Online shopping account address, doesn't match bank card address

Mattonlaptop

Hi all,

For example, if you have an account with amazon and the address on your account does not match the address where your credit / debit card is registered, should this cause a problem?

The reason I ask is that if a retailer is taking a card not present transaction, and the address verification service does not match the address's of the card and the address they have on file for customer, there is a risk of fraud.

Could the customer make a complaint to the retailer for not stopping the transaction until the files are updated with correct information?

Of course it is the customers responsibility to maintain correct address information, but does the retailer have any responsibility to make sure fraud does not occur if the address's do not match.

Thanks,
Matt

manami_mnm

Not all seller utilize address checking. You can send to different addresses in many occasions like sending to your workplace or sending to a friend as a gift.

InsideInsurance

A retailer will simply get a discount for using AVS and rejecting payments where AVS doesnt match. You also have to remember how basic AVS is and even that there are two levels of AVS checking.

Retailers are perfectly entitled to take a higher fraud risk and pay higher merchant fees if they want to.

Now a customer could complain if the merchant allowed fraud to happen, there is no grounds for complaint if the merchant has behaviours that could increase the risks of fraud. If there was we'd all only ever be allowed to have items delivered to our home addresses, have to send 3 copies of proof of ID and have to personally sign for it and show ID otherwise it couldnt be delivered.

There are certain addresses which are more prone to failing AVS than others (flats, particluarly those in scotland, houses with names etc). You can partially mitigate this by only allowing addresses in the Royal Mail PAF files to be used but then you potentially lose more legitimate customers

Mattonlaptop

InsideInsurance wrote: »

A retailer will simply get a discount for using AVS and rejecting payments where AVS doesnt match. You also have to remember how basic AVS is and even that there are two levels of AVS checking.

Retailers are perfectly entitled to take a higher fraud risk and pay higher merchant fees if they want to.

Now a customer could complain if the merchant allowed fraud to happen, there is no grounds for complaint if the merchant has behaviours that could increase the risks of fraud. If there was we'd all only ever be allowed to have items delivered to our home addresses, have to send 3 copies of proof of ID and have to personally sign for it and show ID otherwise it couldnt be delivered.

There are certain addresses which are more prone to failing AVS than others (flats, particluarly those in scotland, houses with names etc). You can partially mitigate this by only allowing addresses in the Royal Mail PAF files to be used but then you potentially lose more legitimate customers

Thanks for the reply, for instance what about if the purchase was made for something which wasn't delivered such as a train ticket or online gaming?

InsideInsurance

Mattonlaptop wrote: »

Thanks for the reply, for instance what about if the purchase was made for something which wasn't delivered such as a train ticket or online gaming?

In what sense?

Things like AVS, 3D Secure, CCV etc are all supposed to be automated checks to increase security for which vendors get a discount in their merchant fees. Even if they have all these they can still be victims of fraud and lose their money as a consequence.

Even for train tickets and gambling they could if they want introduce other checks outside of the credit card system. They could do an automatic Credit Reference Agency ID check which would come back with a confidence factor of if you are who you say you are. They could ask for past addresses etc to make the CRA check more accurate. They could also do manual checks like asking for copies of governmental ID etc.

You have no grounds for complaint simply because a merchant doesnt use every possible method of counter fraud - the strongest of which is to stop their business. Your only ground for complaint is if you are an actual victim of fraud but that can happen no matter the level of security they use.

Mattonlaptop

InsideInsurance wrote: »

In what sense?

Things like AVS, 3D Secure, CCV etc are all supposed to be automated checks to increase security for which vendors get a discount in their merchant fees. Even if they have all these they can still be victims of fraud and lose their money as a consequence.

Even for train tickets and gambling they could if they want introduce other checks outside of the credit card system. They could do an automatic Credit Reference Agency ID check which would come back with a confidence factor of if you are who you say you are. They could ask for past addresses etc to make the CRA check more accurate. They could also do manual checks like asking for copies of governmental ID etc.

You have no grounds for complaint simply because a merchant doesnt use every possible method of counter fraud - the strongest of which is to stop their business. Your only ground for complaint is if you are an actual victim of fraud but that can happen no matter the level of security they use.

For online gaming if the merchant allows a card to be used which has a different to address to the registered address, are they not accepting a 3rd party cardholder deposit, which they are not allowed to do.

InsideInsurance

Mattonlaptop wrote: »

For online gaming if the merchant allows a card to be used which has a different to address to the registered address, are they not accepting a 3rd party cardholder deposit, which they are not allowed to do.

Why because AVS doesnt give a match does that mean its a third party deposit? My mother will always fail full AVS checking where they allow free text entry of the address because she refuses to put the house number and only types the house name and street name but her bank do hold the house number.

Gambling companies (and insurers) of all companies should be good enough at working out the odds of the risk of accepting dodgy cards -v- the lost business of declining cards.

Years ago I introduce AVS, CCV and 3D Secure to a website for an insurer. Their new business chargeback rate prior to introducing these was around 0.5%. After introducing these it dropped to about 0.1% however they found that an extra 2% of people got to the price screen and didnt proceed to pay and so net they were down 1.6%. Of cause you then need to balance this against how much they were saving on merchant fees