Bold. Is it possible that Apple and the card companies have operate under a different, special agreement?

Well, they can post signs saying "All customers must be painted green", but so long as they don't actually enforce the infringing policies at the register, it isn't a violation. I imagine that the informed reader might come armed with a copy of the agreement or of the applicable statute (if the jurisdiction forbids requiring this)...

but then again, who gives a flying... obviously not Apple, anyway... I'll give my money to someone who doesn't think hassling paying customers is good business.

The only way they can legally ask for a photo ID is if the back of your card is not signed...or if you have written "See Photo ID" on the back...

I still don't get it. Apple, like many merchants, are trying to cut losses from fraudulent use of credit cards. They are in effect protecting the customer while protecting themselves.

I have no problem showing my drivers license to help prevent unauthorized use of my credit card. There is no evil intent on Apple's part. Why is this such a hot button for some folks? It's a minor inconvenience at worst.

Why have so many people appointed themself to the role of merchant agreement monitor? If you don't like their policies, don't shop there. Problem solved.

A question: who should pick up the cost when somebody with a stolen credit card buys an Apple computer? Is it the card company that currently pays the price?

@drdom: They don't take a loss even if the card was fraudulent as long as the card was signed and they follow the merchant agreement. Also, its the principle of the thing. When I get a credit card I agree to the stipulations in the credit card contract such as making payments so why should retailers be allowed to violate their side of the contract?

@drdom: Hmm. Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

After seeing so any people get away with using stolen credit cards at the store where I worked (thanks to the merchant agreement everyone is so hot and bothered about), I also wonder what the big fat hairy deal is with flashing some ID.

Honestly - if you're worried that the 14-year-old kid behind the counter is going to take a high-resolution scan of your ID and credit card with their mind, or you're so sexy that the kid is going to memorize your address and stalk you, I'm not sure if privacy is your only problem. Is there something I'm missing here?

@RogueSophist: This is completely possible. When I discovered that my University was charging 2.75% convenience fees on top of tuition payments for credit cards, I called up the Cashier's office and they sent me over a special document from Discover outlining their ability to do so without violating the traditional "merchant" agreement. Then I sent it to Consumerist. Obviously, that was only for government-funded educational institutions, but it does go to show that the merchant agreement isn't the be-all, end-all.

@drdom: The only defenses at some gas stations ( a common usage for stolen cards/cloned cards) is a zip code. An easy way for them to get the zip code that matches the card is to look at a DL. Not to mention the skeevy feeling of having to show papers.

@Amy Alkon: It is the credit card company since they set the rules for the people to follow. As long as those rules are followed they pick up the price. If the merchant doesn't though, then the merchant gets hit, like if the card wasn't signed when used.

@drdom:

Yeah what is the deal here? I wrote "CHECK ID" on the back of my credit card so they DO check my ID. I don't get why this is a bad message.

Is there some law being violated by this sign?

@drdom: Well said. There are many many many more anti-consumer policies than this one. If Apple is violating their merchant agreement I don't know why I should care either. This isn't a B2B consumer website is it?

I. Don't. Care. (what the agreement says)

So long as the merchant isn't writing down the driver's license info (they're not), then flashing an ID reduces the odds of "hot" cards being used. Not eliminates, but reduces.
This is a social good. It's pro-consumer (unless your idea of a great time is spending a half-day sorting out a half-dozen fraudulent charges).
I always thank clerks for asking me to flash my ID when using my card. Credit card companies need to change their policy to allow merchants the option of showing (again, NOT recording) an ID for larger purchases.

You have in no way been wronged if Apple refuses to accept the card. That is an agreement between Apple and Visa or Mastercard. Of course, if they are in violation, Mastercard could deny them using their products in the future, BUT remember how Mastercard gets paid.
I never sign any of my cards, and it clearly states see ID on my card. I have lived through having my card stolen and it discourages use of the card by the criminal.

