I know this has been discussed before, but I am still confused on when a consumer is liable for the $50.00. For example, the bank is notified by a consumer there are some unauthorized transactions (most are via the internet). The bank is deducting $50.00 from the disputed amount. The customer has the card in their possession. Is this okay that the bank is making this dedcution on these types of disputes?

Actually just learned this from Brian Crow's Debit Card Fraud Mitigation webinar today!

The answer is no. The $50/$500 customer liability is ONLY for lost or stolen cards. So if the customer still has their card you can not charge them the $50.

What she said ^^^^^^^^

There are some who argue (and I agree they have a point) that the card number itself could be considered an access device and therefore you're ok witholding the $50.00. However, regardless of who wins that arguement, VISA/MasterCard Zero Liability trumps the $50.00 liability of Reg E and you're stuck reimbursing the customer for the full amount anyway if you conclude the transactions are truly unauthorized.

CULady. thanks for attending and I'm glad to hear that you gained some new insights.

Thanks CULady and Brian. I am going to suggest to management that the bank purchase Brian's webinar.

Oh my aren't all these reg e and mastercard/visa requirements making your head spin? Its difficult to me to get everything straight. We have gone to more than one of Brian's webinars and they are helpful but there is so much gray it makes me crazy! To many situations and all are different.

Thanks for attending. I have another one on Reg E vs MasterCard coming up in October.