EMV Liability Bullshift
In October of 2015 some US payment networks started implementing EMV fraud “liability shifts”. Reading through the rules governing this program is enough to make anyone’s head spin trying to decipher the code and as a business, I’m sure are aware of it so I won’t bore you further.
I have rarely EVER lost a chargeback to fraud, even with many stores on the Las Vegas strip in Nevada! The only instances where the cases were valid is when the customers bank provided proof that the customer was in fact in Australia at the time or the customer purposefully signed with a non-recognizable signature. (I actually had a customer insist they were not in Las Vegas at the time yet they provided their statement highlighting the specific charge. The entire page was ALL Las Vegas purchases including the airfare to and from their hometown! Ooops!)
If you’re a grammar Nazi like me, you’ll notice two words used interchangeably within the Chip Liability Bullshift program.
“Capable” vs. “Enabled”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but they have two different meanings according to the English dictionary that the policy was written from. They are all referring to the same device, not a person.
Enable: v. To make ready, equip.
Capable: adj. Having the ability or capacity for.
Different processors will refer to an EMV chargeback as either:
“The card was not run an a chip capable device” or “The card was not run on a chip enabled device.”
Ok, here’s the deal. Like millions of merchants worldwide who are now impatiently waiting for their devices to be “enabled”, we are still losing money. A chip read device is NOT a plug and play item because it’s software must be authorized prior to it being able to process chip cards. Then it becomes “Enabled”. Until then, its only “Capable”.
I will continue to fight our processor and keep all records since they insist on telling me that they are keeping my money because my machine is not “Capable”. YES it is! Even after a ridiculous amount of phone calls to this processor, none can answer my question. They simply don’t know.
Furthermore, to tell me a “Fraud” complaint has no further recourse is absurd. ANY fraud complaint previous to this liability bullshift had representment rights. They have taken our rights away giving full power to the consumer to abuse. Just because a chip card is swiped does not automatically mean the card is a duplicate. So much for protecting the merchant!
This use of the wrong word here could prove fatal in the end when someone starts a lawsuit.