England UK

At 12:06:41 on 31/12/2005, Tim delighted uk.finance by announcing:

> > > "Alex Heney" wrote
> > > > I don't know if they will be by the cut off date in February.
> > > > But they will become liable for fraud involving signatures with
> > > > C&P card from then on, so I expect they will do so PDQ.
> > >
> > "Tim" wrote
> > > Who is liable currently, if a C+PIN card is used in a retailer
> > > which doesn't support C+PIN and so falls back on Sig?
> >
> "Alex" wrote
> > The weakest link in the chain; in this case the retailer.
>
> That's what I thought - so Alex Heney is wrong when saying:
> "...they will become liable for fraud ... from then on",
> because they already are liable in that situation...?

In that particular situation, yes.

It's down to the weakest link; if it's not an EMV card then the issuer is
liable. If the acquiring bank doesn't support EMV then they're liable. If the
merchant doesn't have an EMV terminal then they're liable.