3 ms·

> “Reducing the impacts of first party misuse on small businesses requires industry-wide support,” says Julie Fergerson, CEO at MRC Yes, please Mrs CEO, tell m

> “Reducing the impacts of first party misuse on small businesses requires industry-wide support,” says Julie Fergerson, CEO at MRC Yes, please Mrs CEO, tell me more about small businesses... I think I hurt myself rolling my eyes at this. This will primarily used by larger companies to fight legitimate chargebacks. If they had a reason to dispute the chargeback there are already means to do it, this process already exists. I can't imagine this new "program" is anything more than a way to screw consumers more.

lukesmith82 4y ago
As a small business owner that deals with chargebacks, we never win these disputes - even when providing the evidence. How is that okay?
- Someone1234 4y ago
  Visa created the cost of a chargeback AND the process, why not take it up with them? They've swung from one extreme to the other, that's not an improvement.
  - lukesmith82 4y ago
    By extreme, you mean that a business doesn't have to bear the cost of a fraudulent chargeback if they can prove it? What is extreme about that?
    - Someone1234 4y ago
      Visa are the ones framing this as "fraud." Personally I view a business placing a cardholder in a position where they NEED to do a chargeback as anti-consumer. The chargeback process needs to evolve wherein consumers actually abusing it lose, and businesses abusing consumers lose. Regardless it shouldn't cost a business anything if they WIN. There are numerous stories in this thread alone about businesses continuing to charge people after cancellation and other good-faith interventions. Visa as essentially saying they won't help in those cases since the business can prove a pre-existing relationship. That's not ok. Heck, maybe we need a kind of "unsubscribe" mechanism from Visa's side. Something that isn't a chargeback (which they'd reserve for actual fraud) but a mechanism where a vendor just cannot charge that card anymore without getting a NEW agreement/contract.

lukesmith82 4y ago

As a small business owner that deals with chargebacks, we never win these disputes - even when providing the evidence. How is that okay?

Someone1234 4y ago
Visa created the cost of a chargeback AND the process, why not take it up with them? They've swung from one extreme to the other, that's not an improvement.
- lukesmith82 4y ago
  By extreme, you mean that a business doesn't have to bear the cost of a fraudulent chargeback if they can prove it? What is extreme about that?
  - Someone1234 4y ago
    Visa are the ones framing this as "fraud." Personally I view a business placing a cardholder in a position where they NEED to do a chargeback as anti-consumer. The chargeback process needs to evolve wherein consumers actually abusing it lose, and businesses abusing consumers lose. Regardless it shouldn't cost a business anything if they WIN. There are numerous stories in this thread alone about businesses continuing to charge people after cancellation and other good-faith interventions. Visa as essentially saying they won't help in those cases since the business can prove a pre-existing relationship. That's not ok. Heck, maybe we need a kind of "unsubscribe" mechanism from Visa's side. Something that isn't a chargeback (which they'd reserve for actual fraud) but a mechanism where a vendor just cannot charge that card anymore without getting a NEW agreement/contract.