17 ms·

One thing that people need to be aware of, is that Visa does not get to set all of the rules for chargebacks and disputes. You have dispute/chargeback rights th

One thing that people need to be aware of, is that Visa does not get to set all of the rules for chargebacks and disputes. You have dispute/chargeback rights that are secured by federal law. They are not as comprehensive as Visa, but in some ways they can be stronger. The problem is there are very few attorneys who practice in this area. I know, because I’m one of them. But some of these protections have Real teeth. For example, I recently had a client who had his crypto.com account hacked. That account was tied to his checking account. The hackers debited his checking account, by buying bitcoin, and then transfer it out the bitcoin. My client disputed the charges, and the bank denied all of his disputes. This was all in the context of a well documented breach of a major telecom company. He had all of the substantiation. It was clear that the bitcoin had gone into a very large wallet for purposes of fraud. Despite all of this, he was denied his dispute. Long story short, we got his $10,000 back, got him another $5000, and the bank pay my fees. That was all based on federal law, not visa dispute rules. So the good news is that these changes do nothing to diminish those lasting rights under the law. But it should put this issue on your radar. If they are starting here, it won’t be long until they start lobbying Congress to soften the protections in law as well

puffoflogic 4y ago
Perhaps you could put some useful information in this anecdote by telling us what keywords we would need to give to a bar referral service to get a lawyer with your particular expertise?
- thathndude 4y ago
  The problem is that this area is so small that most people don’t bother with the niche. However I don’t wanna be completely unhelpful, so I would encourage anyone who’s looking to look for someone who has experience with “FCRA” cases. That’s a really big niche And should turn up lots of attorneys, but there are some similarities between that type of practice and this other type of consumer protection practice. So even if they don’t have direct experience, they should still be comfortable in that realm.
Aspos 4y ago
And why do you think it is fair to make a bank pay for your fees, someone else's lack of judgement, someone else's breach? Bank did its job and processed the payment, why should they be liable for all these? If anything, your example is an illustration why those "protections" should be abolished.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- mlyle 4y ago
  > And why do you think it is fair to make a bank pay for your fees Because if the bank broke their legal obligations to the customer and the consumer had to use a attorney to recover their money, the attorney deserves to get paid. Banks are expected to know their customer and to take measures to prevent fraud, rather than watching money go by and shrugging because they made a few nickels.
  - Aspos 4y ago
    Exactly my point: banks should be responsible for doing the job they are paid for, processing transactions, and should not be liable for someone else's lack of judgement. The fact that it is legal to make banks pay for such things does not mean it is just, moral or ethical.
    - mlyle 4y ago
      We have a few hundred years of legal tradition around banking and commercial transactions, that have been carefully balanced in ways to give everyone involved an incentive to prevent fraud and to produce a system in which the amount of fraud is manageable. Externalizing all the risk out to the individual customers doesn't seem like a preferable system. Banks have done a whole lot of work to make the risks associated with this manageable and even profitable. Consumers are safer, and also it is more reasonable to trust the payment system to have safe outcomes. As a result it is used more, and banks make more money.
Bnichs 4y ago
The problem is in most cases by the time you're talking about involving a lawyer, most consumers have given up the fight. A majority of the fraud cases I've had requiring charge backs have been in the 20-50 dollar range, so not nearly enough to justify legal assistance. By putting the onus on the legal system it allows merchants to commit smaller scale fraud more easily because normal people don't have lawyers on hand and aren't willing to do so for a $30 case of fraud, as justified as it may be.
- toomuchtodo 4y ago
  It really calls for streamlining small claims court filings for smaller losses, but your point stands about larger losses. Probably room for the CFPB and FTC to work together to provide for this in some capacity.
pwdisswordfish9 4y ago
> That was all based on federal law, not visa dispute rules In my experience, insurance adjusters are completely oblivious to the distinction here—that there are your company's rules, and then there's the rule of law, i.e. something bigger than you or your boss or your boss's boss, etc. Insurance carriers especially benefit greatly from the misconceptions held by those in their workforce (and who end up seeding public perception with the same errors), even when they're pretty easily shown to contradict the law. It's almost certainly intentional.

puffoflogic 4y ago

Perhaps you could put some useful information in this anecdote by telling us what keywords we would need to give to a bar referral service to get a lawyer with your particular expertise?

thathndude 4y ago
The problem is that this area is so small that most people don’t bother with the niche. However I don’t wanna be completely unhelpful, so I would encourage anyone who’s looking to look for someone who has experience with “FCRA” cases. That’s a really big niche And should turn up lots of attorneys, but there are some similarities between that type of practice and this other type of consumer protection practice. So even if they don’t have direct experience, they should still be comfortable in that realm.

Aspos 4y ago

And why do you think it is fair to make a bank pay for your fees, someone else's lack of judgement, someone else's breach? Bank did its job and processed the payment, why should they be liable for all these? If anything, your example is an illustration why those "protections" should be abolished.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
mlyle 4y ago
> And why do you think it is fair to make a bank pay for your fees Because if the bank broke their legal obligations to the customer and the consumer had to use a attorney to recover their money, the attorney deserves to get paid. Banks are expected to know their customer and to take measures to prevent fraud, rather than watching money go by and shrugging because they made a few nickels.
- Aspos 4y ago
  Exactly my point: banks should be responsible for doing the job they are paid for, processing transactions, and should not be liable for someone else's lack of judgement. The fact that it is legal to make banks pay for such things does not mean it is just, moral or ethical.
  - mlyle 4y ago
    We have a few hundred years of legal tradition around banking and commercial transactions, that have been carefully balanced in ways to give everyone involved an incentive to prevent fraud and to produce a system in which the amount of fraud is manageable. Externalizing all the risk out to the individual customers doesn't seem like a preferable system. Banks have done a whole lot of work to make the risks associated with this manageable and even profitable. Consumers are safer, and also it is more reasonable to trust the payment system to have safe outcomes. As a result it is used more, and banks make more money.

Bnichs 4y ago

The problem is in most cases by the time you're talking about involving a lawyer, most consumers have given up the fight. A majority of the fraud cases I've had requiring charge backs have been in the 20-50 dollar range, so not nearly enough to justify legal assistance. By putting the onus on the legal system it allows merchants to commit smaller scale fraud more easily because normal people don't have lawyers on hand and aren't willing to do so for a $30 case of fraud, as justified as it may be.

toomuchtodo 4y ago
It really calls for streamlining small claims court filings for smaller losses, but your point stands about larger losses. Probably room for the CFPB and FTC to work together to provide for this in some capacity.

pwdisswordfish9 4y ago

> That was all based on federal law, not visa dispute rules In my experience, insurance adjusters are completely oblivious to the distinction here—that there are your company's rules, and then there's the rule of law, i.e. something bigger than you or your boss or your boss's boss, etc. Insurance carriers especially benefit greatly from the misconceptions held by those in their workforce (and who end up seeding public perception with the same errors), even when they're pretty easily shown to contradict the law. It's almost certainly intentional.