I believe we all new what their stance was on this... Not really news.

I think I am more concerned with how/when they will enforce this issue. I have never known a complaint form going very far to initiate a solution. I get the impression the Merchant will get a call from visa and say "tis, tis".

800-VISA-911. Easy enough to remember. If I'm ever stuck in this situation I'll request that the merchant call that number. If they refuse I'll insist that the manager do so. If the manager does then not only have they lost a customer but I'll call that number right then and there and file a complaint.

My only point is that according to the legal definition of "Signature", if YOU write "see photo id" on your card, it IS a signature.

@AaronC: You obviously haven't been reading the comments. I'd say that a nice fat percentage of readers assume that each merchant has a drastically different contract with VISA and CAN make showing ID a necessary part of a transaction. Then they bitch and moan about how consumerist is posting biased or worthless stories and a flamewar erupts. This post can only help things.

Dear lord, finally, definitivness.

Isn't this basically the same thing that keeps getting posted every time there's a thread about this?

To me, the issue is not about what the merchant agreement says. But whether or not it's really something to be so freaking upset and paranoid about.

Let's see. Visa gets about 1-3% cut off all credit card sales. In a Wal-Mart store that's hundreds of thousands of dollars a year for one store alone; do you think Visa is going to do much more than "tsk tsk" if a Wal-Mart store asks you for your i.d. and you call Visa pissed? Of course not.

Visa, M/C, and Amex pass almost 100% of the risk of credit card fraud to the merchants. Since the merchant is the one that has to pay for fraud, c.c. companies have no incentive to do anything that would hold back credit card usage. If asking for i.d. would hold back fraud but also reduce overall c.c. usage, then the c.c. companies don't want to ask for i.d.

I don't see why things like this and showing a receipt at WalMart are such a big deal. Show the damn ID or receipt and be done with it. These people waste more time/effort for lots of people over something that shouldn't even be an issue. There ARE issues in this world worth making a big deal about. Using a credit card without showing ID is NOT one of them.

...I knew this already but like mgy said, people THOUGHT they knew what they were talking about.

@Git Em SteveDave: except if you read the VISA merchant agreement, signing SEE ID, ASK FOR ID, etc is not valid and treat the card as an unsigned card.

@Wormfather:

It doesn't mean anything though. I've filed several complaints for minimum charges and ID requirements and the merchant still won't budge.

It's just another "law on the books" that isn't enforced. In my city, not clearing your sidewalk of snow at least 3 hours after sunrise is punishable by prison time. It's the law, but no one ever gets arrested for it.

@stanfrombrooklyn:

You my friend are wrong on so many accounts.

1. The issuers pay fruad, not the merchants. As long as the receipt is signed the merchant is off the hook. Only exception would be if they exceeded the 6% threashold, then they're screwed for a year.

2. I'm telling you, both MC and Visa have compliance departments that do nothing but hand out fines for this type of stuff.

And for the last time, I'm not showing my ID to someone just because they ask, I stopped saying baaaaa a long time ago.

@ChrisC1234: What if they started scanning the ID and retaining the information? Is it OK to ask for a full name, address, height, weight, picture, phone number, birthdate, etc. for marketing purposes? At what point do we say that this is inappropriate?

I don't think I need to show my driver's license to buy groceries. It's a stupid policy. I probably would show the ID to get out of there, and then report them.

@Squeezer99: Their agreement can't override established law, can it? I mean, if they said "x" doesn't count as a signature, but according to law it does, does that mean Visa wins?

Why do people act like it's such a god-given right to not have to show ID, just because Visa's policy says so? If their policy said you have to show ID, would you report merchants for not checking it? Why exactly do people take it upon themselves to enforce Visa's policy for them?

Merchants are trying to prevent fraud, to themselves, and to you in case your card is stolen. Why act like this is some huge infringement on privacy? It's not, and it's helping both the customer and store, so that fraud isn't paid for by legitimate customers in the end. Don't you know that the reason Visa says ID cannot be required, is that they just want CC payments to be as fast as cash? And they're ok with not having to check ID because they don't carry the burden of CC fraud -- the banks and the stores do?

@Squeezer99: I guess you are screwed if your name happens to be "See Id".

*
Is there a direct link to this information?

I have a feeling some people may start trying it and will need to write to the stores corporate headquarters. It would be helpful if we had a direct link to the information for reference in those letters instead of pointing the store's management to go read it on the Consumerist.
Go Consumerist!

