Little-Used One-Time-Use Cards Might Have IT Payment Impact

Written by Evan Schuman
July 23rd, 2009

A little discussed, rarely-used card offering from Bank of America and Citi—plus a few others—is something retail payments people should get to know. The product is a one-time-use so-called virtual card, where a consumer uses the card to make a single purchase and then deactivates it.

The downside for consumers is that they need to create a new card for almost every purchase they wish to make, which is far more effort than most consumers want to expend for a payment card. The upside, though, is a dramatically more effective shield against identity fraud, false charges and semi-legitimate retail charges from companies that make it awfully difficult to cancel the recurring fees.

But the cards, sold by Bank of America under the ShopSafe name, were created about a half-decade ago—along with zero-liability programs—to make consumers more comfortable with E-Commerce. Zero-liability certainly caught on and helped increase consumer comfort levels, but the virtual cards never took off nearly as well. “The cards have not caught on because consumers have gotten more comfortable with buying on the Internet,” the Baltimore Sun quoted CEO Bill Hardekopf as saying. “They also have no serious marketing behind them and there’s the matter of having to go on the Internet and generate a new number or set up restrictions for each purchase.”

But what if that changes? Could fraud and repeating charge issues make these cards more popular? Could mobile commerce—which will test anew consumer comfort levels—create a second opportunity for them?

The bigger issue is “What if it does?” This system could cause serious chaos for retail IT. First, it could force the tracking—capture, storage—of a far greater number of card numbers. Just what the PCI doctor ordered.

Marketing will also share in the pain, as the typical—albeit unauthorized—assumptions that tracking a credit card of customer #1234 pretty much tracks customer #1234. That assumption—and all of the data decisions that hang off of that—would be tainted.

Marketing systems would suddenly interpret the data as meaning that customer satisfaction is plummeting, as repeat purchases plunge. In reality, repeat purchases might be as strong as ever, but single-use cards would fool the system into thinking that all of these new customers (who weren’t really new customers at all) were buying one item and never returning.

On the plus side, widespread use of these cards could favorably impact card data protection issues, as stealing credit card numbers would start to become much less profitable. (And, yes, if it causes pain to software vendors that continually charge a card, despite requests to stop, well, we could live with that. Quite happily, actually. And, yes, Intuit, we’re talking about you.)


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.