The problem with 3D Secure is that the merchant can unilaterally decide not to use it, which defeats the whole purpose of 3D Secure.

▲

swiftcoder 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> the merchant can unilaterally decide not to use it

If they do so, they are telling the card issuer that they are happy to be on the hook for chargebacks/fraud. It's not an decision without consequences

	▲	handle584 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Comparing to fraud 3DS reduces sales turn over by a lot, and this is the reason why for the most part it is not required in the US, too much friction during check out hurts business.

▲

nottorp 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I tend to associate ignoring 3D Secure with Stripe. In the name of "less friction" of course.

▲

antonkochubey 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

non-3DS payments are trivial to chargeback, at least in the EU

	▲	kccqzy 5 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		In America all payments are trivial to chargeback anyways. We ought to have liability shifting. A long time ago there was a liability shift where if a merchant uses the magnetic stripe on a card equipped with a chip, then the merchant is unconditionally liable in case of a chargeback. We just needed merchants to be liable when the bank supported 3DSecure but the merchant chose not to use it.
	▲	lxgr 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		They are everywhere. Default liability for online payments is and has always been with the merchant; only 3DS and some wallets can shift it to the issuer.