> The benefit of credit cards is no one can literally drain your bank account via fraudulent access to a payment card directly tied to your bank (i.e. debit card in US nomenclature
This difference is a consequence of law, not payment technology. It's entirely possible for someone to make fraudulent charges on a card up to its limit (which would be the analogue of draining a bank account), but CC companies are required by law to absorb fraud beyond a token amount. There's no technical reason why bank accounts couldn't be similarly protected, but banks have thus far been successful in preventing such laws from being enacted.
There is a functional difference in how credit/debit cards work, though.
With credit cards, you get an invoice with fraudulent charges at the end of the month. You can choose not to pay those charges, citing fraud. The bank will clear the charges if they agree.
With debit cards, the money is withdrawn directly from your account. You can report the unauthorized withdrawal, and the bank will reimburse you if they agree. In the meantime, you don't have access to the money.
And unlike a credit card, it's easy to vary the risk/limit with a debit card. Just keep the main funds on a separate, non-card accound, and transfer to the debit card account as needed.
I usually keep around $200 on my debit card, which means I lose at most $200. This way I also get a sense of my spending in terms of how often I have to transfer.
If I need to pay for more, I just transfer before paying. Takes me about 2 seconds with an SMS or through the bank app.
However, in the UK there is the Direct Debit Guarantee: the company holding your DD mandate can't withdraw more than you mandated, nor on some other date than the date you specify. Otherwise you have a claim against your bank, and they have no defense.
Part of it is inherent to the type of account. Ledgers have to balance out somehow, and fraud is going to temporarily be someones problem until it is resolved. Credit is, by definition, the bank's money.
For example, US also has similar laws for debit cards, but, by definition, when a charge is made to your bank account, it is made to your bank account.
>There's no technical reason why bank accounts couldn't be similarly protected, but banks have thus far been successful in preventing such laws from being enacted.
My bank's (Chase) policy limits debit card customer fraud losses to the same $50 that the law requires of credit cards.
Not sure about other banks, but while I'm not sad that I have this protection, Chase's anti-fraud measures for debit cards (mostly programmatic, I'm sure) are pretty draconian.
If I travel any significant distance from my home, transactions with my debit card are almost always declined and I either have to contact customer service (a big time waster) or use a credit card.
That's incredibly annoying, although if that's the reason my debit card fraud responsibility is limited to the same as a credit card, that's a trade off that some may be willing to make and some will not.
Given that my debit card has been the subject of fraudulent activity several times and the bank has made me whole every time, perhaps there's something to be said for the harshness of the debit card anti-fraud algorithms.
> My bank's (Chase) policy limits debit card customer fraud losses to the same $50 that the law requires of credit cards.
Yes, many banks do. But be aware that when using a debit card, it's just the bank policy of being nice that protects you. They have the right to change that policy on a whim.
When using a credit card, that protection is built into the regulations so you can count on it.
Always use a credit card, never a debit card, is the safest approach.
My impression is that all banks are pretty miserable to deal with when you travel, though I imagine if you move out of consumer-grade junk, that improves. I have a bank account (Navy Federal Credit Union) that got locked out when I used a cashier's check to buy a car (despite repeated assurances that there was a note in my account explaining the transaction in advance.) Unfortunately, their customer service is just a notch better than Google, with hold times routinely exceeding 3 hours, and lines periodically going dead; consequently, I'm going on 7 months without access to my accounts.
> This difference is a consequence of law, not payment technology.
Yes, that's the beauty of it. When using credit cards you can know you're not liable for losses, full stop. The bank can't suddenly change their policy because it comes from regulation.
There's an important difference here: bank accounts are not credit. If my card is stolen and charges are racked up, I'm no poorer until the fraud is detected and resolved. You don't spend cash when you use a credit card, you spend credit. There isn't a legal remedy for this.
In fact in most of Europe banks have to absorb the cost as well unless they can proof that you acted negligently (e.g wrote down your pin and had it in the same wallet as your card), it is the same essentially for online banking.
This difference is a consequence of law, not payment technology. It's entirely possible for someone to make fraudulent charges on a card up to its limit (which would be the analogue of draining a bank account), but CC companies are required by law to absorb fraud beyond a token amount. There's no technical reason why bank accounts couldn't be similarly protected, but banks have thus far been successful in preventing such laws from being enacted.