Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I tried, but the form rejected my phone as "invalid format", even after the first digit, whether it was a numeral or alphabetic. What symbols are accepted as valid phone number format, if numbers and lettters are not?.
If I entered my whole number, the first three digits enclosed themselves by default in parentheses with a dash, which used up 6 of the ten strokes allowed. Entering 1234567890 appeared as (123)-4567 and no more digits accepted, and "Invalid format" in red. Phone number is a required field.
Tried again and the phone number entry worked. I fully expect that The amount you receive may be substantially less than $125, depending on the number of claims that are filed.
I have credit monitoring from a different breach but it is only for a year. 10 years sounds good to me.
I've had credit monitoring paid for by various breaches for almost 10 years now. This is the new reality. Most likely, you will not have to ever pay for basic credit monitoring as it will likely be offered to you due to breaches.
Not to say they are absolutely worthless - but credit monitoring is a reactionary tool.
If nothing else - the Equifax breach actually made it easier to freeze/thaw your credit. Which is probably the best prevention tool for a system that is fundamentally broken from a security/privacy perspective (another topic of discussion).
Credit cards need to have push-payments and/or MultiFactor authentication options. As it is, I am set up to get a text whenever a charge is made on my card. Instead of being just a notification, it should be a request for approval. I could then click Approve or Deny.
I should also be able to pre-approve designated payees within certain parameters. I buy most of my groceries at Kroger so I could get their vendor id and pre-authorize transactions under $100 up to $400 per month. Anything exceeding that would pop up request for approval as above.
A lot of people distrust auto-pay but being able to set limits might alleviate much of that. Then you won't have to worry about a utility misreading the meter and billing you $20,000 or a subscription service billing you months after you canceled.
Credit cards need to have push-payments and/or MultiFactor authentication options. As it is, I am set up to get a text whenever a charge is made on my card. Instead of being just a notification, it should be a request for approval. I could then click Approve or Deny.
The credit card companies not retailers want this as it could lead to delays in checkout, order processing and ultimately slower delivery. Most cc offer zero liability anyhow
Quote:
I should also be able to pre-approve designated payees within certain parameters. I buy most of my groceries at Kroger so I could get their vendor id and pre-authorize transactions under $100 up to $400 per month. Anything exceeding that would pop up request for approval as above.
This is covered under zero liability
Quote:
A lot of people distrust auto-pay but being able to set limits might alleviate much of that. Then you won't have to worry about a utility misreading the meter and billing you $20,000 or a subscription service billing you months after you canceled.
Auto pay is a different beast if you are talking about debiting a checking account. Autopay on cc is just fine
The credit card companies not retailers want this as it could lead to delays in checkout, order processing and ultimately slower delivery. Most cc offer zero liability anyhow
This is covered under zero liability
Auto pay is a different beast if you are talking about debiting a checking account. Autopay on cc is just fine
Anything other than payment in cash could lead to delays in checkout. This is about what the consumer wants. You left them out.
Zero liability notwithstanding, I'd rather avoid the tremendous stress and hassle of dealing with unauthorized charges and getting new card accounts in the first place, and I described a simple process that could do so. Now I didn't spend a million dollars conducting detailed research and focus groups so the process could surely be fine-tuned.
Autopay on cc is not fine for the reasons I mentioned - inaccurate charges due to billing mistakes or unauthorized charges that continue after you terminate service. And the customer may have a much tougher time winning disputes with auto-pay since you did originally authorize the charges. Customers lose disputes with merchants all the time. You say the water bill can't be $400 because it's usually $60. The water company says the meter shows you used 15,000 gallons and you must have a leak. The cc may well wash their hands of it and say you two need to work it out. Same thing when you says you canceled the gym membership 3 months ago and gym says you did not do so according to terms of contract or you'd have a cancellation number.
Anything other than payment in cash could lead to delays in checkout. This is about what the consumer wants. You left them out.
