www.greensheet.com/emagazine.php?story_id=3208

Unbelievably touching & humble speech by KD honoring his teammates and wonderful praise for his mom. Dry eye challenge! if nothing else watch the last 3 minutes when he talks about his mom with her in the audience

http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/05/07/watch-kevin-durants-full-mvp-acceptance-speech/

I’d just watch a few seconds of this and found myself transfixed to it and felt like crying towards the end. Why don’t people realize that much of technology is ruining our lives and is anything but “social” Playing with your device while eating a meal with others should be a felony. Also we really don’t care where you are every minute of the day. Enjoy your new baby, your new loved one and your kids’ accomplishments but keep the initial thrill private and don’t be obsessed with posting hundreds of pics of everything you do. If you’re watch a game don’t post every time your team scores. If anyone really cares they are actually watching the game not waiting for your fabulous post. Any normal person doesn’t care if you’re at an airport or your plane was delayed-big whip-gee get a real life! http://blog.petflow.com/this-is-a-video-everyone-needs-to-see-for-the-first-time-in-my-life-im-speechless/

My son-in law’s friend is battling cancer and has no funds. Can you find it in your heart to help him? Anything is appreciated!

Go to: http://www.gofundme.com/danny3056096609

Thanks!

This question has come up a few times recently so I wanted to research it. I’m not an attorney but attached are my findings.

It seems the main issue is confusion between regs and laws setup for retail swiped transactions vs. Internet & MOTO sales. Plus of course mental midgets discussing the matter on blogs like yahoo etc.

For My Review View My Findings Here Can an Internet Merchant ask for a photo ID

Here is a nice explanation of the infamous EMV integration & requirements

EMV eBook Now Available as a Flipbook
The EMV eBook is available in flipbook form! The book is accessible through VeriFone.com on the EMV product page.You can also link directly to the flipbook here

The Green Sheet Online Edition

January 13, 2014 • Issue 14:01:01

A t last, the controversial and long disputed $7.25 billion settlement of the class-action lawsuit brought by retailers against Visa Inc. and MasterCard Worldwide over interchange fees was approved.

The Dec. 13, 2013, order of Judge John Gleeson of the United States District Court Eastern District of New York paves the way for merchants large and small to receive compensation for allegedly excessive electronic transaction processing fees imposed by the card brands over an eight-year period.

In his memorandum and order, Gleeson found that the settlement plan was both fair and reasonable. The claim administrator will now begin distributing funds to some 8 million U.S. merchants from two accounts – the $6.05 billion Cash Settlement Fund and the estimated $1.2 billion Interchange Fund.

For more details on the settlement, see “The $7.25 billion settlement proposal: What you need to know,” The Green Sheet, April 22, 2013, issue 13:04:02.

Gleeson said only minor modifications would be made to the settlement and that a status conference regarding next steps would be held in his courtroom on Jan. 10, 2014.

The settlement, which was initially reached in July 2013, resolves, for now, a legal battle over interchange and card brand rules that began in 2005. As outlined by Gleeson, in that time both Visa and MasterCard have gone public and the Durbin Amendment to the Dodd-Frank Act (which regulated debit card interchange) was implemented. Along the way, proponents and opponents of the settlement routinely slung accusations at one another.

In April 2013, Gleeson even threatened to hold six national trade associations in contempt of court for disseminating what the judge characterized as misleading information about the settlement via websites. Gleeson said the misinformation campaigns arose from “their zeal to drum up objections and opt-outs by merchants around the country.” He noted that in the arena of class action settlements, “this one has been anything but typical.”

For and against

Reactions to the settlement’s approval were predictable. The law firm of Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi LLP, which filed the initial class action lawsuit in 2005, endorsed the settlement. K. Craig Wildfang, partner at the firm and co-lead counsel for the retailers, said he looks forward to “getting the funds into the hands of the members of the class.”

The Electronic Payments Coalition, which represents the card brands’ interests, also expressed satisfaction with the settlement. “The long political conflict over interchange fees is finally over, settled by a well-established legal process, which brought together retailers and the card industry for a negotiated resolution,” the EPC said. “After years of mediation, dozens of meetings, and millions of pages of evidence, the parties involved have willingly agreed to settle their dispute.”

However, such was not the verdict of the National Retail Federation, the largest U.S. retailers’ association. “We are very disappointed that this deeply flawed settlement has been approved,” said NRF Senior Vice President and General Counsel Mallory Duncan.

He added that the settlement “permanently ties the hands of thousands of businesses who wanted nothing to do with this misguided case.”

