advertisement
advertisement

GuestView: Credit Unions Argue That Retailers Are Not Penalized When Breached. May I Ask What Planet You Live On?

Written by Steve Sommers
June 7th, 2013

Steve Sommers is the Senior VP for applications development at Shift4 and this is a periodic GuestView on security issues.

A recent story in a popular security newsletter featured a headline that got my blood boiling and when I read the post, things only got worse. The essence of the piece involved the National Association of Federal Credit Unions (NAFCU) asking Congress to create laws to further punish victims of a breach. I assume NAFCU is hoping that whatever fines the government assesses on these merchants will be justly given to the issuers. The upshot is that merchants do not have any skin in the game when they are victims of a data breach. I vehemently beg to differ.

The original storystarted by saying that “banking institutions rarely recover the financial losses they suffer after cards are exposed as the result of a retail breach.” In just the opening line, I can cite four facts that contradict the single point made. First, what are the real costs to the issuer? Key word here, “real” costs, not “inflated for a profit.” Let’s see: $2 for the plastic, $1 mailer, $1 postage, a generous $4 for labor and overhead. That works out to $8 total and these numbers are grossly padded. So why do I see reports by issuers claiming $25-$75 “cost” to replace a card? Can you say exaggerated?

Second, most of the payment card information stolen from merchant breaches is used for fraudulent card-not-present/e-commerce transactions. Most card-not-present fraud is charged back to the merchant even though the issuer issued an authorization code. The issuer has little or no liability for these fraudulent card-not-present transactions. Instead, merchants bear the cost burden. Maybe e-commerce merchants should band together and ask Congress to force issuers to honor the authorization codes they issued–the issuer should be more responsible (and liable) here.

Third, merchants are fined by the card brands for breaches. Reading this post you would think the merchant simply says, “Oops, my bad,” and continues on without penalty as if nothing happened. Wrong. Merchants are fined (technically, their acquirer is fined and then passes it on), not just as the result of a breach, but also as the result of not being PCI compliant (which, in theory, is to prevent a breach).

Since PCI’s inception (and even before), the card brands have argued that the fines paid by a breached merchant (OK, “reimbursement”) are used to cover card replacement and other costs. This would indicate that the issuer gets a significant portion of these fines. If the issuer is not part of the fine revenue stream, then they should take this up with the card brands, not the merchants.


advertisement

2 Comments | Read GuestView: Credit Unions Argue That Retailers Are Not Penalized When Breached. May I Ask What Planet You Live On?

  1. Karisse Hendrick Says:

    As the foremost global organization that fully supports and promotes operational excellence for fraud, security, risk and payment professionals within eCommerce, we agree with the majority of your editorial. However, to clarify, issuers are NOT the only players who detect fraud or breaches. Many eCommerce/CNP merchants have made a significant investment, not just in data security but also in fraud recognition and prevention tools to detect fraudulent activity and purchases prior to delivery of goods or settlement of the transaction. I do not want to down play the role of issuers and instead would characterize the environment as collaborative between both parties. Happy to provide you with additional information at your leisure.

    Karisse Hendrick
    Merchant Risk Council

  2. Steve Sommers Says:

    Good point. My mindset was focused on breach and breach prevention costs. I knew I was missing additional merchant costs but I was experiencing writers block in that section of the post. I briefly touched on this topic with my reference to “little or no liability for these fraudulent card-not-present transactions,” but I did not specify the additional costs to the merchants beyond chargebacks and service/merchandise loss.

Leave a Reply

Readers, specifically those who want to comment on a story:
Our Comment SPAM system is getting very aggressive these days and has been blocking legitimate comments. If you post a comment and don't see it appear within 2 hours or so, can you please send a heads-up to customer-service@storefrontbacktalk.com? Ideally, please include the time you posted the comment. That will allow us to try and hunt for it. Thanks! P.S. We're working on fixing the system, but we don't want to lose any valuable comments in the meantime.

Newsletters

StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 17,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!
advertisement

Most Recent Comments

Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
@David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

StorefrontBacktalk
Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.