3 ms·

This includes customers refuting valid purchases such as long-forgotten recurring subscriptions... You said the quiet part out loud here, VISA. If their subsc

by caf 4y ago

This includes customers refuting valid purchases such as long-forgotten recurring subscriptions... You said the quiet part out loud here, VISA. If their subscription has gone unused so long that they've forgotten about it, it's pretty clear they wouldn't keep paying for it if they knew. There's certainly no intention to defraud here on the part of the customer, if they've forgotten about it - arguably, if the merchant should reasonably know that the customer has forgotten about the subscription, they're the one acting at least unethically (consider "has not logged into the service for 2 years"). You could drastically reduce the number of these particular disputes by requiring recurring subscriptions to be actively acknowledged by the customer eg. every 12 months.

amf12 4y ago
I am going to go against the grain here. Disclaimer: I think these changes are shitty for a variety of different reasons. I think it is okay for Visa to come up with a policy which disallows disputing a long unused subscription. User subscribed to the subscription, forgot about it, did not check their card statement for a while to know that they were being charged for it and then asked for a chargeback (presumably because the merchant denied them a refund). This is not Visa's problem. One scenario where Visa should still allow chargebacks - a user tried to cancel the subscription, have proof they tried to, but the merchant is still charging them. Now, should the merchant auto-cancel unused subscription? Hell, yeah. But, we should not blame Visa for coming up with a policy that does not allow such chargebacks.
- caf 4y ago
  I don't think people should be using chargebacks for this case. But I also think VISA is in a position to be putting some requirements on the merchants as well as the customers here - particularly if it can prevent the dispute from being filed in the first place.

by caf 4y ago

amf12 4y ago

I am going to go against the grain here. Disclaimer: I think these changes are shitty for a variety of different reasons. I think it is okay for Visa to come up with a policy which disallows disputing a long unused subscription. User subscribed to the subscription, forgot about it, did not check their card statement for a while to know that they were being charged for it and then asked for a chargeback (presumably because the merchant denied them a refund). This is not Visa's problem. One scenario where Visa should still allow chargebacks - a user tried to cancel the subscription, have proof they tried to, but the merchant is still charging them. Now, should the merchant auto-cancel unused subscription? Hell, yeah. But, we should not blame Visa for coming up with a policy that does not allow such chargebacks.

caf 4y ago
I don't think people should be using chargebacks for this case. But I also think VISA is in a position to be putting some requirements on the merchants as well as the customers here - particularly if it can prevent the dispute from being filed in the first place.