4 ms·

Presumably AirBnB would ban the user and the user still wants to be able to use the service in the future.

yrro 7y ago
I'm somewhat surprised that this would be permitted by the card issuer. Aside from that... why aren't Airbnb detecting when multiple properties have very similar photos and investigating this themselves? (Of course they may be, and these examples are cases where they didn't pull the fraudulent listing).
- CodesInChaos 7y ago
  It's largely the card issues fault. They charge a fee for each chargeback and punish or increase the fees for merchants who receive many chargebacks, so merchants try to avoid chargebacks, which includes banning everybody who uses them.
  - kop316 7y ago
    How on earth is that the card issuer's fault? The chargeback is for the exact fraudulent type of activity described in the article, and the business who allows it should be punished. Heck, that is the primary reason I use my credit card, for this type of protection.
    - ceejayoz 7y ago
      The card issuer could easily institute a "no retaliation" clause in their contracts that forbids deactivating a user's account for a sustained chargeback.
      - throw_m239339 7y ago
        > The card issuer could easily institute a "no retaliation" clause in their contracts that forbids deactivating a user's account for a sustained chargeback. On the contrary, AFAIK some banks or at least payment processors now clearly state than some "sharing economy" services cannot be subject to charge backs, or payment reversals, like if you use Paypal for a Kickstater. So it's basically the opposite of what you wish.
        moccachino 7y ago
        I guess some is the key word. It makes sense to disallow charge backs for Kickstarters and such, because that whole premise is: You pay me a certain amount of money, and I'll try my best to get you something in return.
        throw_m239339 7y ago
        > I guess some is the key word. It makes sense to disallow charge backs for Kickstarters and such, because that whole premise is: You pay me a certain amount of money, and I'll try my best to get you something in return. Sure but at the same time, fraud is fraud. If a project is fraudulent, then who should bear the consequences? That's not that simple. Ultimately, backers do pay Kickstarter, never the project creator directly.
        true_religion 7y ago
        Right if you’ve been defrauded, there is the justice system for that. Skipping it and relying on the banks,is only an option if the banks have already predetermined the winner.
  - yrro 7y ago
    If a business bans customers who charge back after being defrauded then the fault is with the business, not the card issuer. What surprises me is that the card issuers don't come down harder on businesses with this practice. I suppose Airbnb is a pretty large customer (of the card issuers) and so aren't so easy to influence, however...
    - CodesInChaos 7y ago
      You assume it's the business that committed fraud. In many cases talking to the merchant's support would resolve the issue (e.g. via a full refund) without having to escalate to an expensive chargeback. There is also the fun technique of attacking a merchant (or charity) by sending them money from stolen credit cards, which will stick them with chargeback fees and an eventual ban by the card processor.
      - yrro 7y ago
        Please note that I said that the customer had been defrauded. I didn't say that Airbnb was the one committing the fraud--although they are certainly profiting from it! I agree that customers should make reasonable attempts to resolve issues with merchants, and not go straight for the nuclear option of a chargeback. However, if I deal with a company and they don't resolve issues to my satisfaction within what I consider a reasonable period, I do not hesitate to make it clear that I will be contacting my bank to dispute the charges. Funnily enough, I have never actually had to do so: the mere threat seems to be sufficient to convey to the company that yes I do actually expect them to solve my problem. The system works, at least for those privileged enough to be aware of their rights, and to have the ability to issue effective threats to merchants who don't respond to complaints within good time.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  - shliachtx 7y ago
    The bigger concern from the merchant's side is that they are almost always swallowing the refund. The refund is not being provided by the card issuer or payment network, they just remove it from the merchant's (in this case AirBnB's) account. Declining a charge in this way is thus less insurance, and more telling the merchant "I am not paying you." While it may be justified (like in this story), the merchant is never going to be happy about losing those funds and losing the control over the funds. I had a similar situation with the App Store where I purchased a subscription under a mistaken assumption and when I could not find any recourse through Apple or the publisher (I simply could not find any way to get in touch with anyone), I declined the charge on my credit card. This led Apple to block all activity with that card - so much so that I was unable to download any free apps until I added another payment method to my profile. When I attempted to contact Apple to resolve this issue I was told that it was "for my security", to prevent further fraudulent transactions on my card. Explaining the situation, and that there was no fraudulent use of my card or account, just a misleading subscription did nothing to help. They insisted that the only way to resolve the situation would be if I reversed the dispute from the credit card (thus releasing the funds back to Apple), and only after that was completed would I be able to try to get a refund from Apple. Left with no other choice that is what I did. The issue at hand here was obviously that Apple was refusing to give up control to the credit card companies. By effectively banning any user that disputes a charge they are able to force their users to keep all complaints within Apple's purview (and they do not provide a way to submit complaints digitally).
