Are there legal or fraud risks to using non-VBV (non-3DS) cards for online transactions?
Executive summary
Using cards that bypass VBV/3D Secure (so-called “non‑VBV” cards) raises clear fraud exposure for merchants and consumers and can affect liability and regulatory compliance: 3DS delivers a liability shift for authenticated transactions (protecting merchants) while non‑3DS flows leave issuers or merchants exposed [1] [2]. At the same time, not all non‑VBV cards are inherently fraudulent—risk-based 3DS and local rails mean some legitimate cards are frictionless [3].
1. What “non‑VBV” means and why defenders worry
Non‑VBV simply denotes a card/issuer flow that does not trigger Verified‑by‑Visa/Mastercard SecureCode (3D Secure) challenges; that absence removes an authentication step that was designed to stop stolen‑card use online, making such transactions an easier target for fraudsters, according to payment‑industry explainers and merchant guidance [4] [5]. Underground forums and carding sites repeatedly describe non‑VBV BINs as attractive for card‑not‑present attacks because they lack an enforced challenge step [6] [7].
2. Legal and chargeback consequences for merchants
When 3DS authentication is used and successful, liability for many fraud chargebacks shifts from merchant to issuer — a concrete commercial protection that merchants lose when a transaction isn’t authenticated [1]. In jurisdictions with SCA rules (PSD2, Japan rules noted), merchants may be required to use strong authentication and could face declines or full chargeback liability if they rely on unauthenticated flows [8] [9].
3. Operational, regulatory and cross‑border friction
Regulators and networks are tightening standards: some countries require 3DS by default for online card payments, and issuers/gateways implement flags and exemptions that affect acceptance rates for non‑3DS transactions [2] [9]. Operationally, merchants without 3DS fall back to issuer decisioning; an issuer may decline or later reverse/charge back a transaction it didn’t authenticate [8] [10].
4. Fraud risk is higher — but the picture is nuanced
Multiple vendor and research sources warn non‑VBV flows are more susceptible to unauthorized use and carding attacks [4] [11]. Yet modern 3‑D Secure 2.x and issuer risk decisioning have created “frictionless” passes where issuers decide not to challenge low‑risk transactions; some legitimate cards and domestic rails never show a VBV prompt and remain safe in practice [3]. In short: non‑VBV status is a signal of weaker authentication, not a guaranteed sign of criminal intent [3].
5. Illicit marketplaces heighten legal risk for anyone using or testing BIN lists
Several sources in the search corpus show an illicit ecosystem trading “non‑VBV BIN” lists and advice for carding; interacting with those markets (buying lists, running checks via underground tools) carries legal risk and exposure to malware or law‑enforcement honeypots [12] [13]. Using data or tools sourced from dark‑web carding communities is characterized as “risky and often illegal” by industry observers [12].
6. Practical steps businesses and consumers can take
Merchants should enable 3DS where practical, tune risk thresholds and use modern fraud scoring and real‑time monitoring to accept lawful frictionless flows while catching abuse [14] [15]. Issuers and gateways should apply risk‑based 3DS decisioning to minimize false declines and preserve the liability shift when appropriate [16] [3]. Consumers who don’t want extra checkout friction should still monitor statements and enable card alerts — sources recommend vigilance and using VBV/3DS where possible [15] [17].
7. Competing perspectives and hidden agendas in the sources
Payment‑industry and merchant advisers emphasize 3DS for liability and fraud reduction [1] [5]. Conversely, many underground/“carding” sites frame non‑VBV BINs as a benefit for attackers and sometimes tout evasion techniques — those sites have an obvious agenda to attract illicit users and may exaggerate longevity or safety of certain BINs [7] [18] [19]. Independent analysis warns banks are deploying neural detection that can render public lists obsolete, which undermines claims by BIN‑list sellers [19] [3].
8. Limitations of available reporting
Available sources document practical, commercial and regulatory risks around non‑VBV cards and show illicit markets exploiting them, but they do not provide a definitive legal checklist for every jurisdiction; specific criminal or civil penalties for using non‑VBV cards are not catalogued in these sources. For precise legal exposure in your country or a given use case, consult local counsel — that granular legal guidance is not found in the current reporting (not found in current reporting).
Bottom line: non‑VBV (non‑3DS) transactions increase fraud exposure and can shift chargeback liability and regulatory risk onto the merchant or issuer, but modern risk‑based 3DS and legitimate domestic payment rails mean “non‑VBV” is a risk signal, not an automatic crime. Choose 3DS where regulation or liability matters, use strong fraud scoring, and avoid any interaction with illicit BIN markets [1] [3] [12].