Cardholder asks to dispute several transactions on her debit card for ITunes. She freely tells us her grandson made the purchases. When asked how he got her card, she said she put her card number into his phone so he could play free games. Does her giving him the card number make this authorized or not?

As much as I would like to be able to say that Granny gave implied permission to use the card info, I don't think I can. This is a direct parallel to Granny writing her PIN on her card. Granny didn't tell the kid he could buy anything with the card.

I think the bank pays the piper on this claim, and decides whether to let Granny have another card (this one should be canceled). Granny should also be told she should not share the card number with her grandson unless the account can be set up so he needs a separate access code (known only to Granny) to make a purchase.

John,

We ran across something similar recently with an X-Box dispute. We based our decision on this thread back in 2013 you, Brian, and Randy seemed to agree on denying the claim:

https://www.bankersonline.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/1875749/re-reg-e-yet-another-question

What would be the difference in this and the original poster's situation? We struggle with these and just want to do things the right way, and consistently.

Thanks.

I would also like to know what makes our situation different from the one MBTCompliance referenced above. Would anyone like to share their opinion?

The key difference between the two is that with the Xbox example the card was given to make some purchases and the actual purchases exceeded the authorization given. In this example, authority was not given to make any purchases to use the card.

Would it make a difference if the terms and conditions agreed to when entering the card info stated the card would be charged if purchases were made?

I would use a bright line test here -- Did Granny give this kid permission to buy (read: pay for) anything with the card number?

Let's just admit that we are dealing with a flawed regulation here, because it has never been updated to address things like the storage of an access device on a mobile device for a purpose other than to use it to pay for something. The only real interpretations of some of these rules have been in court cases that aren't readily available to the layperson.

Thanks for the responses. This is indeed a hair-pulling regulation to deal with.

^Agreed!

Understatement of the year right here. And in serious need to updating so that the consumer bears some level of responsibility for carelessness or dumb decisions.

I don't really think that moving liability to the consumer is something we can expect. This is a consumer protection law, after all. What would be nice is some clarity on some of the finer points and the impacts of new technology.