bluetidepro 7y ago
> the user still wants to be able to use the service in the future. And this is why Airbnb doesn't care. This is insane to me that they end with "Dealing with Airbnb’s easily exploitable and occasionally crazy-making system is still just a bit cheaper than renting a hotel." after ALL that. It's like the author has stockholm syndrome. I can't wrap my head around why you'd ever use Airbnb again after an experience like that, esp. when hotels are about the same cost.
- alistairSH 7y ago
  Are hotels really about the same cost? My last several vacations have used Airbnb for housing, mostly because I prefer to cook my own meals and like having some space to spread out. Booking a suite w/ kitchenette at hotels in the same areas would have been quite expensive, if even possible. But, I've never been scammed on Airbnb. My experiences have all been excellent. That's one rental in the US and 5 across western Europe in the last 7 years. Not sure if it matters, but none of these were "cheap" rentals - they were all mid-priced. And almost all with "Super Host" rating (no clue if that gives any extra protection).
  - bluetidepro 7y ago
    > Are hotels really about the same cost? That's a fair question. I may have generalized a bit with that statement, however, from what I have seen lately if you use a hotel deal site, it has been about the same cost. On my recent vacations, after looking at options like Airbnb vs hotels in popular US cities, it has been an easy decision to get hotels over an Airbnb with the price difference averaging around $25-50 (esp. after you factor in all the crazy fees Airbnb does now, that you don't see until checkout). However, you do make a good point for your specific needs of the kitchen, that will obviously change a lot in terms of a hotel pricing with that amenity. For what it's worth, I've also only ever had good experiences with Airbnb in the past when I have used them, but still my main point was if I was the author, I don't know how I could ever go back to using Airbnb after that.
  - mbesto 7y ago
    I consistently stay in hotels for a good portion of the year and I rarely find AirBnbs cheaper nowadays. Really the only time I stay in one is when I want to rent a big house with a large group of friends or am in a remote area that doesn't really have hotels.
quaquaqua1 7y ago
I issued a chargeback to Qatar Airways/Expedia for $1700 and they tried to fight it. Bank of America told them to go to hell, and that I was getting a full refund. I can still use Qatar and Expedia. Airbnb should not be allowed to ban me for this reason.
- ianhawes 7y ago
  The "ban-on-dispute" technique is popular with tech companies. Uber, AirBnB, and Steam (among others) all enforce this strategy. With Steam, you lose your entire library when banned. With Uber, you lose the ability to create an account tied to your phone number (i.e. you need to get a new phone number to ever have a new account). I don't use AirBnB because it is a scam haven, so I can't comment on how their dispute process works. FWIW, "back in the day" chargebacks used to be done in a manual way which made it harder to automate the banning process that tech companies utilize. But the likes of Stripe and other processors have made it part of their API so you can easily trace the chargeback to the transaction and determine what recourse you have.
- jasjdfkj2js 7y ago
  out of curiosity - what was the reason you did a charge back? how much information did you have to give BoA.
  - quaquaqua1 7y ago
    The plane was delayed 3 hours, which meant I would miss the connection in Qatar (en route to Singapore) The result would mean that 75% of my trip would be spent not in Singapore. So I requested to leave the plane because the plane had to go back to the gate to refuel, because of how long it waited on the runway. Qatar tried to argue that this wasn't their problem, but BoA told them to eat the cost. Two sides of the same coin. I would have accepted a partial refund but BoA gave full refund.
ryandrake 7y ago
Who cares if they get banned from a fraudulent business? Why would anyone want to continue doing business with a company if they treat you this way? When I'm at the point of doing a chargeback, it's a "burn bridges" move and I'm not going to be doing business with the company anymore, regardless of whether they ban me.
- JoeAltmaier 7y ago
  In the modern internet world, there's very often little/no choice of services. Initially there is competition; one gets an edge; everybody flocks to that service; the other services wither and die. So the idea that "I can just take my business elsewhere" is maybe a dying notion, in this modern economy. They're not brick-and-mortar stores where you can just walk down the street to another one.
  - ryandrake 7y ago
    Hotels are brick-and-mortar, and there are a lot of them. If one treats you badly you can (sometimes literally) walk down the street and do business at another one. The travel industry is a particularly bad example of little/no choice since there is so much competition, including online.

yrro 7y ago

I'm somewhat surprised that this would be permitted by the card issuer. Aside from that... why aren't Airbnb detecting when multiple properties have very similar photos and investigating this themselves? (Of course they may be, and these examples are cases where they didn't pull the fraudulent listing).

