Maybe the solution then is regulation of issuer chargeback policies, or of the ability of issuers to claw back money from payment processors or merchants. Yes,

Maybe the solution then is regulation of issuer chargeback policies, or of the ability of issuers to claw back money from payment processors or merchants. Yes, the issuer knows the cardholder better than the merchant, but the payment processor knows the merchant better than the issuer. Why is it right for one of those two sides to automatically get the final say, even when they use such a spurious basis for their decision as Bank of America did here? As I said, figuring out the right fix is not easy. But I don’t see how the current situation is defensible as okay, except as maybe reflecting the natural way for each of the individual actors to behave given the various incentives which are presently applicable to them, or as better than any specific proposal currently available for how to fix the situation.