4 ms·

While a service that doesn't allow chargebacks is very, very merchant friendly, it is super not consumer friendly. Chargebacks are frequently last resorts for

by aroch 10y ago

While a service that doesn't allow chargebacks is very, very merchant friendly, it is super not consumer friendly. Chargebacks are frequently last resorts for dealing with unscrupulous businesses or places that just don't give a shit once they've sold you what they want to sell you. That said, chargebacks can also be used vindictively and/or fraudulently. And Visa/MC/etc could do a better job in dispute handling.

unabst 10y ago
The police and the law should protect consumers from fraud. One major root of the problem is the liability shift from police to the cards and banks. If you're a buyer, you're suppose to file a chargeback, not call the police. If you're the merchant, you're suppose to contest the chargeback, not call the police. In a real sense, it's legalized theft enabled by a card ecosystem sustained by companies with a monopoly that make too much. To think the law favors these companies more than the people is outright disgusting.
- ikeboy 10y ago
  For smaller purchases it's not worth it to go to the police or initiate a lawsuit, so people won't. But if they have no recourse they wouldn't buy at all, so payment processors need to offer some easier method of recovery. If you as a merchant get an invalid chargeback, you can report the buyer to the police.
  - unabst 10y ago
    Right they wouldn't buy at all using these stupid cards. Which is the whole reason the entire industry has had to lobby and tilt the law in their favor. Same with not passing these fees to the buyer. People will always find ways to buy, and we're stuck with fees, risk, inconveniences, and all these band aids that do nothing to resolve the root of the problem. Just more work for everybody. And for most people it's not worth trying to lift a pack of donuts off a store shelf, but if they do they get arrested and can end up with life in prison where there are three strikes laws. That's what keep the police busy and the prisons full. Credit card fraud is far more common, and usually the perpetrators are not desperate, are mentally well, intelligent and intentional -- far more deserving of punishment if that's what we're after.

by aroch 10y ago

unabst 10y ago

The police and the law should protect consumers from fraud. One major root of the problem is the liability shift from police to the cards and banks. If you're a buyer, you're suppose to file a chargeback, not call the police. If you're the merchant, you're suppose to contest the chargeback, not call the police. In a real sense, it's legalized theft enabled by a card ecosystem sustained by companies with a monopoly that make too much. To think the law favors these companies more than the people is outright disgusting.

ikeboy 10y ago
For smaller purchases it's not worth it to go to the police or initiate a lawsuit, so people won't. But if they have no recourse they wouldn't buy at all, so payment processors need to offer some easier method of recovery. If you as a merchant get an invalid chargeback, you can report the buyer to the police.
- unabst 10y ago
  Right they wouldn't buy at all using these stupid cards. Which is the whole reason the entire industry has had to lobby and tilt the law in their favor. Same with not passing these fees to the buyer. People will always find ways to buy, and we're stuck with fees, risk, inconveniences, and all these band aids that do nothing to resolve the root of the problem. Just more work for everybody. And for most people it's not worth trying to lift a pack of donuts off a store shelf, but if they do they get arrested and can end up with life in prison where there are three strikes laws. That's what keep the police busy and the prisons full. Credit card fraud is far more common, and usually the perpetrators are not desperate, are mentally well, intelligent and intentional -- far more deserving of punishment if that's what we're after.