3 ms·
I think it's less about forcing them to do business and more about the regulator/consumer protection agency getting wind of what is obviously malicious and pote
by Nextgrid 4y ago
I think it's less about forcing them to do business and more about the regulator/consumer protection agency getting wind of what is obviously malicious and potentially illegal behavior from the company - a lot of companies will fold when a case gets anywhere near litigation/consumer protection/arbitration just to not attract attention.
In this case, the chargeback was just the last resort solution for the customer because they were stonewalled by customer "service", but they otherwise didn't want to chargeback and would rather just be able to cancel their booking properly and keep using the service.
- lotsofpulp 4y agoSure, but refusing to do business with someone is legal in most cases.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago> refusing to do business with someone is legal in most cases Consumer protection law has limited anti-retaliation protection. Banks also want to know if unsavoury behaviour is being suppressed. Nobody must do business with anyone else. But banning after someone exercises a consumer right in respect of potential fraud you facilitated (and profited off) is not something one wants scrutinised.