Originally Posted by
theddo
Since they cannot verify that it's you pressing "I accept" you have to agree to their checks, or that you will be liable if someone else claims to be you for it to be an equal agreement.
They wanted to make sure this wasn't fraud. That seems fair enough to me.
If, as they do now, but they did not then, the checking thing was included in the conditions, yes.
There is no way that I can accept to be liable if it's not me since i don't even know someone else might be using my card...
Denying service because *it could be fraud* is not acceptable. It it has been established it's fraud yes. If it's just because they could not check, no. Except if, as it is now but was not then, the checking mechanism is formally included in the contractual conditions.