Does Verified by Visa protect at NON participating merchants?

[Oblio_A]

Marketed as an additional layer of security for consumers, Verified-by-Visa service says it requires a password to shop at participating online stores.

Do we assume a 'participating' online store is one that requires the VbV password to complete the consumer's transaction, and a non-participating store simply does not ask for the password?
Or, the card simply cannot be used at non-participating stores?

In other words...

How does Verified-by-Visa prevent criminals from using a stolen Visa card at "NON-participating" online stores?

(I have read all the FAQ's on several banking websites, including Visa's website, and none specifically answer the question of thieves simply shopping at NON-participating merchants.)

[lorax]

I think the answer may be that VBV cannot protect you at non-participating stores.

[Corey Bryant]

Assumptions:
You are a United States Merchant
The customer is in the United States using a card from the card association you mentioned in the United States

You should be protected. However, pretty much the opposite hold true for the other card association.

But you need to confirm all of this as well since rules / regulations are consistently being re-interpreted and changes usually happen April and October I believe

[PCInk]

To be protected against chargebacks you have to be a participating member of VBV (the customer has to complete the password box from the payment provider supported by your website)

Also... the bank of the customers card has to support VBV (not all do)

Once the VBV password is entered ... the customer CANNOT do a chargeback based on a stolen or lost card. But they CAN do a chargeback based on other factors - such as non-delivery of a product or service

As a merchant, you can still get chargebacks and as a customer you usually don't know if your card supports VBV until you've put all your card details and pressed submit.

[Oblio_A]

---
So my suspicions are correct:
It is obviously more a protection mechanism for online merchants (who subscribe to the VbV service) than it is for consumers.
All VbV does for consumers is create the inconvenience of having to remember yet another password, and apparently it also reduces their chances of resolving a dispute.
No thanks.
---

[jwolthuis]

It also adds a level of confusion for customers who are not familiar with VbV, and who are presented with an offer (basically an ad) to sign-up for VbV during checkout.

One more reason for a customer to click-away during checkout flow.

[ytswy]

It is obviously more a protection mechanism for online merchants (who subscribe to the VbV service) than it is for consumers.

To be honest I agree with this - it always amazes me somewhat the card companies get away with touting vbv/securecode and chip and pin as security upgrades to cardholders. From a customer's pov you have always been completely secure as long as you bothered to check your statement each month for dodgy transactions. A woman in the UK faced fraud charges [telegraph.co.uk] when she disputed some transactions that had been verified by pin; turned out that someone had compromised the terminal at a petrol station and had got her details from there.

The other side of the issue is that for merchants in certain areas fraud is a major issue and you simply may not be able to buy, for example, cheap computer components without signing up for vbv/securecode - merchants in that area can lose your business and another ten like you and if it prevents one fraudulent transaction they'll still come out ahead.