June 20th, 2014 by Elma Jane
A recent survey said, 82 percent of e-commerce merchants who currently do not employ a consumer authentication solution are afraid that such solutions will scare off online shoppers, but with more and more fraud expected to migrate online in the coming years, the payments industry needs to do a better job of informing merchants why authentication in the card-not-present realm is crucial to data security.
While a majority of payment service companies employ some type of 3-D Secure online authentication, and most large merchants do likewise, the rest of the merchant population, especially in North America, apparently do not. 55 percent of merchants surveyed, a majority of which are U.S.-based, do not use online authentication, noting that North America is the only world region where less than half of merchants use the technology. The reason so many U.S. merchants eschew consumer authentication is they see it as a sales killer.
The main reason appears to be fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) about how consumer authentication will impact sales conversion and user experience, 43 percent of merchant respondents are FUD-preoccupied, with 20 percent concerned about the effect of the technology on sales conversion, 13 percent worried about changing the user experience and 10 percent simply want nothing to do with consumer authentication. Beyond the FUD concerns, there is also a very real perception with merchants and service providers that integration is long and difficult, adding that 21 percent of merchants who do not employ authentication, citing the time and/or cost of integration as the barrier.
End to FUD
The solution to merchant adoption of some form of 3-D Secure technology is apparently education. Many FUD concerns are related to a hangover effect caused by bad experiences with previous iterations of consumer authentication. But the report provides evidence that the FUD factor can be overcome because of the happiness factor that authentication-using merchants express. 81 percent of merchant respondents showing satisfaction with the solutions they have employed.
The report said nearly half of merchants surveyed said authentication had no effect on sales conversion, either positive or negative; however, almost 20 percent believe it has had a positive effect on sales. The positive result seems to be related to merchants who use authentication selectively, on specific transactions rather than on all of them. Additionally, the technology results in many merchants experiencing lower numbers of chargebacks. Amongst merchants, 59 percent overall say the authentication program brought a decrease in chargebacks and this is true for more than half of merchants from each geographic region.
FYI on FUD
The adoption is very low because not many people understand it. Online verification does retard the checkout process as a second screen pops up that consumers must navigate in order to proceed with the purchase. However, these barriers can be overcome with education and simply getting people comfortable with the technology. If we had this solution from day one on all e-commerce sites today nobody would be complaining because people would be used to doing it. It is a question of achieving ubiquity rather than taking a piecemeal approach to implementation. It is a matter of if you do it at one place or every place. If you have to do it at only one location that makes that site really secure. If all sites ask the same question, you get used to it.
Consumer authentication is also something that requires buy-in from issuers, acquirers and merchants. It is a participation solution where the issuer and the acquirer have to be participating in it. If you are an e-commerce site and you are certified with Verified by Visa the card brands proprietary version of 3-D Secure, if the card issuer has not embraced that, then the security will not happen.
Increasing number and frequency of breaches is slowly eroding consumers’ trust in the safety of e-commerce It’s not good for the whole ecosystem. At some point people will come back and say, this is too risky to do online transactions with cards. Before that point is reached, businesses should improve their online defenses, and consumer authentication is central to that defense. With the U.S. payments infrastructure in the process of transitioning to the Europay/MasterCard/Visa (EMV) chip card standard at the physical POS, fraud in the United States will sharpen its focus on the less secure online channel. EMV will do a lot of good in terms of card present security, but it does not do anything for card-not-present environments. So how are we going to contain the online fraud? We have to go to a 3-D Secure type solution
Posted in Best Practices for Merchants Tagged with: 3-D Secure online authentication, card, card present security, card-not-present, chargebacks, chip, chip card, consumer, data security, e-commerce, e-commerce merchants, EMV, Europay/MasterCard/Visa, fraud, Merchant's, online authentication, online channel, online fraud, online shoppers, online transactions, payment service, payments industry, POS, sales conversion, technology, Verified, visa
October 31st, 2013 by Elma Jane
While credit card processors and retailers have made strides to combat credit card fraud, it is still rampant across the U.S. In fact, credit card fraud jumped 17 percent between January, 2011, and September, 2012, according to the most recent data from the FICO Falcon Fraud Manager Consortium.
Debit cards obviously have better safeguard measures in place, since debit card fraud rose less than 1 percent between January, 2011, and September, 2012. Plus, the average fraud loss per compromised account fell by 3 percent.
Card-not-present (CNP) fraud is the biggest challenge by far, accounting for 47 percent of all credit card fraud. CNP fraud – which includes payments via the internet, mail and phone – grew 25 percent over the two-year period. So, where the problems with credit cards lie.
Unfortunately, CNP fraud may get worse before it gets better, in FICO’s Banking Analytics Blog. This problem may even intensify as the US moves away from magnetic stripe and toward EMV [chip] card technology. In other countries adopting chip-based authentication technology, we’ve seen counterfeit fraud decline, but as a counterbalance, fraudsters often ramp up efforts around CNP fraud.
