News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Coin by foobarqux on Thursday November 14, 2013 @03:15PM (#6735210)
> And liability is more clear-cut and reasonable for pretty much all parties?

Meaning shifted entirely to the consumer?

Re:Coin by Nursie on Thursday November 14, 2013 @03:23PM (#6735271)
No, the merchant takes reasonable liability - if they permit non-EMV transactions (in a customer-present scenario) they assume the risk.

Under law in much of Europe, the consumer is not under much risk. In the UK (for example) the credit card provider is legally a party to the debt and has a responsibility to refund the consumer on demand if the consumer is willing to state (in a legally binding way) that the transaction was not authorised by them. Debit cards are governed by different rules that amount to much the same, though the legal protections are weaker.

Re:Coin by PeterisP on Thursday November 14, 2013 @05:25PM (#6736125)
EU law shifts pretty much all liability away from consumer.

There's a cap of EUR 150 consumer liability for lost&stolen (physically) cards up until you notify the bank; zero liability for lost&stolen cards after the time of notification, and zero liability for any fraudulent transactions if your card isn't lost or stolen.

Only UK law (and MC/Visa rules for UK) is a bit different, but another poster describes them below.

Re:Coin by zmk_ on Tuesday November 19, 2013 @06:11AM (#6760416)
Plus depending on whether the terminal allowed chip and pin, and the card had a chip the liability is shifted between the merchant and the bank.