Originally Posted by
stifle
Not getting into the legal argument, but I would postulate that a PIN is far easier to forge than a signature
Verification by signature is a vestigial remnant of the bygone era when penmanship and graphology was the norm.
In this day and age, no one really bothers to check your signature. When was the last time a clerk actually bothered to check the back of your card against the crappy signature that you signed on the POS display?
Signature is by all means, dead. A crook can just as easily make a copy of a mag-stripe card, strike a line through it on the signature field, and 99% of the time, minimum wage cashiers wouldn't even bother to check the signature because they have to meet the quota of serving the next customer.
Compared to that, PIN is much more secure than relying on what was based on an outdated fifties-era pseudo-science.
Originally Posted by
emma69
It is Visa / Mastercard etc. that require their merchants to accept both in their contracts, not your issuing bank in the US, I believe. They certainly look into stores that charge fees for using a credit card (also not allowed in their contracts) so why would this be different - both are deviations from the contract.
It maybe in the contracts,
but what action VISA/MC will take is up to them.
On one side would be a European mega-store similar to Walmart in the US. VISA/MC reaps in millions in transaction fees from them. Would VISA/MC really yank VISA/MC usage from this mega-store just because one American couldn't use his/her mag-stripe? Doubt it. Is it a breach of contract? Yes. But from VISA/MC POV, they're not going to be crazy enough to forgo millions in transaction fees.
Then there's your side. You're angry why an European mega-store would get away with such policies. From your POV, it's a breach of contract which VISA/MC should punish that store for not accepting mag-stripe. But it's a losing game. To them, you're just one person, an anomaly. Their response is "tough luck, use cash."
What do you do now? Class action.