Yes jrb, that's how it's supposed to work.

"People purchase extra fraud insurance because they are not aware of this"

I question whether insurance regulators would allow insurance companies to sell policies (and charge premiums) to cover risks that potential customers don't have.

If fraudulent charges originate from the unauthorized card use by a family member, the cardholder has far bigger problems than just those charges.

Sounds like the system works the way it was supposed to - that's great.

So here's a tip: You can set transaction alerts so you get an e-mail anytime a card is used. That's what I do. I know in almost real time if there's fraudulent activity (has happened twice) -- not a couple days later.

Jake, that might be okay for some but not for others.

A cardholder isn't required to notify the issuer of unauthorized charges any sooner than after a statement is received and the passage of a reasonable time for review and to notice a problem. Maybe there's a time limit - it can't be sooner than 30 days after receipt of a bill and it could be longer, but I'm not sure. Anyone who's worried can check their balances online periodically, maybe every few weeks?

Personally, I have over a dozen autopay charges to my Visa card, and more than 40 separate charges each month. I don't need another email or two every day. I haven't had any fraudulent activity for years and years and the same is true for most people. Getting an email for each charge processed is probably overkill for vigilance and unnecessary.

Like Elmer Fudd I do not want to have that many notifications. I monitor my various bank accounts when I am traveling but when at home only once or twice a week to confirm my balance. The notification mentioned is one of those things that at some financial institutions you may pay extra. The insurance I mentioned the other day is sold under the heading of Identity Protection and one of the selling features is that it covers you in case of loss through your accounts. Sorry I could not remember what it was called when I posted the other day.

I also had this happen, my bank reversed the charges and issued me a new card. I am trying to use Paypal more often, if I can since I tend to shop online.

I check my bank account online daily. This happens unfortunately, but my bank is VERY responsive.

I'm with Jake on this. In the last 10+ years I have had a credit card compromised three times...and I am very careful about safeguarding my cards and not using them at sketchy web sites. Now I have automatic alerts that send a text to my phone whenever a charge of more than 50 cents is posted to any account. Typically, when I am out shopping or doing so online, the text message shows up within seconds and it's no problem to delete it. There are also some automatic charges that occur monthly (Netflix, electric utility, cable, etc.), and it is nice to know when those post. Since I started doing this a couple of years ago, I have had one instance of attempted fraud, and that jerk got shut down within 10 minutes of the first bogus charge.

kudzu, you could have alerted the card company to dispute a charge a week or a month or two later and the outcome would have been exactly the same for you. Instantaneous monitoring really isn't necessary.

salti, until my credit card issuer pays me a security fee or provides some other incentive, my personal choice is to not be bothered multiple times a day. I check a few times a month after I do a Quicken download, that's more than most.

I pay my bills and debts. The financial world has never had and never will have a bad debt or write off from doing business with me and that's my contribution to the collective good.

Elmer-

It may not be necessary, but I just like shutting these guys down immediately.

Other than word choice, I'm not sure I understand why you think my expressing my preference is somehow any different than you expressing yours. I don't feel like I have a societal duty to be vigilant about the security of a financial institution. If you think you do, great.

If American credit card issuers were serious about reducing fraudulent use, they would adopt the chip and PIN cards that have been ubiquitous outside the US for the last 15 years, at least. Every developed country but the US uses these and fraudulent charges are almost eliminated by doing so. US credit card issuers choose not to and so apparently are happy to deal with some level of ongoing loss, at higher levels than abroad, as a cost of doing business. If they're so unconcerned with losses, why would anyone think it's something to help them with when they ignore a simple solution to big savings?

kudzu likes to monitor it for a similar reason, so he agrees with you. Life goes on.

Most of the ones that I have heard about were family or friends of family members that just decided that they needed something. People would rather pay the bill than have then put in jail. Like Elmer Fudd I have a life and there are too many other things that will cause damage to worry about the ones that will not.

I am always getting texts and e-mails... one more from my bank doesn't bother me one bit. I certainly like shutting down fraud as soon as it happens. I agree that chip and pin would be a big move forward, but much of the fraud happens in "card not present" situations.

The thing is, banking is more a "real time" thing for me. It used to be that you would get your statement in the mail once a month and then balance your checkbook, etc. Now I see my transactions daily -- and almost as they happen with alerts. I also will make payments - for example to my credit card -- multiple times a month.

I have three personal ccards and one via work, all with various e-mail alerts. Very helpful to confirm when charges and payments post, statements are dropped, and to provide ongoing peace-of-mind against fraudulent transactions.

One of the personal cards has a virtual cardnumber feature and is the only one that I'll use online. The feature has proved itself at least once, and once is enough to justify the extra steps to use it.

Got a little more information about the "fraud" today. My wife's card was used in a town 35 miles away and not for an on-line purchase. It was a chip card and I thought those couldn't be cloned. These were established businesses and should use the chip reader. I know when I try to swipe my chip card I'm remained to insert it so the chip can be read.

jrb-

Wow...that's weird. I'm assuming that you have any extra cards in your possession (if there were any)?

Please update if you get any more info on this.

jrb451: "It was a chip card and I thought those couldn't be cloned. These were
established businesses and should use the chip reader. I know when I try
to swipe my chip card I'm remained to insert it so the chip can be
read."

I imagine that depends on the card terminal and point-of-use involved. While all merchants reasonably *should* by now have chip-reader terminals, some may not. The convenience store I use for gasoline does not (yet) have chip-readers on their pumps.

Lots of stores don't have their chip-ready terminals. Lots of them.

Good point, dadoes. I know several businesses I patronize that still use the swipe feature with my chipped cards.

Card information on a smartcard chip is encrypted and is variable - different each use. I'm not an expert but I believe they are considered not cloneable.

Mag strips are easily cloneable and that's been an ongoing source of fraudulent use for years and years. That's what skimmers are all about, to read the info on a mag strip in a valid card so it can be duplicated.

Historically, card issuers have absorbed fraud losses. (There may be some element of their not being liable for the use of numbers of stolen cards the stores are advised of - that used to be the case but maybe not now. Remember when you'd present a card, as at a liquor store, and the clerk would flip through a soft cover book to check the number? In the days before telephonic/internet transmission of the card info when a charge is made, which can pass back a No Authorization message.

When card issuers (Visa, Mastercharge) decided to switch to the Chip and Signature cards now most common in the US, it was accompanied by a liability shift. When a charge is put through with a chip reader, the bank/card issuer remains liable for fraudulent use, as before. But when a charge is entered from a mag strip, THE RETAILER is now liable for fraudulent use if the card had a chip that wasn't read because old equipment was used. That was the arm twisting involved because the issuers said to retailers - "Get a chip reading device or any fraud losses that occur from a mag reading of a chiped card are yours to absorb, we no longer will cover it. "

So stores have a choice. It's their decision in the tradeoff as to what costs more - buying new machines or exposure to losses from fraud.

Wow! That's scary.. I wonder how these people get ahold of this information? I have a friend who was a victim of identity theft and the thief used a card at Lowes that had been a duplicate of his. To this day we don't know how they got his information. He said that he didn't even use that card very much and only went to brick and mortar stores. Strange..

When I realize how common credit card fraud and other digital thefts have become it makes me cringe when I hear discussions of our society going cashless. Even though I love my credit card perks I love to throw a protest vote by using cash every now and again.

I didn't even realize how common credit card fraud is at all actually, i'm more surprised by it honestly.