header-logo header-logo

16 October 2009 / Roger Porkess , Stephen Mason
Issue: 7389 / Categories: Opinion , Banking
printer mail-detail

Chip & pin fallacies

Recent cases have raised questions about the safety of chip and pin cards from fraudulent attack, for example by cloning. Typically, in such cases, the claimant is an individual whose account has been debited as a result of one or more allegedly unauthorised card transactions; the defendant is a bank or building society.

Recent cases have raised questions about the safety of chip and pin cards from fraudulent attack, for example by cloning.

Typically, in such cases, the claimant is an individual whose account has been debited as a result of one or more allegedly unauthorised card transactions; the defendant is a bank or building society.

A common counterclaim for damages for breach of contract is that the claimant did not observe the security conditions attached to the card and so made it possible for it to be used fraudulently.

In such cases, at least one disputed transaction has taken place. The question before a court is which of four possible explanations is the most likely, although they may not all

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
Digital loot may feel like property, but civil law is not always convinced. In NLJ this week, Paul Schwartfeger of 36 Stone and Nadia Latti of CMS examine fraud involving platform-controlled digital assets, from ‘account takeover and asset stripping’ to ‘value laundering’
back-to-top-scroll