Last week, Senator Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) sent a stern letter to EMVCo—an organization equally owned by six global payment networks that is responsible for providing standards for chip-based credit and debit cards in the US. Durbin took issue with EMVCo's handling of the chip card rollout, accusing the standards organization of stalling retailers' efforts to get certified and putting off a requirement for PIN authorization in order to line card networks' pockets.

Durbin also sent a letter to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) , asking it to “examine how flaws and delays in the certification process can be addressed.”

Card networks agreed to transition the US from using magnetic stripe credit and debit cards to using chip-based cards years ago. With the backing of the US government, the card networks decided that by October 2015, all retailers in the US would have to have new terminal hardware to accept chip cards or face liability when fraud occurred on outdated machines. Many other countries in the world have been using chip-based cards for a decade or more.

But despite the lead time the US has had, one survey found that as of February 2016, only 37 percent of retailers in the US were ready to process chip-based cards.

Durbin's recent letter to EMVCo placed the blame more on the card networks than resistant retailers. The senator took the organization to task for failing to include retailers and customers in its decision-making process and for operating without transparency. "The process of establishing EMV specifications is opaque, stakeholder participation is limited, decision-making is dominated and exclusively controlled by only six companies, EMVCo standards have been technologically inadequate and their implementation has caused chaos in the US market, and consensus has been lacking," Sen. Durbin wrote.

Durbin called the problems that have led to slow chip card acceptance "predictable," adding that EMVCo, whose member companies are American Express, Discover, JCB, MasterCard, UnionPay, and Visa, should have identified the problems blocking a smooth transition ahead of time and worked to fix those problems.

The senator also addressed issues with the chip-card rollout that have prompted some retailers to file lawsuits. In March, grocery chain B&R Supermarket sued the major card networks, because although B&R had purchased chip-card-compliant technology, certification of that technology was apparently backlogged. During the months after the October 2015 chip card shift, the grocery chain became liable for much of the credit card fraud that happened in its stores. (Usually, the issuing bank is liable for fraud, but since the October 2015 shift, networks like Visa and MasterCard have mandated that retailers unable to process chip cards at the cash register would be responsible for paying for chip-card fraud.)

“Many merchants that have purchased EMV card reader technology have been unable to use it because of backlogs in the EMV software certification process,” Durbin wrote to EMVCo.

In his letter asking the FTC to investigate the rollout of chip cards, he also noted, “I recently heard from a grocery chain with stores in Illinois and several other states that has spent an estimated $385,000 purchasing 770 upgraded card readers at a price of $500 each but that has been unable to use the equipment due to repeated delays in obtaining certification. As a result, customers are forced to continue using fraud-prone magnetic stripe technology for their card transactions while the chip readers remain idle.” It's unclear if Durbin is referencing B&R Supermarket here, although the company does have a store in Illinois. Ars contacted Durbin's press secretary for clarification but has not received a response.

Ars also contacted EMVCo for comment but has not received a response. In response to B&R's lawsuit against it, MasterCard told Ars in March that “There was never a requirement for any party—issuer or merchant—to move to EMV. Using insights from merchants, issuers, and others, our roadmap and the related liability shift provided incentives to prompt for the most secure ways to pay. We have and continue to work with parties across the industry—merchants, issuers, processors, manufacturers—to assist in this migration.”

In his letter to EMVCo, Durbin also took aim at the card networks' decision to delay a requirement that US card holders use a PIN to authorize purchases on their credit cards. The card networks have argued that requiring a PIN authorization where customers used to be able to authorize purchases with a signature would be too confusing on top of the new hassle of inserting a chip-enabled card rather than swiping a magnetic stripe card. But a lawsuit filed this month by Walmart against Visa suggests that Visa doesn't have its customers' convenience in mind—instead it's trying to protect the five cents extra in processing fees that it usually takes from Walmart for each transaction that's authorized with a signature. The retailer is arguing that Visa's continued tolerance of signature authorization puts customers at risk for fraud.

Durbin also noted that in an earlier exchange with EMVCo, the organization refused to give him any concrete details about when signature authorization would be phased out completely. "This refusal is inexplicable given the well-documented benefits of PIN authentication in reducing lost-and-stolen card fraud," the senator wrote. "I am concerned that EMVCo's controlling networks, most of whom have fiercely advocated against PINs because of their financial stake in signature transactions, may be preventing EMVCo from stating a clear position on the benefits of PIN."

Durbin provided a list of questions to both EMVCo and the FTC asking for more information about the card transition, and he gave both parties 30 days to respond. In a comment to Ars an FTC spokesperson said, "We can confirm we have received the letter and will review it closely as we do all correspondence from members of Congress, but cannot comment further at this time."