@stinerman: A merchant near my house was reported actually, he charged me like $10.35 for a pack of smokes and a vitamin water (Essential orange baby), happened to look at the receipt and saw a $0.50 charge on there and apparently there's a $.50 charge for using a CC for an order under $10. I was livid, made a phone call and it doesnt happen anymore.

I guess it's a case by case basis.

@kepler11: Yes, yes, yes, that's just it, I want my CC transaction to be as fast as cash. Oh and I dont feel like giving anyone any information about me.

"'See ID' is not considered a valid signature. In these situations, a merchant must obtain authorization, review additional identification, and require the cardholder to sign the card before completing a transaction."

Amazing. Is weekend editor Carey going to take back all of those inane "SEE ID!!!" entries she just loves to post?

There is one point everyone seems to be missing: you don't show an ID in order to protect yourself from fraud. Someone can only do only so much if he copies down your CC number, but with your billing address, a mischievous person can make a lot more money.

In order to avoid a scene, I did give someone my ID when she said the manager required it (for my $1.83 no-signature-required purchase). Upon leaving she was writing something on the receipt. What she wrote, I'll never know.

@kepler11: It does not help the customer, because it's not the customer's problem if credit card fraud occurs. It's nothing but a pointless burden and intrusion from the perspective of the customer once you actually take the time to think about whose liability it is. It doesn't benefit me to show ID, so I don't want to. And it definitely does slow transactions down. At someplace that doesn't check IDs, I can use my credit card much faster than cash (my grocery doesn't make you sign if it's under $50).

You all realize that everyone is just looking out for their own best interests, right? Wal-mart (and other merchants) is just trying to reduce chargeback penalties. Visa (and other creditors) is just trying to maximize card utilization.

It's no skin off Visa's nose if your card gets stolen and used at Wal-mart; Wal-mart will have to eat the loss.

Are we really that self-centered and short-sighted that we're willing to pay higher prices just so that we can beat our chests and grunt "privacy" at every opportunity?

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I don't mind that some merchants ask for ID. I'm grateful for the ultimate lower costs this security measure provides. If you don't like it, shop elsewhere. That's your right. At most, expect merchants like Wal-mart to post a notice at the entrance so that you can make your decision before entering the store. But stop screwing with my right to shop somewhere that does ask for ID.

@ChrisC1234: Because it's a CONTRACT, and the consumer/merchant situation in this country has gotten so that consumers are held to totally unreasonable contracts of adhesion which merchants change with impunity at any moment for any reason. It's not remotely unreasonable for consumers to hold merchants to contracts EVEN IF IT SEEMS LIKE A SMALL ISSUE.

And, dude, ID theft? Miss that memo?

After reading this article and the comments, I can see this finally puts the situation to rest.

@witeowl: "But stop screwing with my right to shop somewhere that does ask for ID."

Where exactly is THAT right enumerated?

I had a delivery earlier this week from Pizza Hut. I ordered online, and paid with a credit card.

The pizza arrived, and the driver wanted to see the credit card. He placed the card on the receipt, and was about to rub his pen over it to imprint the entire credit card number onto the receipt. I stopped him and took my card back. I don't want my entire card number with expiration date floating around on a receipt that this driver can copy down, or the store can dispose of improperly (not shredded)

He then wanted to see my licesne (Um, there's no question about my address, you're at my house) so I showed him, and he wanted to write down the license number.

Well, that was it. I had already signed the receipt. I already had my pizza. I told him "no" and closed the door. He lost his tip.

There's a gas station near my house that, when you make a purchase with a credit card, they require you to remove your ID from your wallet, hand it to them under the big glass shield, and then they put the license under a black light to confirm it is valid. This is a $5 purchase for coffee and snacks, for crying out loud.

What's going to be in 10 years? Will we have to remove a hair from our head so they can perform a DNA test before accepting a credit card?

@witeowl: I imagine that Visa and Mastercard have this policy so that the merchant, or the person checking you out, does not have to play the police officer, and as such, they are not legally held responsible for fraudulent charges.

Let's say Visa comes back tomorrow with a press release that states, "Every merchant must now I.D. every customer who has a Visa card. NO EXCEPTIONS." Does that now mean as a customer, if my card is used at their location, that I can sue the check out person for someone else stealing my identity? After all, it was their responsibility to check my ID, and obviously that wasn't me, so obviously they didn't check it.

