dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
29132
share rss forum feed


81399672
Premium
join:2006-05-17
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:2
reply to Snowy

Re: Sneaker store required to scan drivers license for returns!

said by Snowy:

said by Greg_Z:

For Illinois & others, it is a OK practice.
For clarity's sake, the issue isn't a matter of what a particular State allows as an acceptable practice.
It's about the legally binding contract between MC/Visa & their customers.
e.g., There's no doubt whatsoever that scanning a drivers license during the course of a POS is
not allowed under the current agreement that's in place between MC/Visa, regardless of any State law.
Of course the agreement cannot give a right to a customer that's prohibited by a State that touches a part of the transaction, but contracts routinely forbid practices that would, in the absence of a contract, be otherwise "OK".
So obviously, any reference to a particular State's law isn't central to the question, but back to the question, does the mandatory scanning of a drivers license for the return of merchandise
fall within a merchants rights under the agreement? At this point I've been able unable to find anything that specifically allows or prohibits the practice, so in light of that, I honestly can't make a call on "OK" or not "OK", but if the practice becomes common, we will see the matter addressed directly.
You're not using credit card when you're returning so I don't see why it would fall under credit card agreement. Now, if they try to do when you were making a purchase, it would clear be agaisnt the credit card agreement(contract).


Its a Secret
Please speak into the microphone
Premium
join:2008-02-23
Da wet coast
kudos:3
reply to Snowy
If it happens often enough, past precedence is set, and can be challenged in a court of law. And, whomever will win; good or bad guy.


Snowy
Premium
join:2003-04-05
Kailua, HI
kudos:6
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·Clearwire Wireless
said by Its a Secret:

If it happens often enough, past precedence is set, and can be challenged in a court of law. And, whomever will win; good or bad guy.
GRRR! It's not about point of law (although it could eventually end up as one), it's about whether the practice falls within the terms of the merchant agreement.


Its a Secret
Please speak into the microphone
Premium
join:2008-02-23
Da wet coast
kudos:3

1 recommendation

That's what I said, broheim...


NickD
Premium
join:2000-11-17
Princeton Junction, NJ
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to deluxe8520
Get a US Passport card, that can't be scanned and has less information than a driver's license. If asked, say that you don't drive. You don't have to be able to drive to return shoes.
Permanent marker over part of the barcode will make scanning useless.


Its a Secret
Please speak into the microphone
Premium
join:2008-02-23
Da wet coast
kudos:3

2 edits
Are you talking about a Nexus card? If so, they have info your mama doesn't know about!

said by NickD:

Permanent marker over part of the barcode will make scanning useless.
That would be illegal. Defacing/ altering a Gov document. Bad idea.

edit for addition


KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
reply to Blue2
I see nothing in the card holder agreement that says I can't ID you for returns. In fact I see nothing that says I can't ID you FOR ANY REASON **other** then the fact you used your credit card to pay.

Technically, it seems to me, I could ID you as you entered the store, and as long as I wasn't targeting you based on your planned method of payment, it looks like it would past muster. Also, I'm unaware of any provisions of the Fair Credit Billing Act as pertaining to identification. The (no) ID'ing rule is part of the card issuers contract agreement they require merchants to abide by.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini


KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
reply to MGD
Exactly; and I'm also sure it's legal.


KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
reply to Bobcat79
said by Bobcat79:

said by KrK:

Of course, if a store refused a credit because you refused to show your ID, you could always leave the merchandise and then chargeback the charge....
No, you KEEP the items and do a chargeback. After all, the store refused to accept them.
Well you could try, but you'll probably have to prove it. The chargeback bank will probably insist you return the merchandise somehow (even if you have to ship it to them).
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini


Blue2
Premium
join:2004-04-14
France
kudos:1
reply to KrK
said by KrK:

I see nothing in the card holder agreement that says I can't ID you for returns. In fact I see nothing that says I can't ID you FOR ANY REASON **other** then the fact you used your credit card to pay.
Sorry, you're missing the point. No receipt will indicate what the merchant will NOT do, only what they WILL do or what they require. If it is NOT indicated, it is NOT agreed to. Therefore, if they don't say that they require something, they can't say later that it is required.

