View Full Version : New VISA regulation
03-16-2004, 10:19 AM
Effective June 1, 2004, all electronic commerce merchants need to include the full address of the permanent establishment on their web site, along with its country of domicile, either
* On the same screen view as the checkout screen used to present the total purchase amount OR
* Within the sequence of web pages the cardholder accesses during the checkout process.
(An electronic commerce merchant is defined by Visa as 'a merchant that conducts the sale of goods or services electronically over the internet'.)
All opinions about this regulation are welcome!
03-17-2004, 12:34 PM
What is the origin of this new regulation? Where can documentation be found?
03-17-2004, 01:01 PM
It is my understanding that the Name & other contact details have to be able to be found.
Try this link to find some links to Gov sites
03-17-2004, 01:12 PM
In development of my sites I have always included this info. (not country though).
This information is available in the shopping cart systems while checking out. (the one's I use) Additionally it is good practice to have this included in the contact info. I will not buy if I cannot contact the owner.
I do not recommend providing a street address since many are small home based businesses.
03-19-2004, 06:32 AM
Twopooches, that's exactly the problem here. There are millions of sole proprietors out there who want to sell their products/services through the internet but do not wish to put their own address on their web site!
Another thing: If the address is listed on the checkout page and you are using i.e. 2CheckOut, according to MasterCard Europe, the 2CheckOut address has to be listed because they are the owner of the order page (?), but according to Visa U.S. the merchants address has to be on there. It's about time that the regulations of these two cc companies become much clearer to everyone.
I have to say that an address on the website does give a website more credibility and I would buy much sooner from such a web site.
03-23-2004, 07:57 AM
When one uses a Credit Card to make a payment, the transaction is guaranteed by the CC company; i.e., one can protest whether or not the product was ordered, whether it was "as advertised," etc. I use a CC to protect "me" as the customer, and have used it as a business to guarantee payment.
It seems reasonable for the CC company to protect itself and require standard business information at point-of-sale. Afterall, they are the ones who are gonna eat the charge.
Since international shipping is still dealing with a myriad of international regulations, I consider all of this to be essential information. For example, I won't order any product not originating in the U.S. as I don't want the hassles of international shipping/customs, etc., other than downloadable software. I want "some" assurance that the product ordered has a chance of reaching me, rather than being hung up in some "international legal loop."
03-23-2004, 09:09 AM
I understand your point of view, I myself have done business with companies outside my region and I always check if the web site looks credible and all the contact information is there. No problem, besides there are probably thousands of small web site owners out there, who only wish to sell there products locally and do not wish to put their own home address on there, which in my opinion is totally understandable. I am not talking about the companies who expect hundreds of thousand dollars of sales through the internet and have a main office and three other offices, although some of these companies do not even want their address listed on the web site. (Which I don't understand and find rather suspicious.) So, MasterCard is trying to catch the big fish, but forget that all the little fish is drowning.
03-24-2004, 09:44 AM
I suppose that if one engages in business and then a) proxies their whois information for the domain so that they remain invisible; and, b) doesn't want to give out business address information on a website, that they really don't want to be a "business." This level of paranoia seems to lack credibility. Also, if one is depending on 100% of their sales from web traffic only, they aren't really developing a viable marketing plan, that should include local advertising in other forms.
The average user generally lacks the skills to pull up a whois on a domain to find the basic information, yet it is a public record just as much as having the information actually listed on the website.
I thimk that some of reasoning behind the CC company's new rule might be based on the sheer volume of affiliate-only sites. A websearcher goes to one site and is unaware of the redirect to somewhere else, where they actually make the purchase (and this is the company that appears on the CC statement).
As more and more scams are spawned on the net and against CCs, identity theft, and such, I think that an insistence of a certain amount of public credibility is reasonable.
(Note: my new site is both still under construction, and I've yet to relocate; so, do not have a viable address or phone # from which I will be operating; so, I lack such info for now. Besides, I'm not truly "in business," yet -- and will be applying for a business merchant account for handling CC transactions when I do relocate.)