That's nonsense, I tip and if you ask for it they will include it in the check, especially in the Netherlands.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Visa Dropping Signature Requirement for Chip Cards and Apple Pay Starting in April
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That's nonsense, I tip and if you ask for it they will include it in the check, especially in the Netherlands.
We have this in Canada as well, but as the article mentions there is a $100 limit for tap and go. As a plus this means that Apple Pay automatically worked right away at all the places that had tap, downside being that the $100 limit still applies for Apple Pay so you have to fish our your card and enter a pin for larger purchases.
It's been rumoured that this card, at least early versions of it, don't support contactless magnetic stripe emulation mode (the older, less secure contactless that all the fraud demos were done doing - though I'll note it is still far more secure than actual magnetic stripe). From what I've heard, it only supports the newer, extremely secure, EMV contactless mode (but I have heard mixed reports - newer cards may support contactless magstripe also). McDonald's and Starbucks are two places in the US that use EMV contactless mode. Macy's also does for Visa, which is what you care about. Try at one of those three shops
Of course, when you're abroad in almost any country with a modern payments infrastructure, practically everywhere takes contactless EMV.
Canadian here. I can't recall the last time I signed when using my credit card within Canada. Only in the US, do they require(d) my signature.
I am from Australia, and work for a company that sells products worldwide, including to customers in the USA. I find it baffling that a backwater like Australia has moved so readily to things like EFT transactions, contact-less payments, and PIN-only c/cards (ie no signatures any more), yet America still favours... a cheque...
In Canada there has been no requirement to sign when using a pin or tap for years. We only have to sign if we swipe the card at some super old terminals or if there is a pin issue.
It’s about time. Most of the time i use 
Pay, I don’t need to sign but there are still some retailers that require signature.
[doublepost=1515793236][/doublepost]
It depends on the merchant. I use only 1 card for Pay and I don’t need to sign on some merchants but others do require a signature.
Pay, I don’t need to sign but there are still some retailers that require signature.[doublepost=1515793236][/doublepost]
It depends on the merchant. I use only 1 card for
Pay and I don’t need to sign on some merchants but others do require a signature.They are available at certain banks. I was able to use a Bank of America/Alaska Airlines Visa to buy Alilaguna tickets (airport to Venice boat) at their kiosk. I used a PIN code that I was able to set with their web site before I left for my trip. However, the card appears to be set to favor signatures whenever that is an option.
In a two week trip I was able to charge exactly 50% of my transactions with Apple Pay, the rest were chip and PIN or swipes.
He meant when will Apple Pay be offered by German banks. The answer is, "When they finally submit to Apple's will."
In Denmark it’s tap and go below a DKK 200 limit and tap and PIN above that limit.
That limit doesn’t apply to Apple Pay. That’s just tap and go no matter the amount.
You have to scribble something on an electronic pad. It's not a receipt.
Meanwhile in Australia...you haven’t been able to sign with a card for years..chip and pin cards have been and gone, almost every single bank card is payWave/PayPass, can pay up to $100 without pin. It is rare to find a retail that does not accept contactless payment. Not to mention there is no limit on Apple Pay..quite regularly pay $300+ on Apple Pay and not needed a PIN number
It's about time! I read another article about this highlighting the pointlessness of signatures. One guy interviewed said that just for fun he would draw two triangles as his signature and no one ever questioned him.
I have the same question. I scanned the rest of the thread and didn't see anyone answer it. My primary card is exactly as you described (according to that site): Signature, no CVM, then PIN. How / why does it ever skip the "no CVM" and go to PIN?
Also, I wonder what will happen as of April when signature is removed in North America? Will North Americans still need to sign (where supported) when traveling overseas?
Well, this is definitely a first-world problem. Here in Mexico we don't even have contactless terminals, let alone Apple Pay...
