3 ms·

Chargebacks aren't the panacea you're used to outside the US, so that's a non-issue.

lxgr 1y ago
Only if your bank isn't competent in using them. Visa/Mastercard chargeback rules largely apply worldwide (with some regional exceptions, but much less than many banks would make you believe).
- closewith 1y ago
  No, outside the US, both Visa and Mastercard regularly side with the retailer/supplier. If you process a chargeback simply because a UK company blocks your IP, you will be denied.
  - antonkochubey 1y ago
    One of requirements of Visa/Mastercard is for the customer to be able to contact merchant post-purchase.
    - closewith 1y ago
      Only via the original method of commerce. An online retailer who geoblocks users does not have to open the geoblock for users who move into the geoblocked regions. I have first-hand experience, as I ran a company that geoblocked US users for legal reasons and successfully defended chargebacks by users who made transactions in the EU and disputed them from the US. Chargebacks outside the US are a true arbitration process, not the rubberstamped refunds they are there.
      - lxgr 1y ago
        > Chargebacks outside the US are a true arbitration process, not the rubberstamped refunds they are there. What's true is that in the US, the cardholder can often just say "I've never heard of that merchant", since 3DS is not really a thing, and generally merchants are relatively unlikely to have compelling evidence to the contrary. But for all non-fraud disputes, they follow the same process.
        closewith 1y ago
        As commented elsewhere, you're just wrong. It's a significant burden of proof for a cardholder to win a dispute for non-compliance with card network rules and it very rarely happens (outside of actual merchant fraud, which is much rarer in the EU). Again, you're not aware of the reality outside the US.
        lxgr 1y ago
        > It's a significant burden of proof for a cardholder to win a dispute for non-compliance with card network rules That's true, but "fraud" and "compliance" aren't the only dispute categories, not by far. In this case, using Mastercard as an example (as their dispute rules are public [1]), the dispute category would be "Refund not processed". The corresponding section explicitly lists this as a valid reason: "The merchant has not responded to the return or the cancellation of goods or services." > Again, you're not aware of the reality outside the US. Repeating your incorrect assumption doesn't make it true. [1] https://www.mastercard.us/content/dam/public/mastercardcom/na/global-site/documents/chargeback-guide.pdf https://www.mastercard.us/content/dam/public/mastercardcom/n...
        closewith 1y ago
        Okay, so you're grasping at straws here, because: a) a Refund Not Processed chargeback is for non-compliance with card network rules, and b), When the merchant informed the cardholder of its refund policy at the time of purchase, the cardholder must abide by that policy. We won these every time, because we had a lawful and compliant refund policy and we stuck to it. These are a complete non-issue for vendors outside the US, unless they are genuinely fraudulent. Honestly, I think you have no experience with card processors outside the US (or maybe at all) and you just can't admit you're wrong, but anyone with experience would tell you how wrong you are in a heartbeat. The idea you can "defeat" geoblocks with chargebacks is much more likely to result in you losing access to credit than a refund.
        lxgr 1y ago
      - Dylan16807 1y ago
        "Visiting the website" is the method. It's nonsense to say that visiting from a different location is a different method. I don't care if you won those disputes, you did a bad thing and screwed over your customers.
        closewith 1y ago
