9 ms·

The OP later clarified that it wasn't a normal transaction. They sold a "cheap company van" using their stripe business account. That seems like a huge liabili

The OP later clarified that it wasn't a normal transaction. They sold a "cheap company van" using their stripe business account. That seems like a huge liability, since a used car seems extremely likely to cause a chargeback. I don't think dealerships would accept a credit card payment (other than deposit) for this reason. https://www.reddit.com/r/smallbusiness/comments/wa1zob/dont_use_stripe_i_am_trying_to_save_you_from_my/ihyq7tl/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3 https://www.reddit.com/r/smallbusiness/comments/wa1zob/dont_...

tomphoolery 4y ago
lmao why. why would you do this. just use square cash.
- arwineap 4y ago
  I enjoy the power of greenbacks, very visceral too.
SyneRyder 4y ago
And one of the comments below that one explains exactly why this is a problem: "When you sign up for your Stripe account, you had to state what business you were using it for. If you're doing business with your Stripe account that is not related to what you sign up for, then there are reasons why Stripe is now holding your money." It's listed in Stripe's terms and conditions on Prohibited Items: "Use of Stripe products to facilitate transactions on behalf of another undisclosed merchant or for products/services that were not disclosed in the merchant's Stripe account application." https://stripe.com/en-au/legal/restricted-businesses https://stripe.com/en-au/legal/restricted-businesses
- notinfuriated 4y ago
  Makes sense why this would raise a red flag, but it does not explain why Stripe supposedly had extremely shitty customer service where he can't get talk to a person and get this resolved in less than a week or two (let alone 120 days that is actually arbitrarily indefinite).
  - x0x0 4y ago
    I'd bet $20 he's been repeatedly told this, and his definition of "can't talk to a human" is "can't talk to a human that agrees with whatever demands he's making". From the reddit post, the demand appears to be to not hold the money for 120 days, and there's no reason for Stripe to agree to that. He also appears upset that Stripe reviewed his company docs after he violated his agreement with Stripe by selling a car, rather than the cellphones he told Stripe he sold.
gnfargbl 4y ago
When these stories come up, I would like to hear enough context that enables me to understand whether or not Stripe is behaving reasonably. I understand Stripe takes customer privacy seriously, but even so it would be great to get the missing information in a suitably anonymous form. In this case, my judgment (as a small business that uses Stripe for similar-sized SaaS payments) is that they acted completely reasonably.
mindslight 4y ago
A paper-titled transaction seems like it should have one of the lowest chargeback risks. A copy of the purchase and sale specifying "as-is", plus signed title should be pretty clear cut evidence against a chargeback. It's also not terribly surprising that someone who develops familiarity with one tool will then apply that tool to new situations. The main problem here is the ever-growing financial censorship regime / decommodification push that insists companies should be prying into their customers' business.
- flak48 4y ago
  Why should Stripe take on the cost of investigating / handling a potential chargeback, even though it might be likely to be resolved in the business (and Stripe's) favor? When it comes to chargebacks it's not just customer experience (reputation damage due to fraud) and liquidity risks that Stripes or other payment providers are protecting themselves against - but also the actual support cost of handling each chargeback too.
  - mindslight 4y ago
    Chargebacks are a possibility with every single credit card transaction. Routine B2C transactions carry the possibility that a card number was used fraudulently, the product was never delivered, or the customer is otherwise unhappy. A one-time payment for a vehicle with a state-documented title carries none of those risks.
  - joshmanders 4y ago
    So let me get this straight, you're siding in favor of Stripe not doing what Stripe signed up for by becoming a payment processor, is that correct?
    - flak48 4y ago
      Not correct, OP entered into an agreement with Stripe where Stripe would process payments received for the sale of cell phones (and not automobiles).
Crosseye_Jack 4y ago
Most 2nd hand car sales in the US are sold "As-is", so the buyer has very little recurse after the fact. The consensus is when it comes to 2nd hand vehicle sales is buyer beware and you should be taking the vehicle to be checked over by another garage before finalising the purchase. Last car I purchased (granted a) it was brand new b) I'm in the UK) I purchased the car using my debit card (I kept the recept for ages until it faded cause it was novel to me to have such a large card transaction on a small thermal printed receipt :-P) So I'm just wondering why a 2nd hand vehicle sale would be a huge liability thats all.
- flak48 4y ago
  I'd guess that a manual review for the automatically detected out-of-policy transaction wouldn't be prioritized if it's been flagged as a transaction outside the seller's line of business that they mentioned in their agreement with Stripe when onboarding. I kind of agree - I don't see why manually reviewing a transaction that probably violates their agreement with Stripe should be prioritized by Stripe - even if the transaction would eventually emerge as legit (not fraudulent and not chargeback-able). Because such a manual review would entail a cost to Stripe that is being forced upon Stripe by the seller's actions.
  - Crosseye_Jack 4y ago
    I'm not questioning the idea that the transaction was outside the sellers normal line of business (and tbf to Stripe, would imo be a valid reason to be extra careful with the transaction and may be justifcation for account termination, even if account termination seems a bit harsh for a first time "offensive" imo, but hey, thats ToS for you), just the idea that "used car seems extremely likely to cause a chargeback" thats all.
    - flak48 4y ago
      Yep, FWIW I hope OP gets their money if not their account
- stetrain 4y ago
nunez 4y ago
and this right here is why I avoid larger subreddits. the truth is always buried underneath hundreds of poorly thought out knee jerk responses

tomphoolery 4y ago

lmao why. why would you do this. just use square cash.

arwineap 4y ago
I enjoy the power of greenbacks, very visceral too.