However, there was a glimmer of light in the credit card fraud fiasco. While card fraud attempts rose, the average loss per compromised account dropped 10 percent. Plus, the ratio of fraud to non-fraud spending remained constant. “In other words, the volume of card fraud increased proportionally to the volume of consumer credit card spending.
Even though many retailers have implemented successful fraud prevention programs, Visa provides retailers with the warning signs for CNP fraud, including:
Multiple cards used from a single IP address. Orders made up of “big ticket” items. Orders that include several of the same item. Shipping to an international address. Transactions with similar account numbers.
Posted in Digital Wallet Privacy, EMV EuroPay MasterCard Visa, Mail Order Telephone Order, Payment Card Industry PCI Security Tagged with: account, analytics, authentication, banking, big ticket, card-not-present, chip card, chip-based, cnp, counterfeit, credit-card, debit cards, EMV, fraud, fraudsters, international, internet, magnetic stripe, mail, non-fraud, orders, payments, phone, prevent, processors, retailers, safeguard, spending, transactions, visa
October 10th, 2013 by Elma Jane
There are various payment processing rates that apply to credit and debit card transactions. Visa and MasterCard do not publish their rules and regulations or the payment processing standards required to get the lowest interchange rate. It’s up to credit card processing companies to understand and implement them to their merchants’ benefit. A high downgrade rate may indicate that your processor does not know the standards, or may be reluctant to implement best practices or new rules changes. The application of these rates is based on a variety of factors related to the particular circumstances of the sale and the way the payment is processed, as well as on the type of the card that was used. Typically payments processed in a card-not-present environment (e.g. online or over the phone) are assessed higher processing fees than payments processed in a face-to-face setting. Payments made with regular consumer types of cards are generally processed at lower rates than payments made with rewards, business-to-business or commercial cards. Debit cards are processed at lower interchange rates than credit cards. In order to simplify the pricing for their merchants, the majority of the processing companies have elected to use various tiered pricing models (two-tiered, three-tiered, six-tiered, etc.). There are three general classifications used in the various tiered pricing models:
Qualified Transaction (also referred to as the Swiped Rate) This is the rate charged per each transaction when the card is physically swiped through a credit card terminal. When a transaction is processed in accordance with the rules and standards established in the Payment Processing Agreement, signed by the merchant and the processing bank, and It involves a regular consumer credit card, It is processed at the most favorable rate. This rate is called a “Qualified Rate” and is set in the merchant’s Payment Processing Agreement. The Qualified Rate is set based on the way a merchant will be accepting a majority of their credit cards. For example, for an internet-based merchant, the internet interchange categories will be defined as Qualified, while for a physical retailer only transactions where cards are swiped through a terminal will be Qualified.
Mid-Qualified Transaction This is the rate charged when a transaction is manually keyed-in using AVS – Address Verification Service (card #, expiration date, address, zip code and CVV code all match). When a consumer credit card is keyed into a credit card terminal instead of being swiped or The cardholder uses a rewards card, business-to-business or another special type of card the transaction is charged a discount rate that is less favorable than the Qualified. This rate is called a “Mid-Qualified Rate.”
Non-Qualified Transaction This is the rate charged when manually keying-in a transaction without using AVS – Address Verification Service. When a special kind of credit card is used (like a rewards card or a business card), or a payment is not processed in accordance with the rules established in the Payment Processing Agreement, or It does not comply with some applicable security requirements.
Qualified Transaction Conditions
One electronic authorization request is made per transaction and the transaction/purchase date is equal to the authorization date. The authorization response data must also be included in the transaction settlement. The authorization transaction amount must match the settled (deposit) transaction amount. The card that is used is not a commercial (business) credit card The credit/debit card is present at the time of the transaction, the card’s full magnetic stripe is read by the terminal, and a signature is obtained from the cardholder at the time of the transaction.
The transaction must be authorized and settled under a standard retail industry code.
The transaction must be electronically deposited (batch transmitted) no later than 1 day from transaction/purchase/authorization date.
Mid-Qualified Transaction Conditions
One or more of the Qualified conditions were not met
Non-Qualified Transaction Conditions
One or more of the Qualified conditions were not met, or The card that was used was a commercial card without submitting the additional data or:
The transaction was electronically deposited (batch transmitted) greater than 1 day from the authorization date, or:
The transaction was not electronically authorized, or the authorization response data was not included in the transaction settlement.
Posted in Best Practices for Merchants, Credit card Processing, Electronic Payments, Financial Services, Merchant Services Account Tagged with: account, authorization, authorized, best, business, card, card-not-present, credit, cvv, debit, downgrade, interchange, keying, lowest, MasterCard, merchant, payment, processed, Processing, qualified, rate, rewards, standards, swiped, transaction, visa