No other form would pose the frequency of delay your proposal would unless you attached a multi factor authorization or on demand authorization
Quote:
Zero liability notwithstanding, I'd rather avoid the tremendous stress and hassle of dealing with unauthorized charges and getting new card accounts in the first place, and I described a simple process that could do so. Now I didn't spend a million dollars conducting detailed research and focus groups so the process could surely be fine-tuned.
Tremendous stress and hassle? Well that imo is a gross exaggeration
Quote:
Autopay on cc is not fine for the reasons I mentioned - inaccurate charges due to billing mistakes or unauthorized charges that continue after you terminate service. And the customer may have a much tougher time winning disputes with auto-pay since you did originally authorize the charges. Customers lose disputes with merchants all the time. You say the water bill can't be $400 because it's usually $60. The water company says the meter shows you used 15,000 gallons and you must have a leak. The cc may well wash their hands of it and say you two need to work it out. Same thing when you says you canceled the gym membership 3 months ago and gym says you did not do so according to terms of contract or you'd have a cancellation number.
Auto pays being charged to your credit card are just fine, you can avoid them but here you are exaggerating the issues, certainly the frequency of them
No other form would pose the frequency of delay your proposal would unless you attached a multi factor authorization or on demand authorization
Tremendous stress and hassle? Well that imo is a gross exaggeration
Auto pays being charged to your credit card are just fine, you can avoid them but here you are exaggerating the issues, certainly the frequency of them
MFA on-demand authorization is exactly what I'm talking about. I always get my notification text with a second or two of the card being run. You're the one exaggerating the prospects of "delay".
Yes, tremendous stress and hassle. It isn't just a matter of noticing and reporting an unauthorized transaction and then it goes away. Often the cc will cancel the card and issue a new one with a new account number. Many run all their charges through a card for the points/miles/cashback/etc. then pay off. Now I need to notify a dozen or more utilities/insurers/subscriptions/memberships/etc. of new cc info, hope I didn't overlook any, and deal with bounced charges for those that hit before the new card reached me.
Auto-pays are fine... when everything goes right. You just ignored the examples I gave for how they can go wrong. As for frequency, my auto-pays probably outnumber my point-of-sale charges. Maybe you don't have many auto-pays. Don't project your situation to others.
Why are you arguing so strenuously against a customer protection that could easily be implemented, would incur minor if any delay, could be optional if you don't want to use it, and could prevent most unauthorized transactions? An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
I got a email saying no one is getting a dime unless you can show proof that you had a credit monitoring service at the time of the breach. If you can’t prove it then you can opt for the $25 basic refund. Which therefore turn to pennies if everyone goes that route.
MFA on-demand authorization is exactly what I'm talking about. I always get my notification text with a second or two of the card being run. You're the one exaggerating the prospects of "delay".
I’m not exaggerating the prospect of delay. Think of all cc transactions that are not in person. E-com/online retail can and would face delays in processing/shipping orders
Quote:
Yes, tremendous stress and hassle. It isn't just a matter of noticing and reporting an unauthorized transaction and then it goes away. Often the cc will cancel the card and issue a new one with a new account number. Many run all their charges through a card for the points/miles/cashback/etc. then pay off. Now I need to notify a dozen or more utilities/insurers/subscriptions/memberships/etc. of new cc info, hope I didn't overlook any, and deal with bounced charges for those that hit before the new card reached me.
Tremendous stress and hassle is a stretch
Quote:
Auto-pays are fine... when everything goes right. You just ignored the examples I gave for how they can go wrong. As for frequency, my auto-pays probably outnumber my point-of-sale charges. Maybe you don't have many auto-pays. Don't project your situation to others.
Autopays on a credit card are fine even if it goes wrong. It’s easy to take care of. I have everything I possibly can charging automatically on my CC
Quote:
Why are you arguing so strenuously against a customer protection that could easily be implemented, would incur minor if any delay, could be optional if you don't want to use it, and could prevent most unauthorized transactions? An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
I’m just telling you the CC companies, retailers wouldn’t support it and subset of consumers would start to complain when they saw delays. The protection isn’t needed hence my commentary, I’m not against consumer protect but I am pointing out that it’s largely unnecessary and wouldn’t be supported by two of the largest groups involved
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