You pay by CC and they accept your card. That means that the Fair Credit Billing Act applies (Federal law). Therefore, UNLESS there is a specific provision in your sales receipt to the contrary (e.g. "All sales final", "No returns", "Exchange only if product unopened", etc.), you have to make the ATTEMPT to return the merchandise and the responsibility falls on the merchant to accept it. If they don't, you file a billing dispute. Visa or the issuer of the card will inform the merchant of the dispute and if the merchant does nothing, the disputed amount is AUTOMATICALLY chargedback via this law within two billing cycles.


norky
Premium
join:2002-12-02
Lithia, FL

1 edit
reply to Its a Secret
said by Its a Secret:

It would be a cold day in Hades before I let anyone except the DMV, a cop or maybe a border guard scan my DL. All I can say is, they better have a BIG sign stating that policy at each register, but I doubt they do. I have no problem showing ID for a CC purchase; if fact, I have a "check ID" on the back.

But scan? Lookey, no touchey!
FYI: It's easier to get an id than it is to forge a signature. Why people think it's safer having "See ID" on the back of their card as opposed to a signature is beyond me.


AVD
Respice, Adspice, Prospice
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Onion, NJ
kudos:1
said by norky:

said by Its a Secret:

It would be a cold day in Hades before I let anyone except the DMV, a cop or maybe a border guard scan my DL. All I can say is, they better have a BIG sign stating that policy at each register, but I doubt they do. I have no problem showing ID for a CC purchase; if fact, I have a "check ID" on the back.

But scan? Lookey, no touchey!
FYI: It's easier to get an id than it is to forge a signature. Why people think it's safer having "See ID" on the back of their card as opposed to a signature is beyond me.
No one checks signatures, but the whole process of showing id is enough to discourage potential fraudsters.


81399672
Premium
join:2006-05-17
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:2
said by AVD:

said by norky:

said by Its a Secret:

It would be a cold day in Hades before I let anyone except the DMV, a cop or maybe a border guard scan my DL. All I can say is, they better have a BIG sign stating that policy at each register, but I doubt they do. I have no problem showing ID for a CC purchase; if fact, I have a "check ID" on the back.

But scan? Lookey, no touchey!
FYI: It's easier to get an id than it is to forge a signature. Why people think it's safer having "See ID" on the back of their card as opposed to a signature is beyond me.
No one checks signatures, but the whole process of showing id is enough to discourage potential fraudsters.
While that is the case you can still refuse to show ID. So criminals know the rules and it will not discourage them


KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK

1 recommendation

reply to Blue2
Correct, but the law and the credit card agreement are not the same thing---

Basically, the merchant isn't REFUSING to accept the merchandise or process the return. The CONSUMER is refusing to complete the process by refusing to show ID.

I'm not missing the point--- but people aren't listening.

If I have a store policy that I want to ID people who return merchandise, and I follow that policy uniformly, then if a person refuses to show ID, there is nothing in the Credit Act or the Merchant agreement saying I cannot do so.

However, as I have already stated, there is also nothing to stop a consumer who refuses to show ID from filing a chargeback either, which most likely the merchant will lose.... however the merchant can also argue they are perfectly happy to accept the return and process a credit, provided the consumer follows the polices outlined. It could go either way.... personally as a merchant I wouldn't let it go that far, but people who argue merchants cannot ID people when they return something because the original purchase was on a credit card don't really have a legal basis for that assumption.

Here's an example of a recent ruling from California:

»privacylaw.proskauer.com/tags/me···returns/

Here's a very interesting and extremely relevant quote IMHO:

"Among other things, the court noted that "there are substantial opportunities for fraud" in connection with merchandise returns and "it behooves the merchant to identify the person who returns merchandise, which subsequent examination may disclose to have been used, damaged, or even stolen."
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini


AVD
Respice, Adspice, Prospice
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Onion, NJ
kudos:1
reply to 81399672
said by 81399672:

While that is the case you can still refuse to show ID. So criminals know the rules and it will not discourage them
Not if you write "check id" on the signature panel of the credit card. .


81399672
Premium
join:2006-05-17
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:2
said by AVD:

said by 81399672:

While that is the case you can still refuse to show ID. So criminals know the rules and it will not discourage them
Not if you write "check id" on the signature panel of the credit card. .
the cc is not technically valid unless you sign it.
--
i am not a lawyer but I do play one on the internet


AVD
Respice, Adspice, Prospice
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Onion, NJ
kudos:1
said by 81399672:

the cc is not technically valid unless you sign it.
Proves my point


Blue2
Premium
join:2004-04-14
France
kudos:1
reply to KrK
said by KrK:

Basically, the merchant isn't REFUSING to accept the merchandise or process the return. The CONSUMER is refusing to complete the process by refusing to show ID.
Ok, I accept your point.

