Originally Posted by
Majuki
The issuer would make the following assumptions:
Assumption 1: EMV cards can't be cloned, so a card present transaction is using the real card.
Assumption 2: A PIN-based transaction can't be spoofed. (The Cambridge team pointed out that this is not the case, but let's say the bank assumes a PIN is infallible compared to signature.)
The inference is that there was some degree of negligence on the part of the cardholder either by: 1) choosing a weak PIN or 2) disclosing the PIN to someone else.
Regardless of the legal protections, try explaining the situation to a customer service rep at your bank who won't remove a charge even when the evidence is compelling that you didn't make the transaction.
PINs can easily be compromised - no different than skimmers being set up, people have set up mini cameras to catch the PIN.
Originally Posted by
Majuki
No cardholder verification also avoids DCC? (How can you consent to DCC without signing or entering a PIN.)
Would seem like you can easily dispute it at least