3 ms·
Hey dawhizkid - totally right. Some comments on that in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16216682 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=162166
by rbres 9y ago
Hey dawhizkid - totally right.
Some comments on that in this thread:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16216682 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16216682
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16216936 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16216936
We vet our merchants before onboarding and make sure to work with high-integrity companies. We monitor orders not just for identity fraud, but for merchant / collusion fraud.
That being said, we can certainly make mistakes. We also end up in the red some months with some clients. The good thing is that when we make a mistake, we pay the cost, not the merchant (which is contrary to the current state of the industry).
We have made reasonable profit per client even with our costs, but the real winners are our clients driving millions in newfound revenue.
- dawhizkid 9y agoWhat's the source of truth for deciding whether it was friendly fraud or not? Is it the chargeback reason code? As far I know there isn't a specific reason code for "friendly fraud" (i.e. banks are passing along chargebacks telling you as a merchant that they think it's not actual fraud) and more often than not, especially having worked on this problem at scale in the past, friendly fraud chargebacks just come back with a "this is fraud" reason code.
- AdieuToLogic 9y agoIn my "prior life", I can say that processors provide generic reason codes in order to mask how the determination was reached. The idea being that it helps mitigate forms of phishing attacks.