tmiw

Considering that there's a card network mandate coming up in a year or two, many of the holdouts will likely have to replace their equipment long before it would have normally been EOL'd.

I suspect this part will go away as more gas pumps start reading the chip, but that may take a couple of years.

Andy33

As I mentioned before, the UK has a maximum transaction value, set nationally, of £30 for contactless payments. As a result if the majority (or even all) of your transactions are above that value, or are "customer not present", there's no incentive at all to spend anything on replacing a terminal until you're absolutely required to. And UK retail is in poor shape. Store chains are closing down in some numbers or drastically pruning the number of branches. Adding cost is absolutely the last thing they want to do, and I'd expect considerable political kickback against any attempt to enforce a card network mandate unless the card networks bear the cost of changing over terminals.

Analise

The signature hasn't been eliminated for US credit cards. I was just in the UK a few months ago and every time I used my Visa card at a restaurant, for example, I had to sign a slip.

Where is this elimination of signatures in the US? While there are more and more merchant processors accepting chip cards, there are still PLENTY that don't which is rather aggravating.

Also, I've had store employees look at my signature to verify that it matches the card. More often than not, it happens to me in Maine.

tmiw

The stuff you mentioned seems to apply at least equally as well (if not more) to the US, where it took over a decade for chip and signature/nothing to even become a thing--never mind contactless. A lot of this is due to owning terminals being far more common than the leasing that usually occurs elsewhere. Assuming leasing is common in the UK, the costs would basically be borne out by the merchant processors and not the merchants themselves.

Also, keep in mind that contactless purchases greater than £30 are allowed if you pay with a mobile device. That means that merchants commonly performing larger transactions (such as hotels) could likely still gain some benefit from adopting it. And there's always the possibility that it will be allowed for physical cards (with PIN) in the future as well, much like how Australia does it.

It seems to mostly be the larger stores getting rid of signature. I didn't have to sign for a fairly large Sprouts purchase earlier this week, for example. Smaller merchants might very well never implement it considering many never bothered waiving it for smaller amounts in the first place.

As for chip, these days nearly all of my transactions that aren't at restaurants or travel-related merchants (rental cars, hotels, etc.) use it or NFC. YMMV of course.

Andy33

Just returned from a 5 hour shift operating a card payment terminal. In a sample of some 400 card transactions, I was offered precisely one mobile device as a payment method. I offered contactless as an option to everyone at or below the £30 limit. Something like 25% didn't have the contactless symbol on their cards so couldn't take the option, 40% could take it and did, the remaining 35% could have paid that way and refused to do so, preferring standard chip and pin. In my experience, outside of the trendier metro areas there is widespread distrust of the security of contactless on mobile device (mostly because they don't trust the security of the mobile device itself). Indeed a smaller but still significant proportion of the population don't trust the contactless system at all, and there has been no real attempt by card issuers to change this perception. In London things are different because contactless is the basis of public transport fares (either using contactless debit cards or the long-established Oyster smartcards) and people can see how useful it is.
There was a huge effort to promote chip-and-pin when it was introduced, as a significantly more secure system than what came before. This seems to have worked exceptionally well, with the disadvantage that the message has stuck in public memories and many see contactless payments as significantly less secure. I can and do use it myself, but often seem to be the odd one out.

Ldnn1

Indeed in London it's not just accepted but expected - partly because of the Oyster thing as you say but probably also a combination of general city demographics (younger, more tech-savvy) and of course the 'rush' compared to more rural areas.

By way of anecdote, for a very long time a Sainsbury's near me didn't have contactless while all the other supermarkets of course did. Invariably you would see people (including me) trying to tap their card at the machine and being annoyed it didn't work. Eventually they put up ugly notices on the machines saying "NOT CONTACTLESS" to get the message across. Very much an exception to the general rule. They finally upgraded to contactless about six months or a year ago I think.

This is an interesting point since, I would have thought, it does nothing to improve your own security as if your card has contactless enabled then not using it yourself isn't going to stop someone else using it if they get your card. Moreover every time you enter your PIN instead you're at risk of the dude behind you spying on it, so that if they nick your card on the way out the shop they're all set up.

Where was your shift, out of curiosity?

Often1

The US has not eliminated signatures. Rather, the three major issuers, Amex, Visa, and MasterCard have eliminated the requirement. Merchant vendors, e.g. stores and the like, are free to still require a signature and many do. Thus, the US is now largely simply Chip, not & PIN or & signature.

While they will not necessarily lose a dispute over the lack of a signature, some merchants believe, perhaps correctly, that they are better protected with a signature.

It is not worth debating because a merchant is free to require a signature. If he becomes the only merchant to require a signature, it slows down checkout lines, and angers customers, he may lose customers.

More likely, nobody cares.

tmiw

I could see some customers wanting to sign for stuff, actually, much like how many seem to want their IDs to be checked by the clerk. And unlike checking ID, signatures aren't fraught with card network rule issues (among other pitfalls).

ICEROCK

LOL, totally agree, none of my 20 or so credit cards are even signed, so there is no signature to compare. I just draw a circle to check out.

Vegas Vegan

Very basic questions for those more knowledgeable.

I'm going to Europe (Romania, Czech Republic, Poland, Ukraine, Denmark) in 3 weeks. I'm taking my credit union's VISA (only fee is 1% of the converted USD charges) and my Delta Amex Gold (no fee). I have already told both issuers of my specific travel dates. I did request a contactless AMEX, which should arrive this week. Credit union doesn't offer contactless VISA. Both cards already have the chip on them. Do I still need to get a PIN from them as well?

joshwex90

In Paris and Rome, I used a card that absolutely has no PIN (Chase Sapphire Preferred) at unattended kiosks that had been problems in the past, specifically public transportation. No problem - read the chip and paid. No need for PIN or to go to a manned booth.

JBord

I've had hit or miss experiences with kiosks. I'd guess there's some kind of limit where it may not require a PIN?

However, for the poster above, you'll generally have no problems using chip & signature cards in Europe, as long as you're providing the card to a person and not a machine. They'll just have you sign instead of enter a PIN. And also be aware that some smaller merchants may not accept cards, although that seems to be decreasing each time I go to Europe. When there, I always carry enough cash with me to purchase transportation and meals at a decent, average-priced, restaurant. Better to be safe than sorry.

Also, be aware that, in my experience, Visa is accepted much more than Amex.