        > Visiting the website" is the method. It's nonsense to say that visiting from a different location is a different method. This is a naive view of the internet that does not stand the test of legislative reality. It's perfectly reasonable (and in our case was only path to compliance) to limit access to certain geographic locations. > I don't care if you won those disputes, you did a bad thing and screwed over your customers. In our case, our customers were trying to commit friendly fraud by requesting a chargeback because they didn't like a geoblock, which is also what the GP was suggesting. Using chargebacks this way is nearly unique to the US and thankfully EU banks will deny such frivolous claims.
        Dylan16807 1y ago
        The ancestor post was about being unable to get support for a product, so I thought you were talking about the same situation. Refusal to support is a legitimate grievance. Are you saying they tried a chargeback just because they were annoyed at being unable to reach your website? Something doesn't add up here, or am I giving those customers too much credit? Were you selling them an ongoing website-based service? Then the fair thing would usually be a prorated refund when they change country. A chargeback is bad but keeping all their money while only doing half your job is also bad.
        closewith 1y ago
        If you read back in the thread, we're talking about the claim that adding geoblocking will result in chargebacks, which outside the US, it won't. > Are you saying they tried a chargeback just because they were annoyed at being unable to reach your website? In our case it was friendly fraud when users tried to use a service which we could not provide in the US (and many other countries due to compliance reasons) and had signed up in the EU, possibly via VPN.
  - lxgr 1y ago
    Visa and Mastercard aren't even involved in most disputes. Almost all disputes are settled between issuing and acquiring bank, and the networks only step in after some back and forth if the two really can't figure out liability. I've seen some European issuing banks completely misinterpret the dispute rules and as a result deny cardholder claims that other issuers won without any discussion.
    - closewith 1y ago
      > Visa and Mastercard aren't even involved in most disputes. Almost all disputes are settled between issuing and acquiring bank, and the networks only step in after some back and forth if the two really can't figure out liability. Yes, the issuing and acquiring banks perform an arbitration process, and it's generally a very fair process. We disputed every chargeback and post PSD2 SCA, we won almost all and had a 90%+ net recovery rate. Similar US businesses were lucky to hit 10% and were terrified of chargeback limits. > I've seen some European issuing banks completely misinterpret the dispute rules and as a result deny cardholder claims that other issuers won without any discussion. Are you sure? More likely, the vendor didn't dispute the successful chargebacks.
      - lxgr 1y ago
        I think you might be talking about "fraudulent transaction/cardholder does not recognize" disputes. Yes, when using 3DS (which is now much more common at least in Europe, due to often being required by regulation in the EU/EEA), these are much less likely to be won by the issuer. But "merchant does not let me cancel" isn't a fraud dispute (and in fact would probably be lost by the issuing bank if raised as such). Those "non-fraudulent disagreement with the merchant disputes" work very similarly in the US and in Europe.
        closewith 1y ago
        No, you're just wrong here. Merchant doesn't let me cancel will almost always be won by the vendor when they demonstrate that they do allow cancellations within the bounds of the law and contracts. I've won many of these in the EU, too (we actually never lost a dispute for non-compliance with card network rules, because we were _very_ compliant). I can only assume you are from the US and are assuming your experience will generalise, but it simply does not. Like night and day. Most EU residents who try using chargebacks for illegitimate dispute resolution learn these lessons quickly, as there are far more card cancellations for "friendly fraud" than merchant account closures for excessive chargebacks in the EU - the polar opposite of the US.