In addition, Duncan pointed out that “swipe fees cost merchants and their customers an estimated $30 billion a year and have tripled over the past decade.” He noted that the NRF is reviewing the ruling and “will take whatever steps are necessary to protect the rights of merchants and safeguard the pocketbooks of their customers.”

Back to business

Final arguments for and against the settlement were heard by the judge in a contentious Sept. 12, 2013, hearing. Gleeson portrayed settlement objectors at the hearing as “afflicted by needless hyperbole.” He said one merchant association principal posed the argument that merchants would be worse off if the settlement was approved than if the lawsuit went to trial and the plaintiffs then lost the case.

Gleeson added that another settlement critic equated settlement approval to “the deprivation of civil liberties in the aftermath of a terrorist attack.” A third opponent of the settlement “cast Visa and MasterCard as modern-day Nazis, and warned me not to assume the role of [England’s World War II era prime minister] Neville Chamberlain,” Gleeson said.

The judge stated that “the vitriol and poor behavior and feigned hysteria [of the settlement opponents at the hearing] mask complex and difficult issues on which reasonable merchants can and do disagree.” Apparently, merchants overall did not disagree with the settlement, as Gleeson said his decision to approve the settlement was strengthened by “the relatively small number of opt-outs and absence of objections from class members” to it.

Maybe Jason Oxman, Chief Executive Officer of the Electronic Transactions Association, struck the right note. “Although ETA was not a party to this litigation, I think it’s good for all concerned to have this settlement behind us,” he said. Oxman feels that legal wrangling distracts financial service providers and merchants alike from providing consumers with safe and reliable services .

Amazing ingenuity has resulted in over $1 million dollars of sales in their first month! http://tacfirecon.com/

The Green Sheet Online Edition

September 10, 2012 • Issue 12:09:01

How to help merchants counter fraudulent orders

By Bill Hoidas
Matrix Payment Systems

W ith the ever-growing problem of identity theft, fraud is of increasing concern to merchants, especially those in the MO/TO and e-commerce categories. Some merchants take an unreasonable approach and say they want a 100 percent guarantee that if they do next-day or same-day delivery with customers they don’t know, they’ll never have a chargeback. To that, I reply the dream factory is located in their nearest casino.

Nowadays, it’s relatively easy for thieves to make credit cards and enter data they steal via skimming. Machines to make physical credit cards can be obtained for as little as $865. MO/TO and e-commerce merchants are prime targets for these identity thieves.

So how are merchants supposed to know if a new client’s credit card is legitimate? I suggest they take the following steps:

Determine whether the cardholder’s street address, ZIP code and cardholder verification value match the information given by the purchaser.

If the information matches – and only if it is a physical delivery – require the cardholder’s signature with delivery.

Have cardholders sign credit card authorization forms, provide copies of their driver’s licenses, as well as the front and back of credit cards.

If a cardholder doesn’t have ready access to a fax machine, one company has devised a way to get signature and ID images. RightSignature LLC (https://rightsignature.com) provides the technology to enable customers to create digital signatures online.

Use every available means to ferret out fraud

The merchant should always ask the purchaser for a phone number and call the number provided to confirm the order. In 90 percent of cases, the fraudster will provide a phony or disconnected number.

The merchant should also call the issuing bank’s phone number on the back of the card image. In fraud cases, the phone number usually doesn’t correspond to the name of the issuing bank on the front of the card.

It’s a good idea to request an email address. It can tell a lot about the purchaser. Ideally, the email address will be similar to the cardholder’s name. For example:

John Smith’s email is jsmith@gmail.com. This is good.
John Smith’s email is enerygyman@comcast.net. This could be bad.
John Smith’s email is istealstuff@yahoo.com. Red flag!

In addition, the merchant should do an Internet search on the email address. Often, fraud related to that address will show up in the results. And the merchant should do a search on the purchaser’s name, address and ZIP code for indications of fraud. Information will usually be available and provide the customer’s professional associations and other clues.

For looking up a person by name to see if the information he or she provided is accurate, use Spokeo.com. This service is free, but for $3.95 per month you can get more detailed reports. Or use PeopleSmart.com. For looking up the location of sender’s IP Address, use www.ip-address.org.

Take it even further

If the customer comes to pick up merchandise, the merchant should give it only to the cardholder and require a driver’s license or other valid form of identification. If the merchant has already run the card as a MO/TO, he or she should require the customer to swipe the card used on a manual imprinter and sign the slip. A signed card receipt is as good as or better than a terminal-swiped receipt.