Regarding PIN vs Signature, currently most of the issued cards work with signature, with a few exceptions using PIN. However, there is a legal consideration here (I don't know if this applies to other countries) that benefits CHIP + signature cardholders over the PIN:
If somehow your card is stolen and used** (there are ways to cheat the system even if you don't know the real PIN) without your notice and before you call the bank to notify them, if the card is CHIP + PIN, you are in trouble, as you have no way to prove the bank it wasn't you (it is assumed the NIP is 100% secure). On the other hand, forging a signature is a punishable crime, so in the same scenario with a CHIP + Signature card, even if the thief makes a doodle when asked for the signature, your bank has to prove the signature is actually yours when you submit a complaint, so basically you are guaranteed to get your money back.
Anyway...I wish we had Apple Pay
[doublepost=1515808711][/doublepost]
Signature requirement depends on 2 factors: issuing bank and the acquirer bank (merchant). Let's say you have a card that supports NIP, but you go to a merchant whose acquiring bank hasn't developed the technology required to process the NIP. In that case, if your card doesn't allow a fallback to signature, you won't be able to finish your purchase.
It's the same scenario that Americans lived when magnetic stripe was (finally) phased out in favor of EMV: their magnetic stripe was still good in places or countries that were not EMV-ready yet.
In few words, it depends more on the actual technology used by the issuing and acquiring banks, and less on factors like practicality or convenience.
Regarding PIN vs Signature, currently most of the issued cards work with signature, with a few exceptions using PIN. However, there is a legal consideration here (I don't know if this applies to other countries) that benefits CHIP + signature cardholders over the PIN:
If somehow your card is stolen and used** (there are ways to cheat the system even if you don't know the real PIN) without your notice and before you call the bank to notify them, if the card is CHIP + PIN, you are in trouble, as you have no way to prove the bank it wasn't you (it is assumed the NIP is 100% secure). On the other hand, forging a signature is a punishable crime, so in the same scenario with a CHIP + Signature card, even if the thief makes a doodle when asked for the signature, your bank has to prove the signature is actually yours when you submit a complaint, so basically you are guaranteed to get your money back.
Anyway...I wish we had Apple Pay
[doublepost=1515808711][/doublepost]
Signature requirement depends on 2 factors: issuing bank and the acquirer bank (merchant). Let's say you have a card that supports NIP, but you go to a merchant whose acquiring bank hasn't developed the technology required to process the NIP. In that case, if your card doesn't allow a fallback to signature, you won't be able to finish your purchase.
It's the same scenario that Americans lived when magnetic stripe was (finally) phased out in favor of EMV: their magnetic stripe was still good in places or countries that were not EMV-ready yet.
In few words, it depends more on the actual technology used by the issuing and acquiring banks, and less on factors like practicality or convenience.
The cards available now use the same protocol that Apple Pay uses. The ones issued a decade or so ago had some differences but I can't recall what they were at the moment. I imagine that distinction isn't going to matter much to most people who are against contactless cards though.
I should clarify. A lot of places aren't able to detect that a phone was used even if they wanted to. That's because their POS systems treat Apple Pay as a magstripe transaction with all of the same policies.
However, if those POS vendors and systems supported the latest contactless standards, they could. That requires money and effort though, so that kinda fell by the wayside while chip was being implemented.
Also keep in mind that for the few cards that support chip and PIN, they're generally required to ask for it if the store wants to avoid the additional lost and stolen liability shift. That's why a lot of places will waive signature for small amounts but require PIN for a $2 purchase.
In short, the store might not be in as much control as people think. At least getting rid of signatures might be less trouble to implement than CDCVM*.
* I suspect we'll still be signing for quite a while after April considering how slow things move in the POS space. But who knows?
oh, hellllll no. i already had to cancel my Target card when they went chip and PIN. the chips are already so incredibly slow and inefficient, i certainly don't want to ALSO have to use a PIN. no thank you.
