MINNESOTA IS AMONG THE STATES WHICH HAVE AN ELECTRONIC FUND TRANSFER SYSTEM (EFTS) LAW AND MUCH OF THE TESTIMONY DURING THIS HEARING, HELD IN ST. PAUL, CENTERS AROUND THE ACTUAL OPERATION OF THE MINNESOTA LAW. CONSUMER REPRESENTATIVES AND BANKERS BOTH POINT OUT THAT SOFTWARE SAFEGUARDS ARE NOT FOOLPROOF AND THAT THE POTENTIAL FOR FRAUD IN AN EFTS IS GREAT. DIFFICULTIES WITH SPECIFIC SYSTEMS ARE RECOUNTED, WITH CASE HISTORIES OF LOST DEBIT CARDS, USED TO WITHDRAW MONEY FROM INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNTS, BEING CITED. POORLY ITEMIZED CHARGE ACCOUNT STATEMENTS WHICH DO NOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT DOCUMENTATION FOR A CUSTOMER TO DETECT SMALL UNAUTHORIZED CHARGES ARE CRITICIZED AS MANY SMALL FRAUDS RESULT IN LARGE LOSSES. IN GENERAL, BOTH FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS AND CONSUMERS FAVOR LEGISLATION FORBIDDING AN INSTITUTION FROM REQUIRING INDIVIDUALS TO USE THE EFTS. THEY ALSO FAVOR FULL DISCLOSURE BEFORE A CONTRACT SIGNING AND PROHIBITION OF UNAUTHORIZED CREDIT CARD OR EFTS DEBIT CARD MAILING. THEY DISAGREE OVER THE LENGTH OF TIME A CONSUMER SHOULD HAVE FOR NOTIFYING THE BANK OF LOSS OR ERROR. BANKS FEEL INDIVIDUALS SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE LOSS IF NOT REPORTED IN 10 DAYS; CONSUMER GROUPS, 30 DAYS OR LONGER. THEY ALSO DEBATE LIABILITY AND CREDIT CHARGES. (GLR)