I noticed a $8.00 charge on my Master Card statement from an unknown company. I called the bank to question the charge and they said it was an internet transaction. In order to file an unauthorized transaction claim, the clerk told me I had to close my credit card and have a new one issued. She said is was Master Cards rule. I've never heard of this. Do I not have a right to say a transaction was not authorized without having my credit card cancelled? It will cost more than $8.00 in time and aggravation to wait 10 days for a new card and have all my recurring charges changed to the new card number. I feel like I am being held hostage.

Call them again and talk to a supervisor this time.

No, you do not have the right. I'm sure on the bank of your card it says that the card is the property of the bank and must be surrendered upon demand.

As Randy says, a supervisor may or may not be more accomidating. However, MasterCard does have a rule that prohbits a bank from filing a chargeback on a card that has had a previous fraud claim. If the bank permits you to keep your card, and then the next unauthorized charge is $800, the bank will have no way of recovering the funds and will be on the holld for an $800 charge. I don't expect that the bank will be willing to take that much risk, even in the name of customer service.

Well I don't disagree that MasterCard owns the card. I guess I feel that their refusal to investigate unless I cancel the card is tantamount to a Bank refusing to investigate a dispute on an unauthorized ATM or credit card transaction unless the cardholder first files a police report. I've always thought that a cardholder has the right to dispute a charge. What if the company responds with a signed receipt, and I say "oops, my bad, you were right. I forgot about that." Claim closed. Or the company responds "Ooops, our mistake, we transposed two numbers when we submitted the charge!" Sorry, we will recredit your charge. And I've gone through cancelling my card for a simple mistake. I admit I often fail to distinguish where Reg. E rights end and MasterCard rules take over.

A cardholder does have the right to dispute a charge. The right to keep the card active or inactive belongs to the bank. The bank is not conditioning its investigation on your willingness to cancel the card, it's simply telling you that the choice does not belong to you.

"The bank is not conditioning its investigation on your willingness to cancel the card, it's simply telling you that the choice does not belong to you."

Yes it is Brian. That's my whole point. They said "we will file an unauthorized claim, but you must first cancel the card and we will issue a new one while we investigate." When I said no, I don't want my card cancelled, the refused to investigate the dispute.

As I said, I would call again and talk to a supervisor. The representative that you spoke too probably got that backwards. Hopefully, what they meant to say was that we will be forced to cancel your card and issue you a new one if we proceed with the unauthorized claim. What would you like to to do?

We all know that some employees, even in a call center, do not always get it right.

Thanks Randy and Brian. I do intend to call the bank again today and try to get the unknown charge investigated first before cancelling the credit card. Again, it may be legitimate, but I don't recognize it -- or the vendor made an honest mistake.

Maybe it's semantics or maybe it's too early in the morning and the coffee hasn't set in yet....but it is still not sinking in: "Let us first cancel your credit card, then we will investigate your dispute" or "We will investigate your dispute only after we cancel your credit card." I see no difference.

If your card has been compromised, the bank wants to close the card to prevent further fraudulent transactions that the bank will have to pay.