advertisement
advertisement

This is page 2 of:

Will Visa’s Support For EMV Mean Fewer QSAs?

August 10th, 2011

What TIP says is that after next October, a merchant meeting the program requirements does not need to re-validate its compliance. In other words, participating merchants are on the honor system for PCI. They neither need a QSA to assess their compliance, nor do they even need to file a self-assessment questionnaire (SAQ). In the past, when the card brands wanted merchants to introduce new technology, they offered incentive (i.e., lower) interchange rates. This time, Visa is offering no interchange fee discount. Instead, the incentive is the opportunity for Level 1 and some Level 2 merchants (those with more than one million Visa transactions a year) to reduce the cost of their outside assessment. Bottom line: TIP doesn’t cost Visa or its issuers a penny.

Before, issuers paid for merchants to implement new technology (e.g., TIIF and TIIF2 incentive interchange rates). Now they are saying, “Hey, we’ll keep the interchange but save you having to pay QSAs. But if you get breached, the same fines apply.” Neat. They’re transferring who pays.

It is unclear what benefits TIP holds for small and midsize merchants. These merchants self-assess their compliance. If they hire a QSA, it usually is to consult on improving their security, so TIP by itself may not be a particularly significant incentive for these merchants to make the investment in EMV compatibility.

A separate bulletin announced a liability shift that was similarly designed to stimulate implementing an EMV infrastructure. It is this liability shift that may prove to be the incentive that gets every merchant to move.

Effective October 2015, the liability for any U.S. counterfeit transaction (domestic or cross-border) will shift to “the party that is the cause of a chip-on-chip transaction not occurring.” That means a merchant or acquirer that does not make the investment in EMV dual-interface terminals and infrastructure, or an issuer that does not move to chip cards, will be on the hook financially for all card-present fraud.

This point is worth repeating: Merchants, acquirers and issuers that are not capable of processing EMV chip transactions in four years will eat all POS fraud losses. Here’s my simple-minded interpretation of the liability shift: Every cardholder in the U.S. will have an EMV chip card in about four years.

The three themes in Visa’s plans are improving security, speeding the acceptance of mobile payments and accelerating changes in the U.S. infrastructure to enable EMV technology.


advertisement

Comments are closed.

Newsletters

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!
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.