Why don't some places require a credit card receipt signature, and some do?
This is basically done to reduce costs and overhead, with agreement of the credit card issuers. When the card is physically present and the charge is low, the burden of keeping the signed receipts and of additional delays at the cash register is not worth the potential risk of fraud. Depending on the location and the specific charge-back history of the business, the limit above which signature is required differs. In one supermarket in the area I live they require signatures only on charges above $50. In another, 10 miles away from the first one, they require signatures on charges above $25. My understanding it that the signature requirement is at the retailer's discretion. If the merchant decides to require a signature it protects them against fraudulent charge-back claims, but increases their administrative costs. In some situations it just isn't practical for a retailer to require a signature. Consider for example mail-order or online purchases, which I've never had to sign a credit card slip for. Merchants apply in advance for the program, and the amount is limited to less than $25.
Rational reason. They like this method of paying. There is a delay between writing the check and having the money removed from the account. Their checkbook makes a carbon copy of the check, so they can update their balance easier. They can leave the store and update their checkbook register, or the spreadsheet or their Quicken or budget application data. They don't have to try and remember the amount, store name or date. Like email and spam, fighting creditcard fraud is a cat and mouse game, with technology and processes constantly being developed to reduce fraud. The CVV on the back of the card is just one more layer of security.  Requiring the CVV generally requires you to physically have access to the card. CVV should not be stored by any merchant. This frustrates card skimming fraud as the CVV is not present in the track data and fraud caused by database compromises.  You should never use your PIN online. MC/VISA both have implementations of 3D-Secure (SecureCode for MC and Verified by VISA) which require a password / code to confirm card ownership. Depends on both Issuer and Merchant implementing the standard.  Regarding not needing a PIN at the airport, some low value transactions no longer need PINs, depending on the Issuer and Scheme (VISA/MC). MasterCard PayPass or VISA PayWave enable low value contactless transactions without PIN. In Australia, the maximum value for a contactless transactions is $100 AUD. At some merchants (McDonalds for example) a PIN is not required for for meals purchased with VISA (at least, for the cheeseburger I bought there as a test). This makes sense - if you don't need a PIN for a contactless purchase, why do you need it for a chip based purchase?  So - why allow PIN free transactions? On average customers report stolen credit cards / wallet very quickly and the losses are correspondingly small. As card issuers are always online, cards can be cancelled very quickly after being reported lost / stolen. Finally, by performing transactions for just a few cents or pennies, the merchant (Spotify) can likely validate you are the owner of the card as you'd need access to your online bank to confirm the transactions.  PayPal do this with bank account to confirm ownership. (Unless I've misunderstood your statement). Deposit on a Debit Card have a different effect, and many people don't understand it (and make a big stink), or cannot afford it (or both). Either of it results in lots of trouble for the business: In addition, having a credit card showes that some bank trusts the customer with an unsecured credit of this height, which is some reassurance for the business. A debit card proves only that he was able to get a checking account, which needs much less liquidity and stability. Because large stores do not pay their cashiers enough that the companies can dock the employees' pay if they allow a bad credit card to go through.  So most cashiers at large stores won't take the extra effort to check the card properly.  As a result, large stores come up with other ways to handle potential credit card fraud.  For example, they calculate a certain amount of fraud as expected and include it in their price calculations.  Or they can use cameras to catch fraudsters.   At small stores, there is a much higher chance that the cashier is either the owner or a relative of the owner.  And even those who are unrelated tend to be hired by the owner directly.  The owners do have their pay docked if a bad credit card is accepted, as their pay is the profit from the business.  So they tend to create protocols that, at least in their mind, reduce the chance of taking a bad credit card.  The cashier is often the only employee in the store to check anything.   Another issue is that small stores have a harder time getting approved to accept credit cards.  The companies that process the credit cards can take back their machine if there is a lot of fraud.  So the companies can require more from small stores than they can from big stores.  Those companies can't stop processing cards for Safeway, because they need Safeway as much if not more than Safeway needs them.  So the processors have more leverage to make small stores do what they want.  And small stores can feasibly fire (non-owner) cashiers who do not comply.   Owners of course can't be fired.  But they are far more vulnerable to business losses.  So it is really important to an owner to keep the credit card machine.  And it is pretty important to avoid losses, as it is their money directly.   Relatives of owners may be safe from firing, but they are not safe from family retaliation like taking away television privileges.  