lxgr 1y ago

Only if your bank isn't competent in using them. Visa/Mastercard chargeback rules largely apply worldwide (with some regional exceptions, but much less than many banks would make you believe).

closewith 1y ago
No, outside the US, both Visa and Mastercard regularly side with the retailer/supplier. If you process a chargeback simply because a UK company blocks your IP, you will be denied.
- antonkochubey 1y ago
  One of requirements of Visa/Mastercard is for the customer to be able to contact merchant post-purchase.
  - closewith 1y ago
    Only via the original method of commerce. An online retailer who geoblocks users does not have to open the geoblock for users who move into the geoblocked regions. I have first-hand experience, as I ran a company that geoblocked US users for legal reasons and successfully defended chargebacks by users who made transactions in the EU and disputed them from the US. Chargebacks outside the US are a true arbitration process, not the rubberstamped refunds they are there.
    - lxgr 1y ago
      > Chargebacks outside the US are a true arbitration process, not the rubberstamped refunds they are there. What's true is that in the US, the cardholder can often just say "I've never heard of that merchant", since 3DS is not really a thing, and generally merchants are relatively unlikely to have compelling evidence to the contrary. But for all non-fraud disputes, they follow the same process.
      - closewith 1y ago
        As commented elsewhere, you're just wrong. It's a significant burden of proof for a cardholder to win a dispute for non-compliance with card network rules and it very rarely happens (outside of actual merchant fraud, which is much rarer in the EU). Again, you're not aware of the reality outside the US.
        lxgr 1y ago
        > It's a significant burden of proof for a cardholder to win a dispute for non-compliance with card network rules That's true, but "fraud" and "compliance" aren't the only dispute categories, not by far. In this case, using Mastercard as an example (as their dispute rules are public [1]), the dispute category would be "Refund not processed". The corresponding section explicitly lists this as a valid reason: "The merchant has not responded to the return or the cancellation of goods or services." > Again, you're not aware of the reality outside the US. Repeating your incorrect assumption doesn't make it true. [1] https://www.mastercard.us/content/dam/public/mastercardcom/na/global-site/documents/chargeback-guide.pdf https://www.mastercard.us/content/dam/public/mastercardcom/n...
        closewith 1y ago
        Okay, so you're grasping at straws here, because: a) a Refund Not Processed chargeback is for non-compliance with card network rules, and b), When the merchant informed the cardholder of its refund policy at the time of purchase, the cardholder must abide by that policy. We won these every time, because we had a lawful and compliant refund policy and we stuck to it. These are a complete non-issue for vendors outside the US, unless they are genuinely fraudulent. Honestly, I think you have no experience with card processors outside the US (or maybe at all) and you just can't admit you're wrong, but anyone with experience would tell you how wrong you are in a heartbeat. The idea you can "defeat" geoblocks with chargebacks is much more likely to result in you losing access to credit than a refund.
        lxgr 1y ago
    - Dylan16807 1y ago
      "Visiting the website" is the method. It's nonsense to say that visiting from a different location is a different method. I don't care if you won those disputes, you did a bad thing and screwed over your customers.
      - closewith 1y ago
        > Visiting the website" is the method. It's nonsense to say that visiting from a different location is a different method. This is a naive view of the internet that does not stand the test of legislative reality. It's perfectly reasonable (and in our case was only path to compliance) to limit access to certain geographic locations. > I don't care if you won those disputes, you did a bad thing and screwed over your customers. In our case, our customers were trying to commit friendly fraud by requesting a chargeback because they didn't like a geoblock, which is also what the GP was suggesting. Using chargebacks this way is nearly unique to the US and thankfully EU banks will deny such frivolous claims.
        Dylan16807 1y ago
        The ancestor post was about being unable to get support for a product, so I thought you were talking about the same situation. Refusal to support is a legitimate grievance. Are you saying they tried a chargeback just because they were annoyed at being unable to reach your website? Something doesn't add up here, or am I giving those customers too much credit? Were you selling them an ongoing website-based service? Then the fair thing would usually be a prorated refund when they change country. A chargeback is bad but keeping all their money while only doing half your job is also bad.
        closewith 1y ago
        If you read back in the thread, we're talking about the claim that adding geoblocking will result in chargebacks, which outside the US, it won't. > Are you saying they tried a chargeback just because they were annoyed at being unable to reach your website? In our case it was friendly fraud when users tried to use a service which we could not provide in the US (and many other countries due to compliance reasons) and had signed up in the EU, possibly via VPN.
- lxgr 1y ago
  Visa and Mastercard aren't even involved in most disputes. Almost all disputes are settled between issuing and acquiring bank, and the networks only step in after some back and forth if the two really can't figure out liability. I've seen some European issuing banks completely misinterpret the dispute rules and as a result deny cardholder claims that other issuers won without any discussion.
  - closewith 1y ago
    > Visa and Mastercard aren't even involved in most disputes. Almost all disputes are settled between issuing and acquiring bank, and the networks only step in after some back and forth if the two really can't figure out liability. Yes, the issuing and acquiring banks perform an arbitration process, and it's generally a very fair process. We disputed every chargeback and post PSD2 SCA, we won almost all and had a 90%+ net recovery rate. Similar US businesses were lucky to hit 10% and were terrified of chargeback limits. > I've seen some European issuing banks completely misinterpret the dispute rules and as a result deny cardholder claims that other issuers won without any discussion. Are you sure? More likely, the vendor didn't dispute the successful chargebacks.
    - lxgr 1y ago
      I think you might be talking about "fraudulent transaction/cardholder does not recognize" disputes. Yes, when using 3DS (which is now much more common at least in Europe, due to often being required by regulation in the EU/EEA), these are much less likely to be won by the issuer. But "merchant does not let me cancel" isn't a fraud dispute (and in fact would probably be lost by the issuing bank if raised as such). Those "non-fraudulent disagreement with the merchant disputes" work very similarly in the US and in Europe.
      - closewith 1y ago
        No, you're just wrong here. Merchant doesn't let me cancel will almost always be won by the vendor when they demonstrate that they do allow cancellations within the bounds of the law and contracts. I've won many of these in the EU, too (we actually never lost a dispute for non-compliance with card network rules, because we were _very_ compliant). I can only assume you are from the US and are assuming your experience will generalise, but it simply does not. Like night and day. Most EU residents who try using chargebacks for illegitimate dispute resolution learn these lessons quickly, as there are far more card cancellations for "friendly fraud" than merchant account closures for excessive chargebacks in the EU - the polar opposite of the US.