Really? Someone must have been required to prove their side!
As you would expect.
Aha! Assumptions! What do they say about assumptions & asses ... ??!
They can argue anything they like - but it doesn't mean that it happened. If they argued that the cardholder had run into a branch with a stocking over their head waving a gun, then do you think that should be simply accepted without a shred of evidence?!
The card industry is responsible for the security of PINs being viewable at PIN pads at point of sale (after all, they designed the damn things!). No single cardholder can *make* the designers shield the pads properly - as we can see with many pads that have far too little shielding. Ergo, the card industry has also made a "_prima facie_ breach" of their responsibility ...
You've made a huge leap there which many people would not agree with (I for one certainly can't see the first part implying the second).
Credit card companies also say "never let the card out of your sight" - but if you are mugged at knifepoint and the thief takes your card - so that it is no longer in your sight - are you held responsible? Of course not!
"Tumbleweed" wrote
But surely the cardholder would also insist (just as adamantly as the bank insists otherwise) that they did *not* disclose the PIN, and hence the case would need to go to court. If everyone else realises that disclosure by the cardholder is not the only way for a PIN to have been used without their authority, then wouldn't a jury find in favour of the cardholder victim?