pa3lsvt

There is a difference between allowing someone to ASK for ID and allowing someone to REQUIRE ID.

Once, a clerk was flirting with my wife as I stood behind her at a check-out counter. At first it was humorous (I'm not the jealous type), but when he asked for her "phone number for the transaction" I stepped up and shot that down and informed him that I was paying.

He then asked for my ID when I presented a properly signed Visa card. I refused. He told me that he was required to ask for ID by his manager.

My response: "Your Visa merchant agreement does not allow you to require ID for this transaction."

Clerk: "I am required to ask you for ID. My manager told me I have to."

Me: "You can ask all you want, but I'm not providing it. You or your manager should read your Visa merchant agreement some time. Now, are you going to sell us these <items> or do I have to come back and speak to your manager personally?"

I was told that he would proceed "as a one-time exception" but next time he wouldn't. So now we don't shop at Work 'N Gear in Glenolden, PA - not a big loss for us.

sdsearch

Well, it also says they're only not allowed to require ID "for Visa acceptance".

But if they require ID also for Amex or Discover aceptance, which Amex and Discover allow, then they can say the require ID for all cards, not specifically just for Visa, and then they many lawyers would likely say they are not violating the Visa agreement.

Ie, by saying "for Visa acceptance", the Visa rule against requiring ID has no teeth at all, since the merchant can say the requirement is for some other reason than specifically "for Visa acceptance".

Ie, Visa does not bar the merchant from requiring ID for any other reason.

mikesyr18

But then again there's no point in asking if it's not a policy.

You must have the patience of a saint. I wouldn't have been so nice.

kayanco

Here's my USPS data point:

I went today and used an unsigned card for my transaction. They never looked at my card to see if it was signed or not, just like any other store.

kayanco

Can you share what would you do in this situation?

Thanks.

Sorry about that, it's my bad.

It's the former. Somehow I missed using reply which would have quoted the previous comment.

I've fixed this. Thank you.

EmailKid

Actually ....

You missed using Quote, as Reply does not include the quote while clicking Quote does.

But you obviously know that, as you were able to do it this time.

mikesyr18

I can't put that information on the forums.

javabytes

Merchants are not forbidden from asking for identification, but if you refuse, they may not decline to process the transaction on the Visa card. The exceptions are merchants who have been explicitly authorized by Visa to require ID for fraud protection purposes, as well as the established procedures for an unsigned card or when the signature does not match the card. It does not matter what the merchant requires for Discover/Amex cards, and a blanket "we require ID for all cards" is not in compliance.

sdsearch

And Visa has what enforcement teeth for this?

It sounds about as binding as a speed limit on a California freeway.

So we can debate when it should apply and when it shouldn't apply in theory, but the practice doesn't always fit the theory, and I don't see what's going to change that.

javabytes

Anything up to and including the ability to end that merchant's ability to accept Visa cards. In practice, I'm sure Visa does not respond to an individual violation. I tend to doubt many people file complaints when asked to see ID (many consumers even seem to appreciate it), so it would greatly surprise me if there were many circumstances in which it ever rose to the level of a pattern of complaints on which they would act either. However both Visa and MasterCard allow consumers to report merchant violations in these situations.

In practice, it allows me to decline to show my ID. 80% of the time it's not a problem. In 20% of the cases, the cashier decides they need a manager, and after discussions with said manager, the transaction proceeds. I've never had a merchant ultimately decline to process the transaction.

tmiw

I'm not surprised; I've heard a lot of people say that the chip was completely pointless because PIN wasn't made required, for example. Showing ID could be seen as an "improvement" from that perspective.

txflyer77

If you plan to travel to New Zealand, sign your card. More than one merchant down there compared my card signature, receipt signature and *passport* signature, even on small transactions. I would say 15-20% of merchants I encountered at least looked at the signature on my card.

A serious level of paranoid by merchants there.

kyanar

From my memory, this is because what you describe is actually a recommended practice for credit card acceptance by the acquirer banks. New Zealanders are generally instilled with a distrust of any card you can't just tap and walk away, or enter a PIN. Remember, if the transaction is charged back they're on the hook for the cash so they generally aren't happy to accept a transaction where liability shift does not apply.

The_Bouncer

I had no idea when I wrote my above comments, how pertinent they would be.

My credit card was hacked again a few days ago, this time due to a "data breach". My bank is being very secretive about what has actually happened, but apparently my card details were found at a "point of compromise".

One thing I am absolutely certain of however, is that this has absolutely nothing to do with the presence or absence of a scribbled name on the back of the physical card.

The fact is, credit card fraud is going to happen. It is a fact of life and you cannot prevent it.