CodesInChaos 7y ago
It's largely the card issues fault. They charge a fee for each chargeback and punish or increase the fees for merchants who receive many chargebacks, so merchants try to avoid chargebacks, which includes banning everybody who uses them.
- kop316 7y ago
  How on earth is that the card issuer's fault? The chargeback is for the exact fraudulent type of activity described in the article, and the business who allows it should be punished. Heck, that is the primary reason I use my credit card, for this type of protection.
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    The card issuer could easily institute a "no retaliation" clause in their contracts that forbids deactivating a user's account for a sustained chargeback.
    - throw_m239339 7y ago
      > The card issuer could easily institute a "no retaliation" clause in their contracts that forbids deactivating a user's account for a sustained chargeback. On the contrary, AFAIK some banks or at least payment processors now clearly state than some "sharing economy" services cannot be subject to charge backs, or payment reversals, like if you use Paypal for a Kickstater. So it's basically the opposite of what you wish.
      - moccachino 7y ago
        I guess some is the key word. It makes sense to disallow charge backs for Kickstarters and such, because that whole premise is: You pay me a certain amount of money, and I'll try my best to get you something in return.
        throw_m239339 7y ago
        > I guess some is the key word. It makes sense to disallow charge backs for Kickstarters and such, because that whole premise is: You pay me a certain amount of money, and I'll try my best to get you something in return. Sure but at the same time, fraud is fraud. If a project is fraudulent, then who should bear the consequences? That's not that simple. Ultimately, backers do pay Kickstarter, never the project creator directly.
        true_religion 7y ago
        Right if you’ve been defrauded, there is the justice system for that. Skipping it and relying on the banks,is only an option if the banks have already predetermined the winner.
- yrro 7y ago
  If a business bans customers who charge back after being defrauded then the fault is with the business, not the card issuer. What surprises me is that the card issuers don't come down harder on businesses with this practice. I suppose Airbnb is a pretty large customer (of the card issuers) and so aren't so easy to influence, however...
  - CodesInChaos 7y ago
    You assume it's the business that committed fraud. In many cases talking to the merchant's support would resolve the issue (e.g. via a full refund) without having to escalate to an expensive chargeback. There is also the fun technique of attacking a merchant (or charity) by sending them money from stolen credit cards, which will stick them with chargeback fees and an eventual ban by the card processor.
    - yrro 7y ago
      Please note that I said that the customer had been defrauded. I didn't say that Airbnb was the one committing the fraud--although they are certainly profiting from it! I agree that customers should make reasonable attempts to resolve issues with merchants, and not go straight for the nuclear option of a chargeback. However, if I deal with a company and they don't resolve issues to my satisfaction within what I consider a reasonable period, I do not hesitate to make it clear that I will be contacting my bank to dispute the charges. Funnily enough, I have never actually had to do so: the mere threat seems to be sufficient to convey to the company that yes I do actually expect them to solve my problem. The system works, at least for those privileged enough to be aware of their rights, and to have the ability to issue effective threats to merchants who don't respond to complaints within good time.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- shliachtx 7y ago
  The bigger concern from the merchant's side is that they are almost always swallowing the refund. The refund is not being provided by the card issuer or payment network, they just remove it from the merchant's (in this case AirBnB's) account. Declining a charge in this way is thus less insurance, and more telling the merchant "I am not paying you." While it may be justified (like in this story), the merchant is never going to be happy about losing those funds and losing the control over the funds. I had a similar situation with the App Store where I purchased a subscription under a mistaken assumption and when I could not find any recourse through Apple or the publisher (I simply could not find any way to get in touch with anyone), I declined the charge on my credit card. This led Apple to block all activity with that card - so much so that I was unable to download any free apps until I added another payment method to my profile. When I attempted to contact Apple to resolve this issue I was told that it was "for my security", to prevent further fraudulent transactions on my card. Explaining the situation, and that there was no fraudulent use of my card or account, just a misleading subscription did nothing to help. They insisted that the only way to resolve the situation would be if I reversed the dispute from the credit card (thus releasing the funds back to Apple), and only after that was completed would I be able to try to get a refund from Apple. Left with no other choice that is what I did. The issue at hand here was obviously that Apple was refusing to give up control to the credit card companies. By effectively banning any user that disputes a charge they are able to force their users to keep all complaints within Apple's purview (and they do not provide a way to submit complaints digitally).

