[brianjolney]

I'm pretty sure the article has it completely backwards. If a retailer has a chip reading terminal, they aren't responsible for fraud. It incentivizes retailers to update their hardware, or face shouldering the fraud risk for chip enabled cards that they end up swiping.

[heywire]

Agreed. The simplest way I've heard it described is that whoever has the lowest level of EMV support is liable. So if the bank hasn't issued you a chip card, but the retailer supports it, the bank is liable. Likewise, if you have a chip card, but the retailer doesn't have the EMV readers, the retailer is now liable -- and that is where the change is.

[xenadu02]

You're correct. If the merchant has the EMV reader but the bank card only has a mag stripe the bank eats any fraud, period. The merchant is completely off the hook.

[weaksauce]

What happens if the reader is an EMV one but the fake bank card looks like it has a chip and it was swiped instead of using the chip? I have a debit card with the chip but I can still swipe it at the hybrid terminals. Who owns liability in that case?

[cbhl]

Once I used my chip cards in a reader in the US, and was told, "this is a chip card, please insert it into the bottom" so there's definitely a bit that can be set in the magstripe to tell the PoS that a chip should be available in case you clone just the magstripe.