To get issuing-bank information for U.S. and foreign cards, use these contact numbers:

Visa Inc.’s Merchant Verification Service: 800-847-2750, an automated line. Option 1, address verification: enter the numeric portion of the street address, ZIP code and card number. It will tell you if they match. Option 2, issuing bank phone numbers: Enter the card number, and it will provide you the 800 number for the issuing bank. Call and verify the name on the account.

Visa’s International Address Verification: 800-228-1122.

MasterCard Worldwide Assistance: 800-622-7747 (to obtain issuing bank phone number). It provides a phone number for the bank identification number range. For English, press 1. Then, for merchants press 2.

Discover Financial Services’ Address Verification: 800-347-7988, an automated line. You will need your merchant number. It verifies only a card member’s address.

American Express Co. Address Verification: 800-528-2121. Choose option 3 to verify name and address.

International Credit Card Verification, International Telex Verification. To use this, call Visa’s normal card authorization phone number and hold for an agent. Don’t press any selection for a destination. Just wait. I waited nearly three minutes. Once on the line, agents will request cardholder information and the address you have. They will also ask for your merchant number. If the issuing bank is not immediately available, a telex operator will make contact or will take down all appropriate information and contact the merchant after the issuing bank has responded.

Many merchants call an authorization phone number if they get a decline or nonmatch from the address verification system. No authorization “genie” will answer the phone. Calling will not change a decline or AVS nonmatch.

The U.S. Department of Justice recently reported seizing 36 websites or domain names that allegedly dealt in stolen credit card numbers. The federal action was part of an international effort.

Stolen card information can be purchased on these types of sites for as little as $3.50 per number.

Merchants sometimes take the view that issuing banks should know which cards have been stolen and warn merchants. But how could banks possibly know until cardholders report unauthorized charges on their accounts?

Merchants also claim that banks should reimburse merchants when stolen credit cards are used. This is a double-edged sword. Banks aren’t always the good guys. But if they reimbursed for losses, many merchants wouldn’t bother to screen out fraudulent orders.

Fight the kickback trend

In the last six months, some of my merchants have answered chargebacks with full documentation, only to have the issuing bank frivolously kick back the chargeback as a “pre-arbitration” for a decision.

Often, it’s a clear example of allowing a chargeback to continue, although even a child could see that the cardholder is just trying to rip off the merchant.

I feel that legal pressure should be put on card issuers to rectify this. I suggest my merchants contact an attorney when this occurs, and I can recommend to readers an attorney with expertise in this matter.

Merchants should be aware of the facts regarding chargeback replies that come from card issuers.

Chargebacks sent back for pre-arbitration go back to the issuing bank for a decision.
Only chargebacks sent for “arbitration” are decided by MasterCard or Visa for final rulings.
Merchants can go to the card brands’ websites and file complaints if they disagree with final arbitration rulings, but they are not allowed to ask for reviews unless the amount is over $5,000. And they usually have to put up 25 percent of the amount pending review. Fees are incurred at all stages.

Meanwhile, merchants should reply to all chargebacks in as much detail as possible. Recently, one of my merchants told me he had answered a chargeback in detail. The copy he sent me of his reply showed otherwise. Following is my guidance to him and to all merchants on the best way to reply to chargebacks.

In an era of frivolous bounce-backs on chargeback replies from issuing banks, ISOs need to document things well and in a professional manner. Don’t just circle items and write remarks. Print out supporting documentation and include each item on a separate document.

Put your remarks in a cover letter, not just written here and there on the supporting printouts. While documenting everything, highlight pertinent points in the chargeback documents. Make your replies look as professional as possible.

Build a strong fortress against chargebacks

The merchant’s website should list the exact products and the price the customer pays, including all charges and fees such as shipping and tax. There should be a click-to-agree icon before customers can enter orders. If the merchant receives a chargeback, he needs to include in his reply a screenshot of any click-to-agree pages.

Finally, merchants should be reminded that they are business people. They have to make the final decision as to:

How much risk to take.
How worthwhile it is to spend their time fighting chargebacks, especially the small ones, just to prove a point.
Whether they will view smaller chargebacks as a cost of doing business, similar to shrinkage in retail.

Bill Hoidas is a Director for Matrix Payment Systems, a leading ISO specializing in larger MO/TO, e-commerce and retail accounts. Bill has been in the industry for seven years and can be reached at bhoidas@gmail.com.

Notice to readers: These are archived articles. Contact names or information may be out of date. We regret any inconvenience.
previous next

© 1983 – 2013 The Green Sheet, Inc.