Even with the card agreement, if someone does not want to show their ID, they are NOT under obligation to sell anything. People do not need to show ID, but if they do not Apple does not need to sell them a product.

Just show the #$#@ ID (or receipt, or whatever other stupid thing people throw a fit about). Cutting down on shrinkage / theft DOES benefit everyone. Personally, I am glad whenever a store is making sure that I am the one using my credit card, because it is ultimately protecting ME.

If you don't agree, why don't you just leave your credit card sitting on a table at your local mall. Then see how much FUN it is to clean up the mess.

@speedwell:
In recent research done by the University of Wisconsin, it was determined that slightly less than 36% of merchants were able to accurately make a decision about the validity of a cardholders signature.

Do you really expect the 17 year old kid working the register at (pick your store) to be a handwriting expert? Merchants are just trying to make a reasonable effort to protect their financial interest, and in the process, it also protects the customer. What's the downside?

Alex, this is nonsense. The civil code section that Meg quoted in the linked post explicitly ALLOWS vendors to require IDs for credit card purchases. If there is any 'violation' (actually breach) of the merchant agreement, the cardholder is not a party to that agreement and has no standing to enforce it. At best, you can report the case to Visa, but they are also free to ignore you. I would also point out that in this credit market, you probably don't want to make too many waves with your bank - tehy are cutting off 'unprofitable' credit customers.

@Trai_Dep: Oh, and credit cards value generating large balances on their cards - or at least transactional fees - over security. That's the only reason they don't adopt this common-sense practice.
Their fees trump your inconvenience and safety. How nice of them...

@drdom: It really doesn't decrease fraud. My photo ID is 11 years old (16), and really doesn't look like me very much at all anymore. I get the cursory can I see your ID and a glance. There is no way the clerks are paying any attention.

Plus getting a fake ID is easier than obtaining fraudulent credit cards (ask any college kid, the best trick is to use out-of-state ID that is hard to verify so that minor flaws aren't noticed). So its another case of non-existant protection. To top it off many cards get used online (including mine a month ago), where there is no ID check at all.

If you actually think the ID check protects you, you should rally give it some more thought.

@drdom: Yeah I might generally be inclined to agree with the NO ID loonies, but I worked in retail for years and ran into so many stolen credit cards it was almost funny. I sign the back of my cards and I am very pleased when I get asked for ID.

Now several years after leaving the retail nightmare I have had my cc numbers stolen - wouldn't have been an issue if the retailers had asked for ID. If you don't like the store's policy - take your business elsewhere, and stop whining about contracts like a little bitch.

@thrid001: Unfortunately, you are violating your card agreement by not sighning your card, and the merchant is bound by said agreement to not accept your card.

I'm not saying this is right - in fact, I think it's COMPLETELY r-tarded.

Those merchant agreements are not worth the paper they are printed on. Locally Kent State U. and the U. of Akron are now charging extra to cover the card fees if you pay for your classes and tuition with a card.

I know for a fact that in the past several months, the Apple stores have been getting hit hard by people using stolen credit cards to buy laptops that are fenced on the street. It was described to me as "kids in a candy store".

So I don't know what the moral outrage is here. Are you actually implying that Apple should stop accepting credit cards for purchases? Who's supposed to eat the cost of the dozens of laptops purchased illegally every week from a targeted store? Is the outrage only because technically what Apple's doing is against the merchant agreement? Because this seems like a sensible step to prevent fraud and so maybe the merchant agreement needs to change.

@ChrisC1234: this frame of mind is the exact reason we have the larger issue in America with out dwindling Constitutional rights (gun control, patriot act, freedom of speech violations). Yes it is must easier to just show the damn ID, but on the simpler side, its against the agreements, they simply shouldn't make you show ID.

Secondly, and more scary, its is this attitude that lets corporations and government get away with a ton of "little things" because they make it such an inconvenience if you don't comply. I prefer to protest with my dollars, any store that makes me show ID when i dont specify they should, i take my business elsewhere.

