Originally Posted by
garyschmitt
I can only imagine PIN being better in the off case that a receipt can be printed with lots of fine print loaded with a predatory agreement (like consent to DCC), and card holders would probably tend to sign without reading, thus being locked into the agreement perhaps more solidly than if a PIN were used.
I'm not sure to what extent sneaky agreements are put on receipts, but certainly the careful among US card holders are better off with signatures.
Gary, where do you come up with these legal ideas? You don't need to actually sign something in order to be locked into a contract. If you go to McDonald's and use your credit card without signing anything because the amount was too small, you are still locked into the same agreement as if you had signed. Under US law, even an "electronic signature" (mouse click) is equally valid to a physical signature.