However, who says that the consumer is refusing to complete the return process? I'd argue that whatever was required to make the purchase or is written on the sales receipt is what was agreed to, nothing more. If I didn't have to provide ID to purchase, and it isn't stated as a condition for returns on the sales receipt, where did I agree that I'd have to present ID to return?

It is my understanding that the merchant does NOT get to set whatever return conditions they want, but that these conditions MUST be stated on the receipt or at the register where the purchase is made. How can a merchant claim that there is a condition in the contract (the bill of sale) if that isn't stated somewhere?

It isn't unreasonable to assume that some unscrupulous merchants will make for unreasonable return conditions just to prevent the return of merchandise. What would make the court decide to protect merchant abuse?

I was not suggesting that a credit card prevents a merchant from IDing a customer for a return. I was suggesting that a consumer could refuse to do so, cite the Fair Credit Billing Act (FCBA) and FORCE the merchant to prove that the consumer didn't follow this unstated return condition (agreeing to be ID'd). Then the merchant would have to convince Visa that this is mandatory or that Visa would have to decide not to follow Federal regulations (the FCBA). I'd be surprised if either would want to make a Federal case of it, so to speak.


datguy6

@verizon.net
SHOWING ID is one thing, you can SEE it but you CANNOT :

hold it
copy it
scan it

etc, etc

Thats the problem I have.. I object to you scanning or reading or photo copying my drivers license!


TLEBP

@ebpleads.com
reply to Snowy
Do you know for a fact that this practice is illegal?
Is there something stated somewhere about this? Seems like some states allow it because I have seen it done at auto and motorcycle shows.

patcat88

join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1

1 recommendation

reply to BudBob
said by BudBob:

I don't carry my DL on my person at all. Most police cars have computers in there car and can look me up.
Hahhaha, your getting cuffed and going down to the police station to be photographed and fingerprinted and be checked against every fugitive list in the USA, then given a fine for driving without a license.


Cardholder

@inehome-server.com
reply to deluxe8520

Visa and MasterCard identification rules

There seems to be a lot of confusion about whether or not merchants are allowed to require buyers to present photo identification when using a Visa or MasterCard. Such a requirement is prohibited by Visa and MasterCard rules. Merchants agree to follow the rules set by Visa and MasterCard in their agreement with their acquirer (bank providing card acceptance services to the merchant).

According to Visa operating regulations, "an Acquirer must not, as a regular practice, require a Merchant, and a Merchant must not require a Cardholder, to provide any supplementary Cardholder information as a condition for honoring Visa Card or Visa Electron Card, unless it is required, or permitted, elsewhere in these Operating Regulations" (quoted from PDF page 329 of 670 in »usa.visa.com/download/merchants/···ions.pdf).

According to MasterCard rules, "a Merchant must not refuse to complete a Transaction solely because a Cardholder who has complied with the conditions for presentment of a Card at the POI [point of interaction] refuses to provide additional identification information, except as specifically permitted or required by the Standards. A Merchant may require additional identification from the Cardholder if the information is required to complete the Transaction, such as for shipping purposes" (quoted from PDF page 87 of 191 in »www.mastercard.com/us/merchant/p···5_08.pdf).

In general for card present transactions, matching the signature on the sales receipt and the signature on the card is sufficient (after electronic authorization and determining the physical card is real). If the card is not signed (usually known as "blank signature panel"), the merchant must review identification with the cardholder's signature, indicate the postive identification on the receipt, and require the cardholder to sign the signature panel prior to completing the transaction (see PDF page 330 of 670 in »usa.visa.com/download/merchants/···ions.pdf). Note: "See ID" notations on signature panels (without signatures) are considered "blank signature panels."

I know what you're thinking, what merchant requires the cardholder to sign the signature panel or even matches signatures? I'm just reporting what is required of the merchants. And yes, these rules were devised a long time ago.

Cardholders may report merchant violations, like requiring additional identification, to their card issuer (the customer's bank). Visa does not usually take violations reports directly, but MasterCard does: call 1-800-300-3069 or visit »www.mastercard.com/us/personal/e···ons.html.


Cardholders

@inehome-server.com
reply to deluxe8520
There seems to be a lot of confusion about whether or not merchants are allowed to require buyers to present photo identification when using a Visa or MasterCard. Such a requirement is prohibited by Visa and MasterCard rules. Merchants agree to follow the rules set by Visa and MasterCard in their agreement with their acquirer (bank providing card acceptance services to the merchant).