I don't understand you people that think this is ok. The merchant doesn't get hit if someone steals your card and uses it as long as it was signed (SEE ID doesn't count) and they followed the other procedures specified in their merchant agreement. The fact that it's not a big problem means nothing. When you get a credit card you sign a contract. If you violated that contract you would be held responsible by the Credit card company. I find no problem with making the businesses that signed the other half of the contract responsible for upholding their side of the contract. Whenever I find a merchant that charges a fee or requires ID or any of the number of things that merchants get away with I contact the credit card companies to make sure that they follow the same rules that I do.

Also, about not showing an ID not being a big thing. You don't need an ID of any kind to get a credit card so requiring one to make a purchase doesn't make much sense.

Personally, I don't see a problem with this. What's wrong with Apple demanding that they positively I.D. a customer who is using a credit card? I prefer being asked for my I.D. The last thing that I want to have happen is for my cards to get stolen and then have a merchant allow purchases without asking for an I.D. Why is everyone getting so damned mad about this? I don't get it. Apple should not have to bear the burden of having chargebacks happen when someone makes a purchase with a stolen or unauthorized credit card. What I'm outraged about is that Mastercard and other card issuers would not want an I.D. to be shown. It defies logic.

@drdom: The funny thing is that my old manager told me, after getting in trouble for refusing too many transactions because the signatures didn't match, that it doesn't matter what the customer signs on the slip - the agreement is that the customer signs the card, and we make sure the card is signed. It would not surprise me in the slightest if this were true.

@Amy Alkon:
That's the catch 22. In some cases, the CC company will charge it off against the merchant if they cannot prove they made a "reasonable effort to ensure the identity of the card holder". I have seen cases where they want the merchant to pull the surveillance video to prove that the individual who accepted the card made some sort of check. Again, depending on the individual, it's somewhat unreasonable to expect every retail clerk to be a handwriting expert for checking signatures.

Vendors of higher ticket items such as computers, TV's, electronics etc. tend to get the short end of that stick, although the CC company or bank does absorb the loss in more cases. But not all.

It depends on the specifics of the contract negotiated between larger merchants and either their credit card processing company or their bank. And that agreement can vary from vendor to vendor if you are a large ticket merchant.

Most electronic processing systems validate the status of the card when it is swiped at the point of purchase. But that doesn't account for cards not yet reported lost or stolen.

RE: thrid001 "I never sign any of my cards, and it clearly states see ID on my card. I have lived through having my card stolen and it discourages use of the card by the criminal."

Doesn't this make it easier for the criminal? He/She can sign their own version of your name on the back and then it will compare at the time of purchase. Since the "See ID" note can't be enforced, seems like you're protecting yourself less.

that last Clearinghouse link is screwy.

Just to get y'all worked up even more, a Whole Foods in North Scottsdale AZ requires ID for all credit- & debit-card purchases. I don't mind as I think it reduces the risk of fraud.

I gladly show my ID when the cashier asks for it -- I've got no fraudulent activity to hide. I don't see any reason to get bent out of shape.

I called my credit card company and spoke with a customer service agent and someone from "authorizations." Both said it was perfectly OK for a retailer to require ID. So I see no way for a customer to enforce a contract between a credit card company and a retailer.

Let me see if I get this merchant agreement business straight...

You, as a customer, HAVE TO sign your card. No "SEE ID" nonsense or anything like that.

They, as a merchant, HAVE TO make sure the card is signed. They cannot ask for proof that the card belongs to you.

In fact, they can't say boo if the signatures don't match because, by the time you've signed it, the transaction is complete. This last part I know from 12 years of retail experience.

And this is awesome why... ?

@drdom: b/c there's no indication that this does anything to protect against fraud.

consumers are already protected under federal law (FCBA) & various merchant agreements (such as visa's "zero liability" policy). it is not the merchant's responsibility to enact new policies of questionable worth to "protect the consumer". it is their responsibility to process & accept payment if it meets the criteria in their agreement.

if merchants are serious about reducing fraud, they should train associates to spot suspicious transactions & issue a "code 10" if they suspect fraud.

