Addition Security using Credit Cards

meer53

Secure Code and VBV are not secure. If i was a small merchant, i wouldn't pay to implement it. You have to weigh up the benefits and i think for small merchants it's probably not really worth it.

If fraud occurs and the card issuer initiates a successful chargeback as part of their investigation, they get their money back from the merchant anyway. So the merchant does pay.

Secure Code and VBV are already being used by those merchants who choose to use it, if there is fraud on your account, you are refunded. What is the point you're trying to make ? I don't really understand why you're asking.

dalesrider

dawnraider wrote: »

My suggestion was that the Merchant should pay for the fraud if they didn’t implement secure code – this would make them, at least, consider using Secure Code.

They do....... You think a bank will stand a loss it can claim back :rotfl:

Its not a opt out for VbV or sec code. Its a opt in and the retailer has to pay for it.

If a company such as Amazon is more than happy to NOT use it, and they are also happy NOT to ask for CVV for every transaction. Then even when VbV etc is used a retailer should still stand the loss if they do not run further checks.
There is as much fraud on retailer who use these systems as one's who do not.
Reason. many people never set it up as they do not do online shopping. As well as many make it easy to guess or get round it.

We are told that fraud is still costing Customers/Card providers many millions of pound a year

It is..... Well not so much card providers as its claimed back. But it costs EVERYONE as the retailers have to build these losses into the price.
The reason for a lot of fraud is simply the staff that are employed at retailer who have access to the FULL card number which is stored on their till rolls and systems.
Until retailers are forced to run full checks on any staff member that has access to these details, will card not present fraud take a large drop.