Strathfield eatery whose proprietress pressed yes to the DCC prompt http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/china...l#post20511326

It's been here for some time, I first saw it here in February 2013 when I went to JB HiFi with a friend from France, and I'm sure it wasn't new then. He had no problem avoiding it.

But please don't be an Ugly American, there's just no need for that :D

I think what Visa really needs to do is to change the rules for DCC. This is my proposal:

If DCC is to be supported:
1. The DCC selection prompt MUST be presented to the customer on a customer-facing device.
2. The DCC selection prompt MUST in clear language that corresponds to the cardholder's home language.
3. The DCC selection prompt MUST not use ambiguous language such as "yes" or "no" to consenting to DCC.
4. The DCC selection prompt MUST list both amounts and the markup on the DCC rate, and the buttons to select a choice MUST be clear and correspond in an obvious way with the screen.
5. DCC SHOULD not be offered multiple times, IF it is it MUST only be in a way to confirm the selection, and if "no" is chosen, DCC should not be chosen - instead the terminal should return to the previous step (DCC selection prompt).
6. DCC MUST never be applied to card no longer present transactions such as express checkout at hotels and open tabs at bars.
7. DCC MUST never be applied in an environment where there is a shared (both sides of counter) device - an all in one terminal that is then handed to the customer for PIN entry. This type of device offers too much potential for abuse, where a merchant can select DCC before handing the terminal to the customer for PIN entry (or never handing over it at all, if a signature card).

What do you all think of a proposal like that?

Call me a cynic, but without a rigorous compliance program, how is Visa meant to enforce all this?

Bank of China and Global Payments are simply going to say in every transaction and every DCC provider compliance statement "yes, we comply with all the above 100%". No matter whether they comply with 0% in reality.

My suggestion is to get them ex-post - provide a Visa-provided website that automates chargeback, without issuer involvement. It might operate like an airline's webpage to claim missing miles.

It might mean cardholders can participate in buyers fraud, but given the amount of axs fxcking perpetuated by DCC providers over the years it only seems fair we can get them back.

The presence of the website can be advertised by including it in the mandatory DCC statement on sales slips.

It still means forex competition can be provided. It is good for Visa because they get to clawback some of the more aggressive DCC operators. It also still means DCC providers can still survive by opting cardholders in. But it lets the more knowledgeable cardholders (us) to get out.

I don't think you've seen me seen hit with DCC and have the merchant claim ignorance. :D Based on percysmith's post in the former thread, the merchant made it seem like it was the customer's fault for using an overseas card even though the he saw the merchant accept DCC on the customer's behalf. I've gotten burned too many times by "Oh, well, let's see." or "Oh, no, that's just for your convenience, but it will all work out" to not get a little testy when people try those same ignorant comments (or outright lies if they know what's up).

The one experience I had of DCC here was quite simple, he hit the button to decline and was charged in euros, no claiming ignorance or cheating. I was a bit surprised to see it, but I don't use a foreign card here so I would never come across it myself.

What can you expect visa (or mc) is going to do? I've reported merchants many times for some of the illegal things they do like not giving me a choice on dcc or at home by requiring id to complete a cc transaction or (before Durbin) requiring minimum purchases and the use of surcharges disguised as cash discounts (which still goes on in those states with laws prohibiting credit card surcharges reduced by one because of an imbecilic decision by some clown of a federal judge in the Southern District of NY). I've reported the Dutch National Railroad for refusing to honor valid visa cards lacking emv chips when I follow Capital One's advice to tell them they must honor all valid cards regardless of emv chip and/or pin or not. Please. Do you think anything has ever happened to these unscrupulous merchants violating the operating manuals?

It's a joke that these regulations even exist on paper when nobody enforces them.

That's definitely good to know. In some other parts of the world the merchants are downright confrontational and try to claim that you're wrong, the DCC amount is "just for your convenience", or say they have no way of disabling it. Admittedly, I haven't seen DCC in Australia yet in my numerous trips over the last four years. I'll be there on Thursday and will report back if I encounter DCC.

I'm actually okay with CC surcharges that are properly disclosed, which the NY decision absolutely requires. It also caps the amount of the surcharge to ensure that it is no larger than what the merchant endures for taking your card in the first place. Basically, if a gas station decides to operate at 5% margins, getting hit with a 2.5% transaction fee really stings.

Merchants can play ball for one and accept all cards. And, in those areas where surcharges are allowed, not charge surcharges and accept credit cards as a cost of doing business. Maintaining a double standard earns little sympathy.

I encourage you to read more about the NY case before jumping to this conclusion. In fact, it seems that very few merchants have taking advantage of the surcharge ruling, but it is quite reasonable IMO.

Take Ctrip, for example:
-99% card not present transactions, high chargeback rate ---> sky high processing fees
-scant margins on airplane tickets (I've heard 2%)
-as such, their 3% cc surcharge (on airplane tickets only) makes sense to me

Travelzen's practice of making up its own exchange rates in order to recuperate the same 3% is far more disgraceful insofar as I'm concerned.

And, it should go without saying that I despise mandatory DCC far more than either of these practices or FTF.

Why is the receipt pictured in the first image non-compliant? The only time I ever run into a DCC situation is if a merchant presents a receipt to me in USD instead of the local currency. But if the merchant gives a choice between USD & say RMB, and I select RMB, aren't I effectively declining DCC?

No! By the time you receive a thermal slip from BOC or HSBC, the choice has already been made for you.

That is a fair statement. However, I stand by my comment that if you post personally that you abhor DCC, FTF, surcharges, you name it yet charge a recovery surcharge for clients who use a credit card that you're maintaining a double standard.

This can't be emphasized enough. The machine won't honor your "choice" and you'll get hit with DCC on the transaction. There are a few locations such as Taiwan and Thailand where merchants will generate the quote slip, you'll check the appropriate box, and the decision will be honored. In Mainland China, the terminals are not compliant with DCC policies. You need to get them to run the charge through with DCC disabled from the get go.

I care more about transparency/disclosure than anything else.

If a merchant tells me upfront that I'm going to pay x% more than the cash rate in order to use my credit card, all is fair.

If I were a ctrip shareholder (not the case at present), I'd be miffed I knew they were actively losing money by selling plane tickets to foreign CC holders.

FTF is similar (wrt disclosure). It is no longer possible to apply for a cc in the US and not see the FTF policy in print that doesn't require you to squint in order to decipher.