Talk:Card-not-present transaction

Unreferenced and moved here
Restored to page with ref tags. St John Chrysostom ΔόξατωΘεώ 22:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Edits regarding Regus
Hi, I've edited the "Fraud" portion of the piece to clarify that Regus did not know of and was otherwise not a part of the scam uncovered by the FTC. The way the article evolved, the text implied, if not stated, that Regus was an active participant in the scam, which is libelous. In particular, the use of the pronoun "they" in the following section, inadvertently refers back to Regus" in this passage, thereby accusing Regus of being a part of the scam, which charge is untrue: "Regus would forward the mail to Earth Class Mail, a digital mailroom service that scanned mail from the physical address of the merchant account and forwarded it as a PDF to email accounts that they had established.[1][2] They ensured that when they checked their online merchant accounts, that they used an IP address located near the billing address so as not to arouse suspicion.[2]" It does not appear that the article intended to accuse Regus of being a part of the scam, which it was not, and so I have edited the piece so that it does not defame Regus and is now truthful.  Schroeep99 (talk) 20:28, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Merge with Credit card fraud section

 * I was going to add content to this article that has a large section with no references but this start class article is simply a good section for Credit card fraud. Wait! That article has such a section with the name using this as a main article.
 * As written this article is primarily about fraudulent purchases by credit card transactions when the card is not physically present. The unreferenced lead and the sections are at odds.
 * Unless someone has a valid reason I am going to seek a merge (or merge if uncontested) this article to that section. Otr500 (talk) 14:15, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Don't forget to add any relevant information to Carding (fraud) also Deku-shrub (talk) 12:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Transaction fee
"If a fraudulent CNP transaction is reported, the acquiring bank hosting the merchant account that received the money from the fraudulent transaction must make restitution; whereas with a swiped (card present) transaction, the issuer of the card is liable for restitution.[1] Because of the greater risk, some card issuers charge a greater transaction fee to merchants who routinely handle card not present transactions." Is this right? It doesn't make sense. Why would they charge more if they're not liable? 2601:243:C203:2220:2CE4:9B61:5E2C:AC9 (talk) 23:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

8.000
Visa 189.202.94.167 (talk) 01:25, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

@ 189.202.94.167 (talk) 01:43, 21 March 2023 (UTC)