4 ms·

>No, it’s a commercial dispute being litigated—for now—through private channels. If you read my comment more carefully you'd see only I only said "the latter"

by gruez 2y ago

>No, it’s a commercial dispute being litigated—for now—through private channels. If you read my comment more carefully you'd see only I only said "the latter" (ie. "unauthorized payment") was "wire fraud. You telling a bank that you didn't authorize the charge, when you did did in fact authorize the charge, would be wire fraud. You reporting it to the credit card company instead of the FBI or whatever is irrelevant. >I and the others who have with me collectively donated seven figures to Mozilla over the years feel we were materially mislead. Irrelevant. It's a donation and therefore there's no expectation of any goods or services being delivered. "Company was more evil than I thought" isn't a valid chargeback reason. You can't chargeback your Tesla purchase because Musk did that salute.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> You telling a bank that you didn't authorize the charge Not necessary. I’m saying I did not receive services as I thought promised. Important that this is with a credit card. > It's a donation and therefore there's no expectation of any goods or services being delivered Sure. It’s a vindictive move. I believe I was lied to. If I donate to a fraud, I’m allowed to charge it back. Same thought here. No allegations of criminality, of course. But merchant disputes are privately litigated; I don’t need to prove a crime to force a chargeback. > You can't chargeback your Tesla purchase because Musk did that salute If you bought it recently on a card and return the car I honestly don’t see why not. I’ve returned products by leaving them on the counter and issuing a chargeback. The clerks almost always couldn’t care less. And it’s not like the card issuer is going to pick the merchant in a dispute with a valued cardholder.
- gruez 2y ago
  >Sure. It’s a vindictive move. I believe I was lied to. What specific "lies" did Mozilla engage in? >If I donate to a fraud, I’m allowed to charge it back. If you donate to someone claiming to be the Red Cross, but isn't actually, you can probably charge back, because you were deceived amount who the money is going to. If you donated to the Red Cross, but are angry that they did/didn't help in Gaza, you'll have a hard time charging back, because there's no deception going on. This is especially true if they didn't make specific claims about how the money would be spent. Mozilla's donation page currently says: "The Mozilla Foundation is building a movement to reclaim the internet. Together we can create a future where our privacy is protected, AI is trustworthy, and irresponsible tech companies are held accountable. But that's only possible if we do it together." The wording here is so squishy so it gives Mozilla wide latitude to do whatever they want with the money. As long as they don't spend it all on hookers and blow, it'll be hard to argue even in regular court that deception took place. Finally, even if you're in the right, deception has occurred, AND the "donation" defense doesn't hold, the credit card case worker doesn't have the time or expertise to adjudicate all of this. They'll hear "donation", "I authorized this charge", and deny the chargeback. >If you bought it recently on a card and return the car I honestly don’t see why not. I’ve returned products by leaving them on the counter and issuing a chargeback. The clerks almost always couldn’t care less. And it’s not like the card issuer is going to pick the merchant in a dispute with a valued cardholder. AFAIK chargebacks are basically adjudicated via arbitration by visa or an independent arbitrator, not by the banks themselves. It's certainly not some sort of kangaroo court where the customer is always right. The bank could choose to compensate you themselves if they think it's not worth the hassle, but in that case you're just trading goodwill from the bank for a short term moral high.