bluetidepro 7y ago

> the user still wants to be able to use the service in the future. And this is why Airbnb doesn't care. This is insane to me that they end with "Dealing with Airbnb’s easily exploitable and occasionally crazy-making system is still just a bit cheaper than renting a hotel." after ALL that. It's like the author has stockholm syndrome. I can't wrap my head around why you'd ever use Airbnb again after an experience like that, esp. when hotels are about the same cost.

alistairSH 7y ago
Are hotels really about the same cost? My last several vacations have used Airbnb for housing, mostly because I prefer to cook my own meals and like having some space to spread out. Booking a suite w/ kitchenette at hotels in the same areas would have been quite expensive, if even possible. But, I've never been scammed on Airbnb. My experiences have all been excellent. That's one rental in the US and 5 across western Europe in the last 7 years. Not sure if it matters, but none of these were "cheap" rentals - they were all mid-priced. And almost all with "Super Host" rating (no clue if that gives any extra protection).
- bluetidepro 7y ago
  > Are hotels really about the same cost? That's a fair question. I may have generalized a bit with that statement, however, from what I have seen lately if you use a hotel deal site, it has been about the same cost. On my recent vacations, after looking at options like Airbnb vs hotels in popular US cities, it has been an easy decision to get hotels over an Airbnb with the price difference averaging around $25-50 (esp. after you factor in all the crazy fees Airbnb does now, that you don't see until checkout). However, you do make a good point for your specific needs of the kitchen, that will obviously change a lot in terms of a hotel pricing with that amenity. For what it's worth, I've also only ever had good experiences with Airbnb in the past when I have used them, but still my main point was if I was the author, I don't know how I could ever go back to using Airbnb after that.
- mbesto 7y ago
  I consistently stay in hotels for a good portion of the year and I rarely find AirBnbs cheaper nowadays. Really the only time I stay in one is when I want to rent a big house with a large group of friends or am in a remote area that doesn't really have hotels.

quaquaqua1 7y ago

I issued a chargeback to Qatar Airways/Expedia for $1700 and they tried to fight it. Bank of America told them to go to hell, and that I was getting a full refund. I can still use Qatar and Expedia. Airbnb should not be allowed to ban me for this reason.

ianhawes 7y ago
The "ban-on-dispute" technique is popular with tech companies. Uber, AirBnB, and Steam (among others) all enforce this strategy. With Steam, you lose your entire library when banned. With Uber, you lose the ability to create an account tied to your phone number (i.e. you need to get a new phone number to ever have a new account). I don't use AirBnB because it is a scam haven, so I can't comment on how their dispute process works. FWIW, "back in the day" chargebacks used to be done in a manual way which made it harder to automate the banning process that tech companies utilize. But the likes of Stripe and other processors have made it part of their API so you can easily trace the chargeback to the transaction and determine what recourse you have.
jasjdfkj2js 7y ago
out of curiosity - what was the reason you did a charge back? how much information did you have to give BoA.
- quaquaqua1 7y ago
  The plane was delayed 3 hours, which meant I would miss the connection in Qatar (en route to Singapore) The result would mean that 75% of my trip would be spent not in Singapore. So I requested to leave the plane because the plane had to go back to the gate to refuel, because of how long it waited on the runway. Qatar tried to argue that this wasn't their problem, but BoA told them to eat the cost. Two sides of the same coin. I would have accepted a partial refund but BoA gave full refund.

ryandrake 7y ago

Who cares if they get banned from a fraudulent business? Why would anyone want to continue doing business with a company if they treat you this way? When I'm at the point of doing a chargeback, it's a "burn bridges" move and I'm not going to be doing business with the company anymore, regardless of whether they ban me.

JoeAltmaier 7y ago
In the modern internet world, there's very often little/no choice of services. Initially there is competition; one gets an edge; everybody flocks to that service; the other services wither and die. So the idea that "I can just take my business elsewhere" is maybe a dying notion, in this modern economy. They're not brick-and-mortar stores where you can just walk down the street to another one.
- ryandrake 7y ago
  Hotels are brick-and-mortar, and there are a lot of them. If one treats you badly you can (sometimes literally) walk down the street and do business at another one. The travel industry is a particularly bad example of little/no choice since there is so much competition, including online.