Shell Game: Who Should Handle Payment Duplicate File Checks?

Written by Evan Schuman
February 10th, 2011

As new details emerge from Shell Oil’s late January IT glitch that caused some $12 million in duplicate payment-card charges for thousands of its Shell retail stores, the incident is looking less like a store-and-forward situation and more like a glitch with the oldest technique in the retail book: a file of charges handled through batch-processing. This is something that retail IT should have gotten down cold decades ago, a fine example of a process issue.

Shell initially said the double charges were the result of an outage caused by an AT&T telco problem. Then when AT&T declared that it hadn’t suffered any outage, Shell said the outage was internal. Then it appeared that there wasn’t any type of an outage, but merely a file of card charges submitted twice.

After promising interviews with IT managers on Monday and then on Tuesday, Shell changed gears on Wednesday. “The cause of the system issue is considered confidential,” E-mailed Shell spokesman Theodore Rolfvondenbaumen, only a few minutes after he said a different Shell manager was handling the interview arrangements and that he had no update on the status.

But the file-based approach explains much. Shell had said the incident happened on January 29, while customers have reported seeing the duplicate charges on January 29 and January 28. Had it been a file of charges on the 29th, it would almost certainly have included charges from the 28th. Asked if that was the case, Rolfvondenbaumen E-mailed: “That is an assumption. The system issue occurred on the 29th.” If the system issue in question was the double-submission, that fits.

Andy Orrock, a payment consultant for Online Strategies who tracks these types of payment issues, said his reading of the Shell details—including a review of the First Data confidential memo describing the incident that StorefrontBacktalk shared with Orrock—is that it appears to be “a file-based screw-up, meaning that we’re probably talking about credit and offline [PIN-less] debit.”

He added: “Somehow, somebody [at Shell] injected a file into the system twice.”

The problem with that, though, is the same issue raised in the store-and-forward concerns. “Somewhere along the line, these systems are supposed to have duplicate file-checking,” Orrock said. “How robust of a duplicate file check do they have in place?”

The first question, though, is to define “they.” Should these types of a checks have been at the Shell level or the First Data level? Or both?

Checks like this can be done at the retailer level, too, where file submissions are checked against earlier submissions. If something isn’t handled properly, it could be missed. Theoretically, the best place for such duplicate checks to be performed is at the processor. But that’s expensive, and who should cover that cost?

One answer is for more systems to be automated at the retail level, such that there are fewer steps for a human to screw up. That, too, costs money.

As Shell knows, the cost is not merely the additional processing or the hard costs of reimbursing customers who had to pay bank charges for their debit cards. It’s the hit to the chain’s reputation.


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.