More than one person I know has been the victim of credit card fraud, so I'm perfectly happy to slide my ID out of my wallet at the same time as my credit card. It takes such a small amount of effort to give myself that little extra bit of potential protection. Other clearly see this as a personal affront of the most heinous nature, and I do wonder if they'll have the same take on this terribly inconvenient policy should someone decide to perpetrate fraud in their name.

@simplegreen: I'd rather show an ID than make it easier for someone to trash my account, credit history and possibly my life, but that's just me. One is so much more of a risk to my personal freedom than the other.

The sign in the picture does not appear to be an Apple sign, it is in wrong color, style, typeface, etc. Look at the other signs at the Apple that are from Apple HQ, they are white with black text in a clear block holder. The pictured sign is clearly very different in look and feel. Therefore, I assume that the local store purchased the sign and it is not an Apple HQ authorized action.

Merchant agreement or not, the bottom line is that we ALL lose when fraudulent purchases happen - I used to be on the 'not showing my ID bandwagon', but then came to my senses - the merchant agreement just doesn't make sense - stores should be allowed to check id because it's in the best interest of the credit card companies and the credit card consumers.

@drdom: Graphology is the study of handwriting; It's the proper name for the area of study of the sort of handwriting expert you see testifying as an expert witness in court.

Graphology is a 2-year college degree, if I remember correctly. That's the level of education you need to have to reliably and accurately determine whether a signature is valid. Most retail stores can't afford to train their clerks, or even managers to that level. So they either leave them untrained, or give them a week's training, or have them read a pamphlet, etc.

How reliable is the opinion of an untrained person? How competent can someone be if their training amounts to a week of classes instead of two years of classes? I know I wouldn't trust a paramedic whose education amounted to reading a pamphlet or taking a 1-week training course...and that's about the level of education and skill we're talking about here.

@unobservant: this is what you're missing:
* a "white card" can have any name imprinted on it & still transmit the correct name.
* these people are cloning credit cards - do you think it's impossible for them to create fake IDs?
* a clerk at the apple store is not trained to know the difference between my fake "john smith" canadian passport that matches my fake "john smith" visa card (which actually transmits the name of "glenda saludavichkovski" who lives in east bumblef*ck, nj)

the whole point of the authorization system is to standardize the payment process & make it easier for merchants to accept trustworthy payment. if it's too much for them, they shouldn't be accepting it.

@kamel5547: Good point. And since homes are burgled despite doors being locked, I'm removing my front door from its hinges today. Thanks!

@drdom: If someone knows the number on the front of the card, they could in theory make fraudulent purchases with it. Add the 3 or 4 digit number on the back and it gets easier. If they know your driver's license number, it gets easier still.

And there's contract angle too...if they are unwilling to honor the contracts they sign with the credit card companies...why should I expect them to honor one they sign with me? Or why should they expect me to honor theirs?

@drdom: I expect the corporate office to arrange to train its employees. Too much to expect, I know.

@qwerty017: correct (almost). visa sets the rules & visa never pays. the credit card company (card issuer) does take the hit. the merchant pays protection money (interchange fees) to compensate for the card issuer's loss. the idea is that the aggregate interchange payments should offset any specific losses due to fraud.

what gets me is that visa sets the rules, creates a payment system that's obviously compromised on various levels, skims money off both the merchant & the issuer & they NEVER get stuck holding the bag. bastards.

This policy isn't new. I was fired from Apple in August for breaking this policy.

@Trai_Dep: misconception.

Hasn't this been BEAT TO DEATH ALREADY. Stay on topic people this is about Apple failing to follow merchant agreement once again. The fact that some of you are okay with flashing you ID or having your bags check at wally world is not what this post was or is about.