Hacker News Reader

Comment by pbreit | Hacker News Reader

Because it's a massive cost for almost no gain.

Errr, did you read the part where fraud has dropped massively? And liability is more clear-cut and reasonable for pretty much all parties?

--edit-- and did you think us Europeans just rolled it out for shits and giggles?

> And liability is more clear-cut and reasonable for pretty much all parties?

Meaning shifted entirely to the consumer?

No, the merchant takes reasonable liability - if they permit non-EMV transactions (in a customer-present scenario) they assume the risk.

Under law in much of Europe, the consumer is not under much risk. In the UK (for example) the credit card provider is legally a party to the debt and has a responsibility to refund the consumer on demand if the consumer is willing to state (in a legally binding way) that the transaction was not authorised by them. Debit cards are governed by different rules that amount to much the same, though the legal protections are weaker.

EU law shifts pretty much all liability away from consumer.

There's a cap of EUR 150 consumer liability for lost&stolen (physically) cards up until you notify the bank; zero liability for lost&stolen cards after the time of notification, and zero liability for any fraudulent transactions if your card isn't lost or stolen.

Only UK law (and MC/Visa rules for UK) is a bit different, but another poster describes them below.

Plus depending on whether the terminal allowed chip and pin, and the card had a chip the liability is shifted between the merchant and the bank.

Credit card fraud is generally not a problem in the US for consumers or the credit card companies, the two groups that would be in a position to adopt a new credit card technology. The merchants accept all the liability in the US credit card system, and they're at the mercy of the credit card company's policies, and the consumer's desire to use their card of choice or go somewhere else. As a consumer, I avoid cash-only businesses, and even tend to frequent ones that accept my card of choice (Discover) over those that only accept the cheaper cards (Visa/MC.) Businesses know this, and they're willing to accept credit cards so that they can earn most people's business.

Thankyou, that's an explanation that makes a lot of sense - the poor schlubs at the sharp end are not in a position to make changes.

The merchants generally do have the liability for fraud, but ultimately this "cost of doing business" is reflected in higher prices to the consumer.

But the consumer doesn't notice.

I love cash-only places. You know all your money is going to the hard working people making your sandwich instead of the big four credit card corporations.

You mean, instead of Uncle Sam.

Exactly, just more for Uncle Sam. At least credit card companies are re-investing their profits to cut down fraud and try to make money transfer easier in general. Could they be doing more? Of course, but the CC corporations have done a lot of good, even for the little SMB / mom & pop shop. The transaction rates these companies charge is very low, and that's all thanks to the competition that has driven down the price over the years

for almost a second I thought you were serious.

>You know all your money is going to the hard working people making your sandwich instead of the big four credit card corporations.

In reality, much of your money is going to huge companies that supply their products, like Sysco.

That was exactly the same in Europe. Yet the bank pushed EMV hard.

And the EMV transition has been going on behind the scenes in the US for years too, so expect to start getting cards with a chip as your cards expire over the next couple of years.

I don't know about the US, but professional swipe-card fraud is something that the average European will typically have read about in their local newspaper by now.

It is extremely common.

@virtuz - you are hell-banned

Ref: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6735258

Do elaborate on "no gain".

A few basis points.

You'll have to dumb it down, I have no idea what this means.

One basis point = one hundredth of a percent

if by that you mean no gain to the financial institutions who get a cut whether fraud happens or not, they yeah. No big gain for them = not happening.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com