BACK

Legal, Regulatory, and Privacy Issues

Under Minnesota Plastic Card Security Act, retailers would pay for theft of credit card info

Summary

Learn how a credit card security law holds retailers accountable for storing account numbers stolen for fraudulent purposes.

The content on this page is accurate as of the posting date; however, some of our partner offers may have expired. Please review our list of best credit cards, or use our CardMatch™ tool to find cards matched to your needs.

The Minnesota Plastic Card Security Act is a bill that would prevent retailers from storing customers’ credit card information.  In instances where credit card data is then stolen, retailers would be held financially liable.

Compare Low Interest Credit CardsThe bill comes alongside a batch of legislation that seeks to increase consumer protection, addressing issues from predatory mortgage lending to gift-card policies.  The Plastic Card Security Act builds upon a law passed in 2005 that requires financial corporation to alert customers in the event of a security breach.

While financial institutions support the bill, which they explain simply holds retailers responsible for any security breaches they allow, many merchants are none too pleased with it.

Retailers counter that since credit card firms already forbid them from saving security information, the bill unfairly blames retailers for security breakdowns when there are several parties involved in credit card transactions.

Under the proposed law, merchants would be barred from retaining the three- or four-digit access code, PIN or the entire contents of magnetic-stripe data from any credit cards or debit cards used in a transaction.

Furthermore, the Plastic Card Security Act would force merchants to pay for s security breach involving private data, such as taking on the costs of replacing credit cards and any fraudulent transactions connected to the breach.

Financial institutions would also be allowed to sue a retailer that broke the rules in the event the financial institutions suffered as a result of a security mishap.

The bill’s main author, Democratic Rep. Jim Davnie of Minneapolis, referred to agreements with Visa that restrict financial institutions for informing customer when a security violation took place, which can result in the customer perception that the financial institution is liable.  He explained that the Plastic Card Security Act would place the blame where it is due.

Massachusetts is weighing a bill similar to the Plastic Card Security Act, while other states and the federal government are also expected to take on the matter.

Editorial Disclaimer

The editorial content on this page is based solely on the objective assessment of our writers and is not driven by advertising dollars. It has not been provided or commissioned by the credit card issuers. However, we may receive compensation when you click on links to products from our partners.

What’s up next?

In Legal, Regulatory, and Privacy Issues

American Bankers Association CEO highlights positive credit card changes

The CEO and president of the American Bankers Association highlighted some of the recent changes to the credit card industry that have helped consumers.

See more stories
Credit Card Rate Report Updated: August 5th, 2020
Business
13.91%
Airline
15.48%
Cash Back
16.09%
Reward
15.82%
Student
16.12%

Questions or comments?

Contact us

Editorial corrections policies

Learn more

Join the Discussion

We encourage an active and insightful conversation among our users. Please help us keep our community civil and respectful. For your safety, do not disclose confidential or personal information such as bank account numbers or social security numbers. Anything you post may be disclosed, published, transmitted or reused.

The editorial content on CreditCards.com is not sponsored by any bank or credit card issuer. The journalists in the editorial department are separate from the company’s business operations. The comments posted below are not provided, reviewed or approved by any company mentioned in our editorial content. Additionally, any companies mentioned in the content do not assume responsibility to ensure that all posts and/or questions are answered.