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > What specific "lies" did Mozilla engage in? I was pitched on privacy. Whether I and others believe we were lied to are subjective judgements. > you'll have a hard time charging back No, I won’t and you likely wouldn’t either unless you’re constantly claiming chargebacks. > They'll hear "donation", "I authorized this charge", and deny the chargeback Six figures (and counting) already approved by Amex for a series of donations a friend made over a year ago! > AFAIK chargebacks are basically adjudicated via arbitration by visa or an independent arbitrator Depends on the card association. But usually, “the issuing bank makes the final decision on whether to accept the chargeback” [1]. The merchant has recourse per their merchant agreement. But the money comes out of their pockets first. And given it’s a donation, there is an almost zero chance that Mozilla will win. [1] https://www.clearlypayments.com/blog/chargeback-statistics-in-credit-card-processing/ https://www.clearlypayments.com/blog/chargeback-statistics-i...
    - gruez 2y ago
      >I was pitched on privacy. Whether I believe I was lied to is a subjective judgement. The standard for chargebacks isn't "Whether I believe I was lied to". >Six figures (and counting) already approved by Amex for a series of donations a friend made over a year ago! Are we talking actual frauds (eg. kickstarters) or "ACLU was more woke than I'd like so I'm going to charge back 2 years worth of donations?" >Depends on the card association. But first decision maker is the issuer. And as I said, Amex has already cleared chargebacks from donations a friend made over a year ago. Sounds like Amex just caved and refunded you out of their own funds because you were being a Karen, and you are in fact treating chargebacks as a super-bad review. >The merchant has recourse per their merchant agreement. But the money comes out of their pockets first. And given it’s a donation, there is an almost zero chance that Mozilla will win. There's nothing in the merchant agreement that suggests "given it’s a donation, there is an almost zero chance that Mozilla will win".
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > standard for chargebacks isn't "Whether I believe I was lied to" 6% of chargebacks are due to dissatisfaction [1]. > Are we talking actual frauds (eg. kickstarters) I’m talking about Mozilla. > Sounds like Amex just caved and refunded you out of their own funds Not how chargebacks work. And Amex isn’t taking a six-figure hit for anyone. > nothing in the merchant agreement that suggests "given it’s a donation, there is an almost zero chance that Mozilla will win" If you’re a porn site, casino or non-profit you’re almost never winning a chargeback dispute. (Merchants only win about a fifth of the time in general.) [1] https://www.clearlypayments.com/blog/chargeback-statistics-in-credit-card-processing/ https://www.clearlypayments.com/blog/chargeback-statistics-i...
- lxgr 2y ago
  > I’m saying I did not receive services as I thought promised. You made a tax-deductible donation to a nonprofit. What goods and services did Mozilla agree to deliver to you for that exactly? > I don’t need to prove a crime to force a chargeback. No, but you need a valid chargeback reason, or the bank will lose the dispute process. They might or might not cover that loss out of their own pocket if you're a valuable customer. > If I donate to a fraud, I’m allowed to charge it back. Fraud is a completely different chargeback reason than "goods or services not provided", with different standards of evidence, different default liability etc. > I’ve returned products by leaving them on the counter and issuing a chargeback. [...] And it’s not like the card issuer is going to pick the merchant in a dispute with a valued cardholder. And your issuing bank has almost certainly written off the loss (to make you happy and maintain your business), or potentially recouped it out of a separate product return insurance that's part of many credit cards. You're not sending the message you think you do with entitled/petty behavior like that, or at least not to the right recipient.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > not sending the message I’m not trying to send a message. I’m trying to undo a mistake and rectify a wrong.

