4 ms·

You are giving the businesses and other big actors way too much a benefit of the doubt. These large organizations will outright lie to win disputes. For exampl

You are giving the businesses and other big actors way too much a benefit of the doubt. These large organizations will outright lie to win disputes. For example, I am an attorney who practices in the space, and I recently filed a dispute with my credit card. In response to my dispute, which I supported with a sworn affidavit, the retailer responded with a blatant, demonstrable lie. They said I never contacted them. Of course, they messed with the wrong person, and I responded with additional evidence and substantiation. I am confident I will win. But most consumers are not going to be able to execute on a dispute the same way that I did. Most consumers just get screwed by the lie. And that’s under the CURRENT system. So now we’re making it even easier for them to lie and screw over customers. Great

chrischen 4y ago
As a merchant I can also say the opposite is true. Just as there are dishonest businesses there are dishonest customers. However I think it is at least harder for a business to maintain dishonesty because 1) chargebacks are easy to do under the current system and 2) something like > 1% chargebacks get you suspended (regardless of legitimacy of chargeback). I think the system could benefit from tightening and more fair procedures. Simply having a more consumer-oriented system doesn’t solve the problem, and leads to overall higher prices that get built into products.
- lukesmith82 4y ago
  Agree 100%. Chargebacks are a nightmare for small businesses. We never win, even when we should. Customers keep the items they ordered, and get their money back. How is this okay?
- supertrope 4y ago
  Buyer biased dispute resolution is a ultimately a good thing for merchants. Without it scummy merchants will gain an advantage, the average trust of the whole industry declines, and customers pull back their spending. Soon bad merchants are the majority. Seller biased dispute resolution would allow the classic scam of taking payment but delaying shipment for weeks to re-emerge.
  - chrischen 4y ago
    Not really. Buyer biased dispute resolution simply shift the costs of fraud to the merchant, which then build it into the product costs. The only real winner is the middlemen (credit cards) that make money on increased transaction volumes.

chrischen 4y ago

As a merchant I can also say the opposite is true. Just as there are dishonest businesses there are dishonest customers. However I think it is at least harder for a business to maintain dishonesty because 1) chargebacks are easy to do under the current system and 2) something like > 1% chargebacks get you suspended (regardless of legitimacy of chargeback). I think the system could benefit from tightening and more fair procedures. Simply having a more consumer-oriented system doesn’t solve the problem, and leads to overall higher prices that get built into products.

lukesmith82 4y ago
Agree 100%. Chargebacks are a nightmare for small businesses. We never win, even when we should. Customers keep the items they ordered, and get their money back. How is this okay?
supertrope 4y ago
Buyer biased dispute resolution is a ultimately a good thing for merchants. Without it scummy merchants will gain an advantage, the average trust of the whole industry declines, and customers pull back their spending. Soon bad merchants are the majority. Seller biased dispute resolution would allow the classic scam of taking payment but delaying shipment for weeks to re-emerge.
- chrischen 4y ago
  Not really. Buyer biased dispute resolution simply shift the costs of fraud to the merchant, which then build it into the product costs. The only real winner is the middlemen (credit cards) that make money on increased transaction volumes.