I have never been a fan of PCI from the word go. A self regulating body that is designed to protect the card companies just never sat right with me. In this case a restaurant is suing PCI for what it says is a flawed system.
PCI leveraged fines against the bank for Cisero’s Ristorante, US Bank. They in turn sued the restaurant to recoup the lost fines. How does that work exactly? Who is being protected here? Please don’t endeavour to tell me it’s the consumer. When you have companies that perform PCI audits AND sell products to those same clients to mitigate issues AND are part (allegedly) of the PCI governing body…
…are you picking up on the thread here?
From Wired:
But in their countersuit against U.S. Bank (.pdf), the McCombs allege that the bank, and the payment card industry (PCI) in general, force merchants to sign one-sided contracts that are based on information that arbitrarily changes without notice, and that they impose random fines on merchants without providing proof of a breach or of fraudulent losses and without allowing merchants a meaningful opportunity to dispute claims before money is seized.
That’s a borken system. (Yes you grammar police, I know I spelled that incorrectly. Settle down.)
“It’s just like Visa and MasterCard are governments,†said Stephen Cannon, an attorney representing the McCombs. “Where do they get the authority to execute a system of fines and penalties against merchants? That’s a very important issue in this case.â€
I don’t know how they will fare in court but, my pathological need to support the under dog has me in their corner.
Source: Article Link
(Image used under CC from jj look)