Is anyone else as unhappy about the change in business liaiblity limits announced by Visa and effective March 1 as we are?
Comments?

I'm sure you're not alone. But sometimes the tail wags the dog.

We realize that we need to change our agreement but, do we have to re-disclose this change to existing customers?

It isn't Reg. E since it is a business. Does your contract require notification to them when there is a change (even one that is advantageous to them), or only if it is negative? Your "change" requirements should dictate this, but I wouldn't think you'd need to. It might be a selling point. (One that may cost you...)

The better question is...."Is anybody happy about this?" I can feel those losses coming.

Our vendor who does our disclosures, just faxed me a copy of this change. BUT, they also changed within the disclosure the "60 day" timeframe for which the customer has to contact us after receiving their periodic statement with an unauthorized transaction to "ONE YEAR." They said it was because of a court ruling in New York (Regatos vs. North Fork Bank). Has anyone else heard of this? I just can't believe it.

Thanks,

Lisa

Th

It has been a long-standing precedent, I believe, that banks could tweak the one-year deadline for verification of transactions by putting language in their deposit contracts. The New York court appears to have decided to take a left turn away from years of precedent. Their ruling should not be binding on courts in other states, particularly since NY hasn't yet adopted the 1990 amendments to articles 3 and 4. However, state courts do typically acknowledge rulings from other jurisdictions when it comes to the UCC (although they may not adopt them themselves).