[Archive]

Posted By: Joann

Not trying to hijack the thread, but thought someone might have a quick answer to this one.

At least up until several years ago, a merchant was not permitted to demand a photo ID with a credit card unless the card was presented without a signature on the back. In that case, the merchant could require an ID that contained both a photo and a signature so he could compare the signature on the photo with the signature on the credit receipt. If the back of the card was signed prior to purchase, it was considered sufficient protection for the merchant to compare the existing card signature with the signature on the receipt just signed and card issuers generally didn't want customers being harassed for ID.

If a merchant insisted on seeing photo ID even though the back of the card was signed, you could complain to the issuing bank. Somehow it would work its way back to the standard contracts for merchants accepting credit cards and someone - issuing bank? someone else in the system? - could fine the offending merchant $2,000 per incident, per the contract.

Anyone know if that one is still alive?

Joann