I find it interesting that banks are putting this in the hands of the customer when it has little to no impact on the customers themselves.
Effectively, they’re getting us to voluntarily reduce their exposure to fraud. I don’t have an issue with it at all, it just strikes me as slightly bizarre. Am I missing something?
It just allows the customer to potentially feel more comfortable, as £100 is a lot of money for some people - and the investigation and resulting refund that would be given in the event of fraud would still be stressful and take some time.
By not allowing large payments in the first place, the customer knows they will never have to worry about that happening.
It’s giving customers a choice, finally over what limit they’d like to use.
Act on something people will moan, don’t act on it, people will moan. That’s not a dig at you by the way, it’s just the in general.
I’d probably choose a lower limit, but that’s because I use Google Pay and my card doesn’t go anywhere. In the likelihood my card did go walkies, would just mean whoever couldn’t go buy something more expensive for themselves. Although I guess they could just go buy multiple items of something cheaper.
I guess so. Given that the bank’s liability here doesn’t seem well understood by the public, we get to feel ‘in control’ and they take the risk benefit. On that basis it seems like quite a clever move to make.