@stacye: It's not your liability, so I doubt you could sue.

There is no law (unless you VOLUNTARILY present yourself in a situation where it is required - border crossing, airport, bar, etc)that requires anyone to show ID to anyone, including police, unless they are a suspect in a violation of law. A cop can't ask you for ID just 'because', although he can ask you to verbally identify yourself. A merchant has no more rights to than a cop. The credit card company guarantees the payment to the merchant when the card is approved, therefor I won't show any ID to any merchant. They need my business more than I need them.

@Dooley: Actually, they need to take an imprint of the card to show that it was in fact present at the transaction.

At the end of the day, you're screwing you bank. I'm a Bank of Opportunists customer so some days I pray that someone steals my card and charges 10 grand that I'm not going to be responsible for just so Bank of America can eat it.

@Dooley: Nope, the arm tattoo from Idiocracy:

[www.imdb.com]

@johnva: If you charge something on your credit card, are you not responsible for the charges? If a thief charges something on your credit card, are you not responsible for the charges in some way?

You have to take the action to get the fraudulent charges removed. And after all is said and done, you could possibly be stuck with the charges. Or worse, dings on your credit report.

If a lawyer could hold a criminal responsible for any death that occurs while he/she commits a crime (even if they did not kill anyone), then certainly one could make a case for liability.

@witeowl: Some people value privacy more than others. Some people don't want to show ID purely because they are not required to and the store doesn't need to see it. Some don't want to provide another opportunity for identity theft. Some people I know have had problems with stalkers, etc and don't like revealing their home address to random people. Some people find showing their ID more inconvenient. Some don't like how corporate America has been expanding the areas they ask us to give up our privacy rights voluntarily, and want to draw a line in the sand. There are plenty of good reasons not to want to show it, and since we are in the right, we have a right to refuse.

I still don't understand why anyone would actually WANT to show their ID every time they use their credit card, though. There is little evidence that it would increase security appreciably (thieves would just use stolen credit cards someplace they wouldn't have to, like pay-at-the-pump or on the Internet). And it's not your liability if your card is used fraudulently, so you personally don't directly benefit from showing it. I view it as yet another annoying burden on me that is meant to protect someone else. I've got no responsibility to protect VISA or the merchants by giving up my privacy.

If VISA and the store were really concerned about security, they would upgrade the design of the credit card system to actually provide secure authentication. Here's the thing: there are FAR more effective means of dealing with fraud than making everyone show ID. They could use smart cards that are hard to duplicate with a chip inside the cards that participates in an active cryptographic authentication protocol (to reduce the ability to clone cards). They could use biometric authentication, which wouldn't necessarily require you to disclose info like your name or address to the store. They could require all credit cards to use PINs. VISA will do these things if fraud ends up costing them too much money. They don't right now because it would cost so much money to upgrade all the existing credit card infrastructure. But they will someday, most likely. Since it's their liability, it's their decision on when it's cost effective to roll that kind of thing out.

In the meantime, we're stuck with the imperfect system we have. But don't try to make use give up more privacy under the impression it helps security. It doesn't.

@AaronC: I think your "k" key is broken.

@stacye: No, you absolutely ARE NOT responsible for the charges in any way if a thief charges things to your credit card (or rather, your liability is limited to $50, but in practice most credit card companies give 0 liability). This is federal law. Yes, you should report your card stolen immediately if it is (in this post, we seem to be talking exclusively about the physical card being stolen, since that is the only scenario in which this ID checking nonsense could even conceivably help), mainly to save yourself some hassle. But if you report that a transaction is fraudulent, the burden of proof is on the store and the credit card company to prove that it's not, under the law. I've never had any problems getting fraud removed from my accounts.

A simple bit of double standard ..

Go into our local Lowes, buy a few items, use the self checkout with credit card .. no ID required.

Go to the same Lowes and use a live checker .. be ready to show your ID.

At Circuit City, bought a power supply to repair a computer, pulled out my Visa to pay for it. Was asked for my ID, declined to give it, manager got involved and gave me a (paraphrased)"we're required to check IDs on visa cards, it's a policy between us and visa .. we don't have to check if you're using a mastercard though.."

