One of the costs associated with fraudulent card use is turning a set of number into a physical object. Several retailers will avoid the "Just write the number onto an existing card" approach by verifying that the last four digits on the card match the number on the magstripe, which increases the cost per cloned card by a reasonable margin. Using Plastc instead would break that assumption. It'll be interesting to see how merchants react.
But, more problematically, this answer:
> What happens if one of the cards stored on my Plastc Card is declined?
> The acceptance of any transaction has nothing to do with your Plastc Card. In this event, we recommend you contact your bank.
seems like a problem if the auth failure that comes back is one that requests that the merchant retain the card…
If I were a merchant, I would not accept one of these. Fraud claims always side with the cardholder, what do you say as a merchant? "Yeah, some guy came in with this black piece of plastic and a screen on it and I just swiped it."
One of the costs associated with fraudulent card use is turning a set of number into a physical object. Several retailers will avoid the "Just write the number onto an existing card" approach by verifying that the last four digits on the card match the number on the magstripe, which increases the cost per cloned card by a reasonable margin. Using Plastc instead would break that assumption. It'll be interesting to see how merchants react.
But, more problematically, this answer:
> What happens if one of the cards stored on my Plastc Card is declined?
> The acceptance of any transaction has nothing to do with your Plastc Card. In this event, we recommend you contact your bank.
seems like a problem if the auth failure that comes back is one that requests that the merchant retain the card…