How do credit card banks detect fraudulent transactions without requiring a travel advisory?
One bank is more willing to risk losses and customer hassle in exchange for lower processing costs than the other bank is. It's strictly a business decision. Regarding how they detect suspicious transactions: Patten detection based on your past usage history. I've gotten calls asking me to confirm that I just placed a large order with a company I'd never bought from before, or in a country that I haven't previously visited, or...
Yes, overall, it is a big inconvenience to you. This same issue applies for those that for example, receive Social Security benefits (and perhaps other government cash benefits) on a pre-paid card (rather than direct deposit to a bank account). They allow a few ways to get cash from the card:   You can get cash back (no fee) when you make a retail purchase. You could use the card for relatively small items you would purchase anyway, and get $100 or more back in cash each time. Every store/chain will have it's own limits on how much cash back they will allow per transaction. And, be careful, some stores charge a fee for cash back, but it's not at all common. If even these small purchases are an issue, you can then (presumably later) return the item you purchased without returning the cash-back you received (if the store allows returns/refunds). And, since a transaction with cash back is processed as a debit (rather than a credit), usually if you later return the purchased item, you will be refunded in cash (rather than a credit back to your card/account). Also, for other cards, sometimes you can go to a branch of the bank that issued the card and make a no fee withdraw, sometimes in cash and sometimes by check. This depends on the policy of the issuing bank, and the card account. Finally, most of this assumes that you are given a pin (or the opportunity to create one) with the card, because cash-back and ATM access requires a pin. And there are some banks/cards that don't allow any of this. "I have some experience with this.  I have had fraudulent charges appear on my credit card statement and had to change my card number several times, despite (I believe) no carelessness on my part.  Every time that this has happened, I have never lost a penny due to fraud on my credit card.  The bank has ultimately removed the fraudulent charges in every instance. Given this, you'd think the consumer doesn't need to worry about this at all.  But it seems like credit card companies beg to differ. Yes, because although I have never lost a penny to fraud, the bank (or the merchant) loses money every time it happens.  The $0 liability protects you; the card security measures protect the bank. But... why should a consumer ever bother worrying about these in the first place, when he knows he legally can't be held responsible for fraudulent charges? What exactly is this new ""peace of mind"" that he supposedly gets by (say) using features like virtual account numbers that he doesn't already have? Although you shouldn't end up out any money when this happens, it is an inconvenience.  The bank will cancel your card and issue you a new number.  It may take a few days for you to receive your new card.  If you have another card to use, this isn't a big deal.  If you are out of state the day before you need to check out of a hotel and return a rental car with no backup credit card (as I have been), it is a big deal.  (In my case, I had to have the credit card company talk to the hotel to give them the new card number, and they were able to overnight me a new credit card so I could get home.  I now make sure I carry a backup credit card.) Should a consumer put any effort into worrying about this at all? (Why?) In my opinion, it makes sense to be careful what you do with your credit card number, if only to avoid the inconvenience.  Don't type your credit card number into an e-mail message, for example, and only use it on websites that you trust.  That having been said, it is not worth it to be paranoid about it, either.  No matter how careful you are, eventually you will probably use it at a store that gets hacked, or your card will get skimmed somewhere, and you'll need to get a new credit card number. The best way to protect yourself is to make sure that you go over your credit card statement each month and look for any fraudulent charges that the bank didn't catch." What sort of amount are we talking about here, and what countries are you travelling to?  As long as it's not cash, most countries will neither know or care how much money is in your bank account or on your credit card limit, and can't even check if they wanted to. Even if they can, there are very few countries where they would check without already suspecting you of a crime. I think you're worrying over nothing. Even if it's cash, most countries have no border control anyway, and those who do (UK, Ireland) allow up to £10,000 or so cash without even having to declare it... Just open a second bank account and don't take the card (or cut the card up). Use online banking to transfer money in smaller chunks to your main account. Alternately (or additionally) take a credit card or two with a smaller limit (enough to make sure you're comfortably able to deal with one month plus emergency money). Then set up your regular bank account to pay this credit card off