To protect against the liability from a credit card chargeback, an ARC accredited agent should...

To protect against the liability from a credit card chargeback, an ARC accredited agent should...

• A. Obtain an imprint of the cardholder's credit card and a signature on the Universal Credit Card Charge Form (UCCF).
• B. Always use the cardholder's email for authorization.
• C. Only capture the card number without the name.
• D. Request a secondary authorization from the card issuer.

Answer: (A)

Liability protection in card-present sales hinges on having verifiable evidence of the cardholder's authorization. Obtaining an imprint of the card and a signature on the Universal Credit Card Charge Form provides concrete proof that the cardholder was present and approved the charge. The imprint captures the card data and confirms the card used matches the cardholder, while the signature confirms consent. Together, they create a defensible record against chargebacks because a dispute would have to argue that the cardholder did not authorize the transaction, which is supported by documented authorization and tangible evidence. Relying on the cardholder's email for authorization isn’t a reliable, verifiable record and can be forged or intercepted. Capturing only the card number without the name fails to tie the transaction to a specific cardholder and lacks essential identifying details. Requesting a secondary authorization from the issuer isn’t a standard method for preventing chargebacks and can’t replace the merchant’s own authorization record.

Liability protection in card-present sales hinges on having verifiable evidence of the cardholder's authorization. Obtaining an imprint of the card and a signature on the Universal Credit Card Charge Form provides concrete proof that the cardholder was present and approved the charge. The imprint captures the card data and confirms the card used matches the cardholder, while the signature confirms consent. Together, they create a defensible record against chargebacks because a dispute would have to argue that the cardholder did not authorize the transaction, which is supported by documented authorization and tangible evidence.

Relying on the cardholder's email for authorization isn’t a reliable, verifiable record and can be forged or intercepted. Capturing only the card number without the name fails to tie the transaction to a specific cardholder and lacks essential identifying details. Requesting a secondary authorization from the issuer isn’t a standard method for preventing chargebacks and can’t replace the merchant’s own authorization record.