Black Shoppers sue $400 Million for being asked to show receipt

It's not harassment when it is policy. You have a skewed way of looking at things.

Just two weeks ago I couldn't cash a check that my company gave me because the givers signature didn't match the one on file. It sucked. I wanted my money. But I never thought it was some sort of agenda against me personally.

 

I had no problem with showing my ID. It's the signature verification and the 15 minutes being held up while they make sure that im not a credit card thief that bothered me.

 

that's a totally different situation. I'm signing my own check right in front of the cashier, the people at the bank don't know who signed the check you gave them.

 

I've never had to even show ID when using a card at Wal-Mart, much less have them compare the signatures.

 

lol and at frys too

 

So if someone stole your credit card and used it and the clerk did not verify that the signature on the card matched the signature on the receipt - that would be O.K. with you?

Licenses can be faked.

 

I can understand that it was an incovenience, but I can also understand the store's perspective if the signatures are noticeably different.

 

The only solution is DNA credit cards.

 

I guess. If it's store policy im fine, but it's a really stupid policy. Especially since they don't do if for everybody.

 

think about this, if someone stole a credit card, and actually went through the trouble of faking a license, I believe I would realize it before they had the time.

secondly, I've had checks stolen before, and money taken out of my account, I didn't have a problem getting it back.

lastly, the store isn't doing it for you, they're doing it for themselves, which is fine. but it is what it is

 

No, you don't assume either way. You take to the court and see if someone can prove discrimination.

When it comes to proving that, Sishir, you'd only have to show a lack of sufficient oversight, or the complicity of a manager. It won't be sufficient for the company to say, "Our policy book tells them not to discriminate; it's the employees' fault."

As for the signatures, no I don't want them checking signatures. If the photo on an ID matches the person, and the name on the ID matches the name on the check or credit card, that's sufficient. Sure, you can fake the ID, but checking that is a reasonable precaution; going beyond that is not reasonable. And, a credit card company who has to pay for fraudulent charges should be satisfied that the ID was checked and just lump the fact that it was faked.

 

I just don't see the big deal in a store asking for signature and/or photo verification. As a customer, I appreciate it and if mine don't match, I would appreciate them taking the time for further verification.

I do see the big deal if the photo ID and the signature match and the clerk can't see that and causes a scene/situation with the customer.

Granted, when the thieves used my wife's gas card, we didn't have to pay, but it certainly was a pain to deal with it all. Also, these days with check cards, it would even be more of a pain.

 

What if they only view certain people's signatures?

 

What if they don't?

 

I appreciate but that's not the point, the point is as someone pointed out, these people aren't signature experts in the first place. secondly, I've worked retail, I've never been instructed to make sure signatures match.

the people at wal-mart don't know you, that's why the bank situation is little different. your signature could be different for any number of reasons. you could be in a hurry, you could have signed your license on some stupid electronic pad (I hate those things). the license is enough. if you're going to be in business accepting credit cards and checks, that's all that should be required.

 

Signature Strip

The signature strip on the back of the card is its first line of defense. Merchants are supposed to check the signature on the back of the card against the signature on the receipt. If the signatures don't match, the merchant is supposed to refuse the transaction. Visa and MasterCard go a step further by saying that a card is not valid unless it's signed. 'Check ID' is a not a good substitute for your signature. Suppose you lose your unsigned card and a thief finds it. All they need to do is go get a fake ID in your name and then their signature will match every time. Adding 'Check ID' in addition to your own signature is a good idea.

http://www.yourcreditnetwork.com/blog/CreditCardSafetyFeatures.aspx

 

lastly, you don't sign checks and card receipts for verification, you sign them to complete transactions, like signing any contract. its totally off base to try match signatures in that situation

 

yeah, you are "suppose" to check the signature slip, at least thats what i've always thought...it just never happens. and thats what i do...check ID

 

Don't licences have a magnetic strip on the back to make sure they are real or not?

 

Let's rehash since you want to keep going. I was signing a check. why would I make a fake i.d. with a different freakin signature than the freakin signature I'm gonna sign on the freakin check.