Allowing retailer to retain card details for future purchases

Cuthbert,_C

I heard on a radio phone-in that a bank (First Direct ?) has changed T&Cs to state that if you give a retailer permission to retain your card details to speed up future purchases, then if your card details are used fraudulently you must first pursue that retailer for compensation before claiming against the card issuing bank.
Personally I don't store my card details with retailers in this way, if I can avoid it. I do wonder how registering a card with Paypal is regarded.
I can understand how the bank 'feels' about people being too free and easy having their card details stored all over the place, but the rule change sounds like a recipe for long delays in getting money back. And if you've left your card details with multiple retailers which one do you have to pursue?

chattychappy

The devil is in the detail and it isn't very clear what they mean by fraud. CCs have a habit of drafting T+Cs which are unenforceable.

In the case of fraud (eg cloned cards, compromised card details), the fraud is on the CC, not the cardholder because it is the CC's money. The onus is on the CC to prove that you authorised a particular transaction.

In the case you mention, if you have left the card details with a retailer to facilitate future purchases, I would suggest that anything other than a future purchase would be unauthorised.

Cuthbert,_C

Thank you, chattychappy. I take your point that the credit card company is the party suffering the fraud. I suppose the new T&Cs aim to make the card-holder responsible for the credit card company's loss - to indemnify them. I also take your point that the term may be unenforceable, but I wouldn't want to be the one having to go to the trouble and uncertainty of arguing the point. Thanks again.

chattychappy

Cuthbert,_C wrote: »

I suppose the new T&Cs aim to make the card-holder responsible for the credit card company's loss - to indemnify them. I also take your point that the term may be unenforceable, but I wouldn't want to be the one having to go to the trouble and uncertainty of arguing the point. Thanks again.

The emotion of the regulation is that it is cardholder v (CC + merchant). I really can't see anything standing up that is related to the failure of the merchant to take care of stored details.

Actually the whole thing sounds a bit like Continuous Payment Authorities. For a long time after the Payment Services Regs came into force, CCs said that you could only cancel these by going to the retailer. Eventually they had to start accepting cancellations direct from the cardholder.

BUT, I could understand if they are trying to make it clear that if you give your details to Paypal and then buy stuff on Paypal and get defrauded, they won't be responsible for the transactions (because the element of your paying Paypal wasn't fraudulent). A bit like if you get a cash advance and buy a dodgy motor - the CC won't be responsible.