I located the name of our Visa representative and forwarded my question to her. Here is what she said:

Interlink is covered by Zero Liability. There are non-Visa debit PIN transactions that are not processed via Visa's network and they are not covered by zero liability (ex. Star).

This confirms what C_Groat stated. Apparently, the employee at Visa's Support Center did not fully understand their policy.

Since this is a Visa requirement and not Reg E, are we really required to send out this disclosure and modify our existing reg E dislosure. If we decide not to do it, will examiners be looking for this.

Interesting, is it not, that two different Visa reps appear to view Interlink differently, Banjo. Which one do you believe?

This last one. She sent me information backing up what she told me. She also asked for the email I received from Visa's esupport and a couple of days ago I received an email correction from esupport stating Interlink transactions were indeed covered by Zero Liability.

Here is sample language from Pulse:

Your Visa debit card also allows you to conduct transactions on the PULSE® [and _______][insert names of other PIN debit networks, if applicable] debit network[s], which will generally require you to enter your PIN. Some merchants are authorized to accept non-Visa debit transactions without requiring you to enter your PIN. If you choose to sign to authorize a debit transaction, the transaction will be routed as a Visa transaction. Provisions of your cardholder agreement that specifically relate to Visa transactions are inapplicable to non-Visa debit transactions.


PULSE believes this sample notice is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Visa Operating Regulation 6.2.A.7.b, but you may wish to consult with your advisors to determine whether modifications should be made to reflect your financial institution’s particular circumstances.

Hope this helps some.

So have we decided if this is a reg E issue or a VISA issue? Do I need to comply for Regulatory reasons or is it to be in compliance with my VISA contract?

It's not a Reg E Issue - Reg E hasn't changed.

Does the Cirrus network enable non-visa debit transactions without a pin?

I agree with Duchess. This isn't a new transaction the consumer can make and isn't a Reg E issue.

So, it's not a Reg. E issue, but where are you disclosing this if not in your Reg. E disclosure?

We are providing the Visa-required notice in a statement letter/message. We are also amending our Reg E disclosure with not only the VISA required disclosure, but to say that any debit transaction not processed on a VISA network does not have the protection of Visa's zero liability. We needed to use the Reg E disclosure to inform new debit card customers of the Visa information, since they won't have benefit of our December statement message. I wrote my own disclosure and would be happy to share.

We are in the process of updating our Reg. E disclosure and also, debating what type of seperate disclosure (i.e. statement message, buck slip, etc.) we should send to our customers. I would like to see what you came up with for your disclosures, especially the "examples of the types of actions a cardholder may be required to make to initiate a Visa transaction". Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

mcb80 - Just pm me with your email address and I'll send you my Word doc.

I know we have to notify card holders of this new VISA rule. Several posted have also mentioned updating the Bank's Reg. E disclosure.

Our Reg. E disclosure currently has a small section on VISA liability, within that section it states: "Additional Limit on Liability for VISA card. Unless you have been grossly negligent or have engaged in fraud, you will not be liable for any unauthorized transactions using your lost or stolen VISA card. This additional limit on liability does not apply to ATM transactions, or to transactions using your Personal Identification Number which are not processed by VISA."

Does this verbiage cover the new non-VISA debit transaction rule (since it mentions transactions using your PIN not processed by VISA)? I'm just wondering if this will suffice, or if additional verbiage is needed. Thanks.

I had a conversation with our Visa rep last week, and she indicated that any debit transaction with, or without a PIN, that is conducted on a NON-VISA network, would not be covered by zero liability. Our Reg E disclosure says essentially what yours does, and so we viewed that as increased liability to the customer - based on what we disclosed. We revised our Reg E to say "Unless you have been grossly negligent or have engaged in fraud, you will not be liable for any unauthorized transactions conducted through a Visa network." In a nutshell, transactions conducted through a Visa network = zero liability for unauthorized. Transactions conducted through a non-Visa network = Reg E limits of liability for unauthorized - regardless of PIN. That's my take on it.

Thanks compliancegeek.

Are you providing your disclosure about the new rule to all cardholders? We issue both ATM only cards and VISA debit cards...would our ATM only cardholders also need to be notified of this new rule? Thanks.

We are sending the disclosure to everyone with an account having the capability to send/receive an EFT - just because their Reg E disclosure has been revised - whether or not the card they hold is capable of a debit transaction. It was just easier that way.

That depends on what "ATM Only" really means. Can those cards be used in an ATM network POS transaction? For example, a lot of merchants accept NYCE or similar cards for PIN POS purchacases (as noted, some may accept PIN-less card transactions on those networks. If your ATM customer can access a transaction account with that "ATM only" card, there's a real possibility the card will work at a gas pump or grocery store.

Has anyone come up with examples of scenarios to provide to customers? Is there any way a customer could opt-out from having their transaction post on the non-visa networks?

If I'm understanding this correctly it sounds like even though our cards have the Visa logo which typically means 'visa's zero liability' (from our customer's eyes) that this may not be the case since the actual transaction could be processed on a different network.

How would we explain that in simple terms to make sense to customers?

Would you send me your Visa non-pin disclosure.

I certainly appreciate it.

Freedom

I am also looking for a sample disclosure and sample wording for Reg E. Please e-mail to sodomREMOVETHIS@firststatebnk.com.


Andy's notes: Because web crawlers look for email addresses to add to spam lists, it is generally better to have PMs sent to you than to post your email address. AT the very least, make the address such that it needs a person to alter it so it is usable.

Wolters Kluwer (formerly Bankers Systems) has slip sheets for notifying customers available.

Could you share your disclsoure with me. Thanks

CatNip

deleted