4 ms·
This is bullshit. Period. Stripe already made this suck with their $15 fee you get hit with for every chargeback. Let me say that louder for the people in the
by joshstrange 2y ago
This is bullshit. Period.
Stripe already made this suck with their $15 fee you get hit with for every chargeback.
Let me say that louder for the people in the back:
If a customer buys your product for $10, they use your product, then they issue a chargeback then Stripe will clawback $25. You are out 250% of your product cost without doing anything else.
Before this change you could dispute it and potentially get back your $10 (minus fees) but you just lost that $15 no matter what.
After this change you have to pay an additional $15 just to dispute it and only if you win do you get that back (but you are still "out" that initial $15). So you have to decide if you want to fight for your $10 by risking another $15.
Also, the dispute process is a complete farce. There is zero visibility and you can provide perfect documentation and they will still deny it.
There is a special place in hell for people that file fraudulent chargebacks.
I say all of this as someone who is favor of customer protections but chargebacks are so far tilted in the customer's favor that small businesses can get screwed easily.
* Pulls out soapbox *
And this is why I'm pro-regulation, pro-customer-protection but there /has/ to be a way to advantage the "small businesses" that every politician pays lip service to. Regulations are written blood most all of the time and are needed but treating "mom and pop"-sized businesses the same as massive corporations with armies of lawyers (that often let them avoid the regulation or blunt it) is insanity.
- pedalpete 2y agoThe Colison (?) brothers say they're all for supporting small businesses, but as you've shown, this looks like mere lip service.
- rchaud 2y agoScratch the surface of every VC-funded tech disruptor and you'll find a temporarily embarrassed market incumbent.
- supertrope 2y agoThe main way merchants push back on chargebacks is to not accept Amex. That brand of credit card attracts customers who chargeback more often. Mandatory accounts that gatekeep on-going access also discourage chargebacks. If you will lose access to an important brand of taxi service or your $1000 digital content collection you will think twice before charging back even if you are a legitimate fraud victim.
- rchaud 2y agoI thought merchants not accepting Amex had more to do with high processing fees compared to MC/Visa. Amex is marketed as a premium card targeted at higher income people so wouldn't that correlate with fewer charge backs?
- supertrope 2y agoYou’re right on fees being the main reason. I was incorrect about the chargeback rate. https://www.clearlypayments.com/blog/how-merchants-can-manage-amex-chargebacks/ https://www.clearlypayments.com/blog/how-merchants-can-manag...
- dghlsakjg 2y agoThis isn't really a Stripe thing. Just about every processor has a chargeback fee that is non-refundable. Frequently they are higher than $15. You can sign up directly with any bank that offers merchant services and there will be charge-back fees. The reality is that chargeback-fees are never going to be a massive part of any businesses expenses, since processors will cut you off from the network before that point (anything over .9% of transactions disputed and you are in deep trouble). Just like everything else, small businesses should just plan for a certain small percentage of transactions to be disputed, and build that into their business model, in the same way that they do for all other expenses. Besides all that, a credit card chargeback does not invalidate a valid debt. If a merchant wants to put that debt into collection, or to go after the debt and expenses in small claims, that's allowed and the CC company can't do anything about it.