SyneRyder 4y ago

And one of the comments below that one explains exactly why this is a problem: "When you sign up for your Stripe account, you had to state what business you were using it for. If you're doing business with your Stripe account that is not related to what you sign up for, then there are reasons why Stripe is now holding your money." It's listed in Stripe's terms and conditions on Prohibited Items: "Use of Stripe products to facilitate transactions on behalf of another undisclosed merchant or for products/services that were not disclosed in the merchant's Stripe account application." https://stripe.com/en-au/legal/restricted-businesses https://stripe.com/en-au/legal/restricted-businesses

notinfuriated 4y ago
Makes sense why this would raise a red flag, but it does not explain why Stripe supposedly had extremely shitty customer service where he can't get talk to a person and get this resolved in less than a week or two (let alone 120 days that is actually arbitrarily indefinite).
- x0x0 4y ago
  I'd bet $20 he's been repeatedly told this, and his definition of "can't talk to a human" is "can't talk to a human that agrees with whatever demands he's making". From the reddit post, the demand appears to be to not hold the money for 120 days, and there's no reason for Stripe to agree to that. He also appears upset that Stripe reviewed his company docs after he violated his agreement with Stripe by selling a car, rather than the cellphones he told Stripe he sold.

gnfargbl 4y ago

When these stories come up, I would like to hear enough context that enables me to understand whether or not Stripe is behaving reasonably. I understand Stripe takes customer privacy seriously, but even so it would be great to get the missing information in a suitably anonymous form. In this case, my judgment (as a small business that uses Stripe for similar-sized SaaS payments) is that they acted completely reasonably.

mindslight 4y ago

A paper-titled transaction seems like it should have one of the lowest chargeback risks. A copy of the purchase and sale specifying "as-is", plus signed title should be pretty clear cut evidence against a chargeback. It's also not terribly surprising that someone who develops familiarity with one tool will then apply that tool to new situations. The main problem here is the ever-growing financial censorship regime / decommodification push that insists companies should be prying into their customers' business.

flak48 4y ago
Why should Stripe take on the cost of investigating / handling a potential chargeback, even though it might be likely to be resolved in the business (and Stripe's) favor? When it comes to chargebacks it's not just customer experience (reputation damage due to fraud) and liquidity risks that Stripes or other payment providers are protecting themselves against - but also the actual support cost of handling each chargeback too.
- mindslight 4y ago
  Chargebacks are a possibility with every single credit card transaction. Routine B2C transactions carry the possibility that a card number was used fraudulently, the product was never delivered, or the customer is otherwise unhappy. A one-time payment for a vehicle with a state-documented title carries none of those risks.
- joshmanders 4y ago
  So let me get this straight, you're siding in favor of Stripe not doing what Stripe signed up for by becoming a payment processor, is that correct?
  - flak48 4y ago
    Not correct, OP entered into an agreement with Stripe where Stripe would process payments received for the sale of cell phones (and not automobiles).

Crosseye_Jack 4y ago

Most 2nd hand car sales in the US are sold "As-is", so the buyer has very little recurse after the fact. The consensus is when it comes to 2nd hand vehicle sales is buyer beware and you should be taking the vehicle to be checked over by another garage before finalising the purchase. Last car I purchased (granted a) it was brand new b) I'm in the UK) I purchased the car using my debit card (I kept the recept for ages until it faded cause it was novel to me to have such a large card transaction on a small thermal printed receipt :-P) So I'm just wondering why a 2nd hand vehicle sale would be a huge liability thats all.

flak48 4y ago
I'd guess that a manual review for the automatically detected out-of-policy transaction wouldn't be prioritized if it's been flagged as a transaction outside the seller's line of business that they mentioned in their agreement with Stripe when onboarding. I kind of agree - I don't see why manually reviewing a transaction that probably violates their agreement with Stripe should be prioritized by Stripe - even if the transaction would eventually emerge as legit (not fraudulent and not chargeback-able). Because such a manual review would entail a cost to Stripe that is being forced upon Stripe by the seller's actions.
- Crosseye_Jack 4y ago
  I'm not questioning the idea that the transaction was outside the sellers normal line of business (and tbf to Stripe, would imo be a valid reason to be extra careful with the transaction and may be justifcation for account termination, even if account termination seems a bit harsh for a first time "offensive" imo, but hey, thats ToS for you), just the idea that "used car seems extremely likely to cause a chargeback" thats all.
  - flak48 4y ago
    Yep, FWIW I hope OP gets their money if not their account
stetrain 4y ago

nunez 4y ago

and this right here is why I avoid larger subreddits. the truth is always buried underneath hundreds of poorly thought out knee jerk responses