And they may also think of the effect of business losses on the family.   Large stores can fire cashiers, but they are chronically understaffed and almost none of their cashiers will consistently follow a strict protocol.  Since fraudsters only need to succeed once, an inconsistent application is almost as bad as no application.  They might charge the cashiers for fraud, but then they would have to pay the cashiers more than minimum wage specifically for that reason (e.g. a $50 a month bonus for no fraud).  For many of them, it's cheaper to risk the fraud.   And large stores can't mix owners and relatives of owners into the mix.  It's hard to say who owns Safeway.  And even if you could, the relationship between one fraud transaction and the dividend paid on one share of stock is tiny.  It would take thousands of shares to get up to a penny. "&gt; Every credit card has a space on the back for a signature. And for decades, retailers would check the signature on your ID ... This worked for a long time, until retailers ...  For decades, retailers never compared signatures on credit cards to the person's signature. Impractical and not even worth it as anyone can copy a signature on a card.  Neither do banks bother to check for signature. They don't even have a ""signature on-file"" anymore.   Try it! Deposit a check or buy with a credit card and scribble something unrelated as a signature! The deposit or credit card transaction will go through. I guarantee you that! **Please try it! Let me know if it did not work!**  I know what I am talking about because I deal with credit cards a lot, professionally, in IT.  The only sure thing is to ask for a PIN. But, alas, credit cards use a chip, so if I steall your card, I can buy with it with no problems. But not if I still your ATM card - I don't know your PIN. The PIN is in your head and I can't get it.  The credit card companies don't really care." I'm not an expert in the field, but I'm pretty sure they *do*, its just that the customers arent us, but rather the landlords/cc companies/car dealerships/etc. who pay them for credit checks. Those parties do choose to do business with them and have alternatives. Given that the laws on consumer liability for unauthorized transactions mean no cost in most cases, the CVV is there to protect the merchant.  Typically a merchant will receive a lower cost from their bank to process the transaction with the CVV code versus without. As far as the Netflix case goes, (or any other recurring billing for that matter) they wouldn't care as much about it because Visa/MC/Amex regulations prohibit storage of the CVV.  So if they collect it then it's only used for the first transaction and renewals just use the rest of the card info (name, expiration date, address). Does the presence of CVV indicate the merchant has better security?  Maybe, maybe not.  It probably means they care about their costs and want to pay the bank as little as possible to process the transaction. "The confusion comes from ambiguity in popular belief -- that businesses are required to accept x_y_x as payment. In reality, a business can state the terms of a transaction to their pleasure. On the other hand, debt is different -- no lender can refuse cash or other legal tender for repayment of debt. Sometimes, people try to split hairs and argue ""Well, if I eat a steak and I owe the restaurant $100, they should have to accept my $100 as tender for the debt of my meal."" Not true. The restaurant isn't giving you a line of credit, they're billing you after services rendered, and your payment is due on their terms." Chip and Pin cards are popular in Europe, however in the US we don't have them.  Visa/MC and Amex can issue chip and pin cards but no merchants or machines are set up here to take them.  Only certain countries in Europe use them and since you could possibly have a US visitor or a non-chip and pin person using your machine or eating at your restaurant they usually allow you to sign or just omit the pin if the card doesn't have a chip. It is definitely less secure, but the entire credit card industry in the US is running right now without it, so I don't think the major credit card companies care too much (they just pass the fraud on to the merchants anyway). You need receipts only if you claim deductions in the itemized deductions section based on them. You itemize deductions only if your claims exceed the standard deduction (which for a single person was $5,800 last year). Even then, you need receipts for everything only if you claim sales tax as the deduction (you have to buy really a lot to pass $5K with sales tax...). I would expect people to pay more in state income taxes than sales taxes (you can claim either this or that, not both). For food - there are no taxes (at least here in California), so nothing to deduct anyway. In any case, you can always scan your receipts and keep them in the computer, for just in case, but IMHO it's waste of time, pixels and gigabytes. Here's a question which deals with the same issue, read the answers there as well. "Chip and Signature cards do not substantially alter the paradigm you mention in your question. The chip alters how the machine obtains your account number and transmits it for authentication, but it does not significantly alter the interaction with the clerk.  It is solely intended to reduce ""skimming"" and similar card-number-stealing and card-forging attacks. Specifically, a clerk is still welcome to ask to see the card to verify the signature if they wish, and/or to ask to see an ID to use the card.  