by gruez 2y ago

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> You telling a bank that you didn't authorize the charge Not necessary. I’m saying I did not receive services as I thought promised. Important that this is with a credit card. > It's a donation and therefore there's no expectation of any goods or services being delivered Sure. It’s a vindictive move. I believe I was lied to. If I donate to a fraud, I’m allowed to charge it back. Same thought here. No allegations of criminality, of course. But merchant disputes are privately litigated; I don’t need to prove a crime to force a chargeback. > You can't chargeback your Tesla purchase because Musk did that salute If you bought it recently on a card and return the car I honestly don’t see why not. I’ve returned products by leaving them on the counter and issuing a chargeback. The clerks almost always couldn’t care less. And it’s not like the card issuer is going to pick the merchant in a dispute with a valued cardholder.

gruez 2y ago
>Sure. It’s a vindictive move. I believe I was lied to. What specific "lies" did Mozilla engage in? >If I donate to a fraud, I’m allowed to charge it back. If you donate to someone claiming to be the Red Cross, but isn't actually, you can probably charge back, because you were deceived amount who the money is going to. If you donated to the Red Cross, but are angry that they did/didn't help in Gaza, you'll have a hard time charging back, because there's no deception going on. This is especially true if they didn't make specific claims about how the money would be spent. Mozilla's donation page currently says: "The Mozilla Foundation is building a movement to reclaim the internet. Together we can create a future where our privacy is protected, AI is trustworthy, and irresponsible tech companies are held accountable. But that's only possible if we do it together." The wording here is so squishy so it gives Mozilla wide latitude to do whatever they want with the money. As long as they don't spend it all on hookers and blow, it'll be hard to argue even in regular court that deception took place. Finally, even if you're in the right, deception has occurred, AND the "donation" defense doesn't hold, the credit card case worker doesn't have the time or expertise to adjudicate all of this. They'll hear "donation", "I authorized this charge", and deny the chargeback. >If you bought it recently on a card and return the car I honestly don’t see why not. I’ve returned products by leaving them on the counter and issuing a chargeback. The clerks almost always couldn’t care less. And it’s not like the card issuer is going to pick the merchant in a dispute with a valued cardholder. AFAIK chargebacks are basically adjudicated via arbitration by visa or an independent arbitrator, not by the banks themselves. It's certainly not some sort of kangaroo court where the customer is always right. The bank could choose to compensate you themselves if they think it's not worth the hassle, but in that case you're just trading goodwill from the bank for a short term moral high.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > What specific "lies" did Mozilla engage in? I was pitched on privacy. Whether I and others believe we were lied to are subjective judgements. > you'll have a hard time charging back No, I won’t and you likely wouldn’t either unless you’re constantly claiming chargebacks. > They'll hear "donation", "I authorized this charge", and deny the chargeback Six figures (and counting) already approved by Amex for a series of donations a friend made over a year ago! > AFAIK chargebacks are basically adjudicated via arbitration by visa or an independent arbitrator Depends on the card association. But usually, “the issuing bank makes the final decision on whether to accept the chargeback” [1]. The merchant has recourse per their merchant agreement. But the money comes out of their pockets first. And given it’s a donation, there is an almost zero chance that Mozilla will win. [1] https://www.clearlypayments.com/blog/chargeback-statistics-in-credit-card-processing/ https://www.clearlypayments.com/blog/chargeback-statistics-i...
  - gruez 2y ago
    >I was pitched on privacy. Whether I believe I was lied to is a subjective judgement. The standard for chargebacks isn't "Whether I believe I was lied to". >Six figures (and counting) already approved by Amex for a series of donations a friend made over a year ago! Are we talking actual frauds (eg. kickstarters) or "ACLU was more woke than I'd like so I'm going to charge back 2 years worth of donations?" >Depends on the card association. But first decision maker is the issuer. And as I said, Amex has already cleared chargebacks from donations a friend made over a year ago. Sounds like Amex just caved and refunded you out of their own funds because you were being a Karen, and you are in fact treating chargebacks as a super-bad review. >The merchant has recourse per their merchant agreement. But the money comes out of their pockets first. And given it’s a donation, there is an almost zero chance that Mozilla will win. There's nothing in the merchant agreement that suggests "given it’s a donation, there is an almost zero chance that Mozilla will win".
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > standard for chargebacks isn't "Whether I believe I was lied to" 6% of chargebacks are due to dissatisfaction [1]. > Are we talking actual frauds (eg. kickstarters) I’m talking about Mozilla. > Sounds like Amex just caved and refunded you out of their own funds Not how chargebacks work. And Amex isn’t taking a six-figure hit for anyone. > nothing in the merchant agreement that suggests "given it’s a donation, there is an almost zero chance that Mozilla will win" If you’re a porn site, casino or non-profit you’re almost never winning a chargeback dispute. (Merchants only win about a fifth of the time in general.) [1] https://www.clearlypayments.com/blog/chargeback-statistics-in-credit-card-processing/ https://www.clearlypayments.com/blog/chargeback-statistics-i...
lxgr 2y ago
> I’m saying I did not receive services as I thought promised. You made a tax-deductible donation to a nonprofit. What goods and services did Mozilla agree to deliver to you for that exactly? > I don’t need to prove a crime to force a chargeback. No, but you need a valid chargeback reason, or the bank will lose the dispute process. They might or might not cover that loss out of their own pocket if you're a valuable customer. > If I donate to a fraud, I’m allowed to charge it back. Fraud is a completely different chargeback reason than "goods or services not provided", with different standards of evidence, different default liability etc. > I’ve returned products by leaving them on the counter and issuing a chargeback. [...] And it’s not like the card issuer is going to pick the merchant in a dispute with a valued cardholder. And your issuing bank has almost certainly written off the loss (to make you happy and maintain your business), or potentially recouped it out of a separate product return insurance that's part of many credit cards. You're not sending the message you think you do with entitled/petty behavior like that, or at least not to the right recipient.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > not sending the message I’m not trying to send a message. I’m trying to undo a mistake and rectify a wrong.