On the eve of one of the most significant changes in the history of payments in the U.S., stakeholders wrestle with the question of what EMV will mean for fraud across not only the point-of-sale (POS), but also card-not-present (CNP) transactions. The experiences of other markets are often cited as examples of a marked shift in fraud across channels, but those experiences are not as clear-cut as they are generally perceived to be. By more closely examining EMV outside of the U.S., while also considering the historic fraud and payment volume trends, Javelin has forecasted what a post-EMV U.S. market will comprise. CNP fraud will unquestionably be a major concern for banks, issuers, and merchants. The solutions they deploy will need to prevent fraud while at the same time limiting friction during the transaction — to inform their decisions, CNP fraud solutions from 15 vendors were reviewed for this report. Payment stakeholders face an immense challenge over the next several years, but by making informed decisions regarding how to respond to the threat of CNP fraud they can effectively stem the tide.
- What can we expect to happen to card fraud as a result of the introduction of EMV in the U.S.?
- How will the change in the fraud landscape affect the various payments industry players?
- What countermeasures to post-EMV card fraud are available?
- Who is providing these solutions and how do they differ?
41st Parameter, Accertify, Actimize, AGNITiO, AT&T (location), Authentify, Behaviosec, BioCatch, Brighterion, Cardinal, CyberSource, Dynamics/Datacard, Encap, Entersekt, eSquare, Feedzai, Final Card, LexisNexis, Kount, Jumio, MaxMind, miiCard, Neustar (Quova), Nuance, Ondot, Payfone, ReD, Red Giant, Rippleshot, Riskified, RSA, Safedome, SaS, Signifyd, ThreatMetrix, Tyfone, ValidSoft, Vasco, VoiceVault, Wave, Yubico, and Zumigo.
- The 2013 ID Fraud survey was conducted among 5,634 U.S. adults over age 18