Hannaford, Others, Hit By First Data Double-Charging Customers

Written by Evan Schuman
October 7th, 2010

Customers of at least three major retail chains—including grocery chain Hannaford—found their credit and debit cards double-charged on Friday (Oct. 1), thanks to a First Data programming glitch and the processor’s attempt to fix it. The consumers weren’t only charged twice: the retailers were often paid twice.

The glitch happened on Oct. 1, but the ill-fated charges were rung up the day before, as is customary. “Settlement processing was delayed by several hours on Friday due to a technical issue. As a result, some cardholders saw duplicate charges and some merchants received duplicate funding for those transactions,” said a statement issued by First Data. “At this point, the issue has been reversed and duplicate charges are being refunded. Some cardholders should have seen the reversal as early as Sunday evening, but banks have various reversal processes, so some cardholders may experience a delay between the duplicate charge and the reversal on their statement.”

First Data Communications Director Glen Turpin said the incident impacted “multiple merchants” and also said he knew of three chains, but would only mention Hannaford. He wouldn’t describe the nature of the glitch—nor how it happened—other than to say that “it was not a system-wide thing.” Given the large number of chains the processor handles, it was clear that the incident did not impact the vast majority of chains in the network.

The most likely scenario is that a glitch of some kind halted transaction processing and that small portions of transactions were submitted to test whether repairs were successful. Some might have gone through when it appeared that they hadn’t, which would have caused the limited number of duplicate charges.

Given that the impacted transactions included both debit and credit charges from Visa and MasterCard, it could prove to be a powerful example of how much riskier debit cards are than their credit cousins, a lesson that Dairy Queen learned earlier this year.

Even if everything goes perfectly, a credit card double-charge will have little if any impact on the consumer. Once reported, a temporary credit gets issued, ultimately being replaced with a permanent credit. If that identical glitch happens on a debit card, the bank’s reimbursement of the funds is typically much slower because a bank’s reimbursement is much more “real money” than a card brand’s temporary credit.

Much worse, that consumer might bounce a large number of checks and face a lengthy list of legal as well as business consequences (car repossessed? Branded as a check fraudster?), not to mention all of those bounced check charges, both from the consumer’s own bank as well as the banks of people they have written checks to.

And, as Best Buy, Macys and even Starbucks discovered, it’s a lot easier for debit charges to glitch than it is for credit cards.


Comments are closed.


StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 60,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!

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...

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.