them below.
- zmk_ 13y agoPlus depending on whether the terminal allowed chip and pin, and the card had a chip the liability is shifted between the merchant and the bank.