Personally, I've read a bunch of these "don't show ID" articles, and I don't get it. Sure, I understand the desire to protect your privacy, but in my mind, when an associate asks me for ID at a store or whatever, I know that they're just doing their job, and personally I appreciate it! That way we all know that the person using my credit card is me, and I like that, especially since signatures don't mean a thing since the invention of the pinpad. When I can get away with signing my credit card with a picture of 2 stick figures, I'm pretty relieved when someone asks me for my ID.

I don't dispute that there is probably a more effective way of preventing fraud, but for now if showing my ID for 3 seconds helps prevent me from spending 3 weeks trying to get the charges disputed, I'll do it.

@lasereric41: Well, here's the thing. It's not really going to help reduce fraud if your card is stolen unless EVERYWHERE that takes credit cards requires the ID. And that's simply not going to happen, especially since it's against the rules in the first place. Thieves aren't stupid...they will just figure out how to use the stolen card in a way that won't require them to show an ID. They will take the path of least resistance.

And "3 weeks" to get a charge disputed??! Try 5 minutes total every time I've had to do that.

@johnva: You are right on...for the most part.

Visa and Master Card Make the rules. But the banks are their customers. There are two types of banks in this senario (sometimes they're the same bank)

The aquierer who more or less covers transactions for the merchants and represents them to MC and Visa.

The issuer who issues us credit cards and covers us in case of defalt or fraud. If someone steals you card they are on the hook for paying the merchant as long as there was a signature. (Internet, mail order and phone order are a little bit stickier, thus why you always have to give you CVV)

Now make no mistake about it, wide acceptance is of everyones best interest for different reasons (ie consumers spend more on average with a credit card...more sales for the merchant, more interest for issuer, more interchange fees for the visa/mc.

But at the end of the day the Issuer holds more power over Visa and MC, they for all intents and purposes dictate the rules to MC/Visa, reason being because they hold the most power in this whole relationship, without them nobody's pockets get fat. The point I'm trying to make is that the issuers are making money hand over fist via credit cards, then get interest from the cardholder and they get a chunk of the interchange fee from the merchant. And if that wasnt enough there's .002% fee wraped up in every transaction that's an assement fee, what type of assesment you ask, risk assesment. The banks see fraud as a minimal problem, if it got to big, then all the changes you talked about would be done in months, instead they're approving ways of making it easier to use your card.

Oh and the banks loose much more money to defalted cards than they do to fraud. Still and yet, anyone, regardless of credit rating can still get at least a $500 limit on a credit card. It's easy money for them.

Oh one more thing, there is one other senario where the merchant is responsible for the fraud. If it's internal and they're stupid enought to admit it.

Some people are so stupid, I love when they ask for ID, its protecting me and saving me from the hassle of reporting fraud and replacing cards.

I hope everyone gets thier credit card stolen. Everyone.

so... if the merchant calls the cops and i get thrown in jail i can call visa and they will make things right?

listen who cares? Visa isn't going to do anything about an IHOP and certainly nothing about a Walmart harassing you about ID.

So give up really if you don't like it don't shop at those places.

I never shop at Walmart but then i have morals.

@Wormfather: You're correct. It's simply a cost-benefit thing for the credit card issuers. They would implement effective security if the benefit of stopping more fraud was worth the cost to them. It's not, so they haven't yet. But good background.

@xamarshahx: Except that it isn't protecting you much unless every place that takes credit cards does the check.

@Channing: I have, twice, with two different companies (though it wasn't my physical card either time). Each time, it was incredibly easy to get the fraud reversed and new cards issued. I truly don't understand why people think it's such a big deal to have to report it.

@stacye: My wife had her purse stolen from our kitchen table (several years ago) .. It was the credit card companies that notified us of the fraudulent use (MBNA Platinum MasterCard).

We've triggered (several times) credit card company checks just by road tripping and having a drastically alter shopping pattern.

CC companies actively track usage and usage patterns.

The first instance I mentioned was detected when $3000 worth of charges were attempted + attempted ATM use in the space of about 20 minutes.

The second was with my visa debit card when we drove from Salt Lake City -> Reno -> Salt Lake City (about 1000 miles) in a day to pick up a car we were buying. We made so many gas purchases in that short span of time, it triggered the alert.

If someone is so against showing ID, why are they using a card in the first place? Pay with cash. And whatever happened to "My house, my rules"? Don't like store policy, don't shop at that store. Problem solved.

@xamarshahx: Um, if your card is stolen, you're going to have to report it and get a new card eitherway.