3 ms·
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
by 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 agoThe 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 agoI 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 agoRight 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.