According to Visa operating regulations, "an Acquirer must not, as a regular practice, require a Merchant, and a Merchant must not require a Cardholder, to provide any supplementary Cardholder information as a condition for honoring Visa Card or Visa Electron Card, unless it is required, or permitted, elsewhere in these Operating Regulations" (quoted from PDF page 329 of 670 in »usa.visa.com/download/merchants/···ions.pdf).

According to MasterCard rules, "a Merchant must not refuse to complete a Transaction solely because a Cardholder who has complied with the conditions for presentment of a Card at the POI [point of interaction] refuses to provide additional identification information, except as specifically permitted or required by the Standards. A Merchant may require additional identification from the Cardholder if the information is required to complete the Transaction, such as for shipping purposes" (quoted from PDF page 87 of 191 in »www.mastercard.com/us/merchant/p···5_08.pdf).

In general for card present transactions, matching the signature on the sales receipt and the signature on the card is sufficient (after electronic authorization and determining the physical card is real). If the card is not signed (usually known as "blank signature panel"), the merchant must review identification with the cardholder's signature, indicate the postive identification on the receipt, and require the cardholder to sign the signature panel prior to completing the transaction (see PDF page 330 of 670 in »usa.visa.com/download/merchants/···ions.pdf). Note: "See ID" notations on signature panels (without signatures) are considered "blank signature panels."

I know what you're thinking, what merchant requires the cardholder to sign the signature panel or even matches signatures? I'm just reporting what is required of the merchants. And yes, these rules were devised a long time ago.

Cardholders should report any and all merchant violations. Cardholders are supposed to report violations to their card issuer, but reporting directly to Visa or MasterCard is more effective. Visa sometimes does not take violation reports directly, but MasterCard does: call 1-800-300-3069 or visit »www.mastercard.com/us/personal/e···ons.html.

jennp83

join:2009-06-22
Fargo, ND
reply to deluxe8520

Re: Sneaker store required to scan drivers license for returns!

Ok all of you talking about how it is illegal to scan a drivers license in order to process a return are stupid. If it was illegal do you think they would have the right to do that I don't think so it is a pretty big company across america. The reasoning behind scanning a drivers license is to prevent people from doing multiple bogus returns after wearing shoes and saying there was something wrong with them. Us asking for a drivers license has absolutely nothing to do with a your credit card. I am pretty sure all of you shop at stores where your credit card information is stored in there data base so when you do a return they don't even need your card. Famous Footwear does not store your credit card info in their computer system for the customers safety, if they did store that info then yes it would be totally wrong to ask for an ID.


81399672
Premium
join:2006-05-17
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:2
Store is welcome to track my returns by my name. They have no need to scan my driver license.
--
i am not a lawyer but I do play one on the internet


Its a Secret
Please speak into the microphone
Premium
join:2008-02-23
Da wet coast
kudos:3

1 edit
reply to jennp83
said by jennp83:

Ok all of you talking about how it is illegal to scan a drivers license in order to process a return are stupid. If it was illegal do you think they would have the right to do that I don't think so it is a pretty big company across america.
There are a lot of companies that do illegal things until they get caught. Then they snivel and say 'I'm sorry', and get away with it. You have a very naive attitude, but that's to be expected from Fargo, ND.

By the way, coming in this forum and calling people stupid isn't a great intro on your part...Just sayin'.
--
"In the future, that which is not mandatory will be illegal"
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everybody agrees that it is old enough to know better" - Anonymous

jennp83

join:2009-06-22
Fargo, ND
None of the stores are owned by people they are owned by a bigger company that owns other chain stores. It is stated on the bottom of all receipts what our return policy is and at registers in every store so if all of you people seriously have a problem with it then you might as well only shop online. I would really like to know what of your identity can be stolen from a drivers license only.


81399672
Premium
join:2006-05-17
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:2
Using my driver license you can open a credit card and steal my identity.
--
i am not a lawyer but I do play one on the internet


81399672
Premium
join:2006-05-17
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:2
reply to patcat88
said by patcat88:

said by BudBob:

I don't carry my DL on my person at all. Most police cars have computers in there car and can look me up.
Hahhaha, your getting cuffed and going down to the police station to be photographed and fingerprinted and be checked against every fugitive list in the USA, then given a fine for driving without a license.
Unless you're driving, you're not required to have id on you.
--
i am not a lawyer but I do play one on the internet


Its a Secret
Please speak into the microphone
Premium
join:2008-02-23
Da wet coast
kudos:3
reply to jennp83
said by jennp83:

It is stated on the bottom of all receipts what our return policy is ...
Ahh, a company shill speaks.
--
"In the future, that which is not mandatory will be illegal"
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everybody agrees that it is old enough to know better" - Anonymous