You are correct - retailer are liable for fraudulent transactions on chip-enabled cards but where PIN entry is not used and olde-fashioned signature is used instead. The bank/card issuer will remain liable for fraud which occurs on transactions where a PIN was successfully entered.
If the retailer hasn't installed chip and PIN hardware then they're liable for all fraud on chip enabled cards.
Slashdot Mirror
Imagine a wireless beowulf cluster of those babies....
Yeah, terrible. Ask for your /. subscription fees back.
You are correct - retailer are liable for fraudulent transactions on chip-enabled cards but where PIN entry is not used and olde-fashioned signature is used instead. The bank/card issuer will remain liable for fraud which occurs on transactions where a PIN was successfully entered. If the retailer hasn't installed chip and PIN hardware then they're liable for all fraud on chip enabled cards.
>I'd much rather see them go with a lead-bismuth breeder. Yup, had one under the stairs for years - no problems so far.
Is 'asshat' a real word in murica ?
You Sir, are bang on the money with that post.