Hello, Orchid
Below is the citation regarding credt-holder ID. Basically, the
citation means that either the signatures match, or the cardholder
must provide ID. A magnetic strip must be accompanied by a numeric
code or password, the strip itself is not sufficient. A caveat, this
is all I could find on short notice, there may be more in-depth,
more up-to-date, and more accurate elsewhere. In other
words, I could be incorrect on this matter.
At first blush, it appears to me that the Visa policy, possibly
out-of-context in a prior post, possibly refers to merchants
refusing a card with matching signatures because the card holder
didn’t have ID with them.
For those who don’t know (and I didn’t until my paralegal training)
regulations adopted by agencies such as the FTC and FCC are laws.
Under the federal law, agencies are allowed to created laws
(regulations) governing situtations specific to those agencies,
simply because Congress (believe it or not) can’t regulate
everything. People in violation of these regulations are subject to
penalties.
For CYA purposes, I recommend asking for ID, and checking
signatures. All you are doing is making sure you are in compliance
with FTC regulations
OK, the wildly boring stuff:
This paragraph is from Regulation Z, of the Federal Trade
Commission Code of Federal Regulations.
Paragraph 12(b)(2)(iii).
1. Means of identifying cardholder or user. To fulfill the
condition set forth in 226.12(b)(2)(iii), the issuer must
provide some method whereby the cardholder or the authorized
user can be identified. This could include, for example,
signature, photograph, or fingerprint on the card, or electronic
or mechanical confirmation.
2. Identification by magnetic strip. Unless a magnetic strip (or
similar device not readable without physical aids) must be used
in conjunction with a secret code or the like, it would not
constitute sufficient means of identification. Sufficient
identification also does not exist if a pool or group card,
issued to a corporation and signed by a corporate agent who will
not be a user of the card, is intended to be used by another
employee for whom no means of identification is provided.
3. Transactions not involving card. The cardholder may not be
held liable under 226.12(b) when the card itself (or some other
sufficient means of identification of the cardholder) is not
presented. Since the issuer has not provided a means to identify
the user under these circumstances, the issuer has not fulfilled
one of the conditions for imposing liability. For example, when
merchandise is ordered by telephone by a person without
authority to do so, using a credit card account number or other
number only (which may be widely available), no liability may be
imposed on the cardholder.
On this last part, MAYBE-this revision dates to 1982, it would seem
that perhaps a merchant could challenge a credit card holder’s
charge-back in these circumstances. Maybe in cases like these, your
customer could fax a signature or driver’s licence. This paragraph
is only idle speculation, and not intended to be used as a defense
or for legal purposes.
Sin Cere,
Susannah Page-Garcia
Moonshine Metal Creations