Except you can literally draw a poop emoji as the signature and it’ll be happily accepted. How would that signify intent at a later dispute investigation?

You are correct. But it still signifies intent. Just like illiterate people use an "X" for their signature, even if their name isn't X.

No it doesn't signify intent. The signature on the slip should match the signature on the back of the card. This is how the retailer knows the purchaser is the authorised user of the card. So unless the card as a poop emoji in it the card holder can deny the transaction based on non-matching signatures.

I use X every time and only once was I stopped (Home Despot).

>I use X every time and only once was I stopped (Home Despot).

Just like sometimes you get a clerk who won't take a $2 bill. Nothing will ever trump human ignorance.

X is a legal signature, they can't choose to not accept it.

They can refuse your transaction for whatever reason they want, it's their business. If you give off any vibe that the card might be stolen, then a business can turn you down whether or not what you were doing was technically correct.

> Except you can literally draw a poop emoji as the signature and it’ll be happily accepted.

Not in my experience (Europe). Signature must match the one in the card, and cashiers check it most of the times.

Yeah if you sign a printed receipt that's true. Most POS devices I see now aren't displaying the individual charges anymore by the time the interface gets to the "really charge $X?" screen and the electronic signature screen. You have to wait until the receipt prints out, and then you can complain to the clerk.

The screen-signature POS terminals I've seen almost always have another screen showing a list of purchases being made. The only exception I can remember is very old pharmacies. In newer pharmacies, the list is on the signature screen.

My pharmacy does. But I'm not sure I've ever seen it in a grocery store and it seems rare just about anywhere else.

Interesting. Everywhere I've been recently (mostly west coast, I'll admit), the grocery stories have the biggest tally screens. And at the bottom the biggest line is how much you "saved" by shopping there. (Yeah, right.)

You paying signifies intent. If I use Google Pay to pay for something, I've shown that I agree with the charge. The signature is just useless hassle. I've had to do it it twice in my life and they never seemed to be pens around just when you need them...

Lawyers disagree.

Moreover, if you think that retailers are making you sign a piece of paper because they want to hassle you and make you take your money elsewhere, you need to rethink the situation.

Cargo cult and security theather both sound plausible. Although falsifying a signature might carry a stiffer penalty than just using a stolen card?

You are signing a contract to pay. It's clearer than just vaguely signifying intent.

Signature has never been intent but a security measure, which is why it is matched with the signature on the card. It's an authorisation step, nothing else. You handing over the card is intent.