It's likely manned vs unmanned vs international. It'll require a a sig at a store or other manned terminal first. No CVM if at a gas station pump (or something similar) in the US. But international, Signature and then PIN. It all depends on what the bank & terminal require. The site just lists the order in which it cycles through.
I assume these will change w/ the new no-signature requirement.
[doublepost=1515814352][/doublepost]
It's really only slow because US banks use different PIN technology (online) that requires a check w/ the bank. A proper Chip & Pin (offline) card does not take that long because the pin is stored on the chip. When I use my true Chip & Pin card even here in the US, it's much faster. http://www.collinconsulting.co.uk/o...-chip-in-the-us-the-case-for-offline-pin.html
[doublepost=1515815065][/doublepost]
If you travel overseas often enough, get one of these: http://www.spotterswiki.com/emv/cardsearch.php?feature[]=ftf&feature[]=offline_pin&priority=pin&type[]=credit&type[]=debit&type[]=prepaid
Last edited:
[doublepost=1515815758][/doublepost]I agree this has been the process in the past, but the signature on the back of the card has nothing to do with protection against identity theft and was never designed to be a signature comparison mechanism. The signature means you agree with the terms of the card, nothing else. It's been misunderstood for years.
Visa today announced it will eliminate its signature requirement for EMV payments beginning April 2018 in the United States and Canada.
The change will apply to both chip-and-signature credit and debit cards, and contactless payment solutions like Apple Pay when linked to a Visa credit or debit card. The change is designed to allow for a more consistent, streamlined, and quicker checkout experience for both merchants and cardholders.
For years, customers have been required to sign the receipt when making a purchase to verify they own the debit or credit card they are attempting to use. A cashier is supposed to match the signature on the receipt against the one on the back of the card, but in reality, this process is often skipped nowadays.
Currently, even when using Apple Pay, a signature can be required on occasion for purchases over $25 made with a Visa card in the United States. But with EMV technology and other modern safeguards, Visa is now moving to fully eliminate this requirement, in line with Mastercard, American Express, and Discover.
The signature requirement is already much less common in Canada, where customers insert their chip card into a payment terminal and verify ownership by entering a four-digit PIN. You also can't use contactless payments for transactions over $100 in Canada (update: excluding American Express -- thanks Gary Ng!)
Visa says its partners have deployed EMV-chip enabled readers at more than 2.5 million locations around the world. Less than two years since the technology launched in the United States, counterfeit fraud declined 66 percent at EMV-chip enabled merchants, according to the company.
Merchants will remain able to collect signatures if required to do so by an applicable law in a particular jurisdiction.
Article Link: Visa Dropping Signature Requirement for Chip Cards and Apple Pay Starting in April
Having said that, the retailer is not supposed to accept payment unless the card is signed, meaning you must agree to the terms of the card before using it. I have never met a retailer who knows this. Do some research and you'll find this to be true.
"A cashier is supposed to match the signature on the receipt against the one on the back of the card, but in reality, this process is often skipped nowadays."
Because when you try and hold people to those standards it backfires. I used to work retail long ago, and I'd occasionally get a card that was completely unsigned. The card is not valid without a signature -- it's right on the damn thing. People would say they didn't want to sign it because they wanted their ID checked. I'd tell them they need to write "SEE ID" or something similar on it then. I'd point out as it is now, if their card was lost/stolen someone could just sign the card with their version of the customer's signature, and that would make the holder's efforts to improve their safety moot. Also, there would be people who try to come through and pay with a spouse's card and "sign for them" . That's not how this works either. The cardholder is only the person whose name is on the card. It doesn't matter if you're their spouse -- and it's not like I can verify you really are their spouse right there at the POS system. Retail employees are generally treated like dirt. If the customer raises a fuss about this, whose side do you think the manager is going to be on?
No, employees today aren't "less trained", they're just looking out for themselves. Easier to keep your head down and let the banks deal with it when there's a fraudulent purchase, than getting fired for making it hard for customers to give the store their money (which is how the business will view it).