in full every month. If I was really concerned, I'd open a second bank account and add a sensible amount of money to it (enough to cover costs of my stay and avoid questions about whether I can afford my stay, but not so much it would raise question). Then I'd open two credit cards with a limit of perhaps $1000-2000: one covers the costs of living wherever I'm going, the other is for emergencies or if I misjudge and go over my amount per month. Set up your bank to pay these off each month, and you're sorted Honestly, I think you're worrying over nothing. People travel inside Europe every day with millions in the bank and raise no questions. You're legally allowed to have money! When you give your credit card number and authorize a merchant to charge your credit card, the merchant then gives the information to their merchant processor which in turns bills the bank that issued the card (it's a little more complex and it all happens instantly unless the merchant is using the very old fasion imprinting gizmos). It is possible for a merchant to attempt to charge you more than you authorized but if they do they risk a fine ($25-$50 for a chargeback) from their processor, the legitimate portion of the charge as well as increasing the processing fees charged by their processor or even the possibility of loosing their merchant account entirely and being permanently blacklisted by Visa/Mastercard. In short no legitimate business is going to intentionally over charge your credit card.  There really isn't significant risk in using a reputable online retailer's order forms. There is the possibility that their database could be compromised but that risk is lower than the risk of having an employee steal your credit number when you give it to them in person. Besides in the US at least the most you can legally be held liable for is $50 assuming you notice the discrepancy within 60 days of statement the charge appears on and most banks limit liability to $0.  Over the years I have had a number of different credit card numbers stolen and used fraudulently and I have never had to pay any fraudulent charges. "Visa card expired while on the other side of the world.  Visa from other bank declined for suspected fraud.  ""You should have told us you were going to a country that has lots of fraud.""  Nearest ATM, twelve kilometers." For me, it is mostly for the fraud protection. If I have a debit card and someone makes a fraudulent charge the money is removed from my bank account.  From my understanding, I can then file a fraud complaint with the bank to recover my money.  However, for some period of time, the money is missing from my bank account.  I've heard conflicting stories of money being returned quickly while the complaint is undergoing investigation as well as money being tied up for several days/weeks.  It may depend on the bank. With a credit card, it is the banks money that is tied up. "As indicated in comments, this is common practice in the US as well as EU.  For example, in this Fox Business article, a user had basically the same experience: their card was replaced but without the specific merchant being disclosed.  When the reporter contacted Visa, they were told: ""We also believe that the public interest is best served by quickly notifying financial institutions with the information necessary to protect themselves and their cardholders from fraud losses. Even a slight delay in notification to financial institutions could be costly,” the spokesperson said in an e-mail statement. “Visa works with the breached entity to collect the necessary information and provides payment card issuers with the affected account numbers so they can take steps to protect consumers through independent fraud monitoring, and if needed, reissuing cards. The most critical information needed is the affected accounts, which Visa works to provide as quickly as possible.” What they're not saying, of course, is that it's in Visa's best interests that merchants let Visa know right away when a leak occurs, without having to think about whether it's going to screw that merchant over in the press.  If the merchant has to consider PR, they may not let the networks know in as timely of a fashion - they may at least wait until they've verified the issue in more detail, or even wait until they've found who to pin it on so they don't get blamed. But beyond that, the point is that it's easier for the network (Visa/Mastercard/etc.) to have a system that's just a list of card numbers to submit to the bank for re-issuing; nobody there really cares which merchant was at fault, they just want to re-issue the cards quickly.  Letting you know who's at fault is separate.  There's little reason for the issuing bank to ever know; you should find out from the merchant themselves or from the network (and in my experience, usually the former). Eventually you may well find out - the article suggest that: [T]he situation is common, but there is some good news: consumers do in many cases find out the source of the breach. But of course doesn't go into detail about numbers." This is all somewhat true. The likely scenario was that those transactions were flagged in the banks suspicious activity monitoring system for potential layering activity and they may have filed a suspicious activity report with FinCEN and may have a policy to close accounts with suspicious activity.