2 ms·
The lesson here is: payment card providers need to get with the program and add a new category of charge-cancellation, specifically: user no longer wishes to co
by Silhouette 8y ago
The lesson here is: payment card providers need to get with the program and add a new category of charge-cancellation, specifically: user no longer wishes to continue with service, most recent charge reversed and further charges for this service blocked.
Why should someone's most recent charge be reversed in that scenario? If they've agreed to pay for a service and potentially been using it during the current billing period, why is it any business of the card company's to provide a facility that forcibly returns money from the merchant to the subscriber in violation of a normal subscription contract?
- TheSpiceIsLife 8y agoGoodwill - presumably to cover the scenario where the customer didn’t get around to canceling before the end of the month.
- Silhouette 8y agoAs it happens, my own businesses sometimes will choose to refund under those circumstances. It does cost us a small amount every time we do it, because we still had to have resources available to provide the agreed service even if our customer decided not to use it. However, we have absolutely no obligation to do that, either ethically or legally, and I don't see why it should ever be a card company's decision rather than ours. The job of any payment service is to collect payment from a customer and give it to the merchant. It's already bad enough with chargebacks, which as any merchant can tell you are sometimes abused with the merchant losing out through no fault of their own. The idea that there should be a normal, advertised mechanism through which card companies would retrospectively pull back money paid by the customer under a legitimate contract is legally nonsensical.
- TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago> is legally nonsensical. I agree, and my initial iteration is probably going to far.