Some changes occurred around the same time as introducing Chip and Signature that meant that clerks will be less likely to ask for signatures for certain purchases (raising the dollar amount for no-signature-required purchases, mostly), but those changes are distinct from the introduction of EMV (chip) authentication." In most cases, a debit card can be charged like a credit card so there is typically no strict need for a credit card. However, a debit card provides weaker guarantees to the merchant that an arbitrary amount of money will be available. This is for several reasons: As such, there are a few situations where a credit card is required. For example, Amazon requires a credit card for Prime membership, and car rental companies usually require a credit card. The following does not apply to the OP and is provided for reference. Debit cards don't build credit, so if you've never had a credit card or loan before, you'll likely have no credit history at all if you've never had a credit card. This will make it very difficult to get any nontrivially-sized loan. Also, some employers (typically if the job you're applying for involves financial or other highly sensitive information) check credit when hiring, and not having credit puts you at a disadvantage. "Ever wonder why certain businesses won't accept certain credit cards? (The sign above the register saying ""Sorry, we don't accept AmericanExpress""). It's because they don't want to pay that credit card company's transaction fees. One of the roles of the credit card company is to facilitate the transaction process between the customer (you) and the store. And now that using credit cards over cash or check is so ingrained in our culture, it creates extra work for the customer to make purchases at an establishment that is cash-only. Credit card companies know this, and so do businesses. So businesses will partner with credit card companies so that customers can use their cards. This way, everything is handled electronically (this can also benefit the business, since there's added security as they're not dealing with cash directly, and they don't have to manually count as much cash later). However a business may only budget a certain amount of their profits they want taken by credit card transactions. So if a company's fees are too high (say AmericanExpress, for example) and they are banking on you already having a Visa card, the company isn't going to go out of its way to provide the AmericanExpress option for you. If it were free for the business to use a credit card company's service at their stores, then they would all just provide the option for every card! So the credit card company making money is all contingent on you spending your money by using their credit card. You use the card, and the store pays the company for the transaction." &gt;&gt; Hey! Do you mind giving your credit card to the waiter...  &gt; I'm not especially fond of that, but it's easy to report fraud to the bank and most of the time the bank will reverse the charges.  No kidding! Of course, even I give credit cards to waiters. What do I care? **As you said, you are not liable to any fraud on your credit card.** None at all!!!!  It's only Merchant, not the credit card company, that pay the price for fraud... **and you pay higher prices to cover for losses from fraud.**  &gt; The PIN situation is different because a mugging is life-threatening.  Nonsense! Mugging at the ATM is so rare, each ATM has a camera. **In any case, I am not talking about using PIN to withdraw money!** I am talking about PIN to authorize charges on a credit card or ATM card.  &gt;&gt; We already determined that nobody even care about signatures or check them.  &gt; You can't use a stolen card at an ATM with a signature.  Huh? You totally got it wrong what I said, or, you argue for the sake of argument.  **I am saying that cards that require you to enter a PIN cannot be used used when stolen or copied. Yes or no?**  **On the other hand, cards that require signature can be used when stolen or copied because signature is a worthless method to validate the charge. Yes or no?**  LASTLY, my Costco credit card has a picture of me on it. **Question for you, since for some reason you argue so much against PINs: Wouldn't a picture on the card better than a signature?** Yes or no?  Do you see? There are so many ways to make this system so much more secure and fraud proof... but, ON PURPOSE, the credit card companies don't want that... because they are not liable for fraud. Simple as that. "Here's another rational reason: Discount. This typically works only in smaller stores, where you're talking directly to the owners, but it is sometimes possible to negotiate a few percent off the price when paying by check, since otherwise they'd have to give a few percent to the credit card company. (Occasionally the sales reps at larger stores have the authority to cut this deal, but it's far less common.) Not worth worrying about on small items, but if you're making a large purchase (a bedroom suite, for example) it can pay for lunch. And sometimes the store's willing to give you more discount than that, simply because with checks they don't have to worry about chargebacks or some of the other weirdnesses that can occur in credit card processing. Another reason: Nobody's very likely to steal you check number and try to write themselves a second check or otherwise use it without authorization. It's just too easy to steal credit card info these days to make printing checks worth the effort. But, in the end, the real answer is that there's no rational reason not to use checks. So it takes you a few seconds more to complete the transaction. What were you going to do with those seconds that makes them valuable? Especially if they're seconds that the store is spending bagging your purchase, so there's no lost time... and the effort really isn't all that different from signing the credit card authorization. Quoting Dean Inge: ""There are two kinds of fool. One says 'this is old, and therefore good.' The other says 'this is new, and therefore better.'"""