5 ms·

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 regio

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
        Are you even trying to see things from a different perspective, or are you just dead set on winning an argument via ad hominems based on incorrect assumptions about my background? It's quite possible that both of our experiences are real – at least I'm not trying to cast doubt on yours – but my suspicion is that the generalization you're drawing from yours (i.e. chargeback rules, or at least their practical interpretation, being very different between the US and other countries) isn't accurate. Both in and outside the US, merchants can and do win chargebacks, but a merchant being completely unresponsive to cancellation requests of future services not yet provided (i.e. not of "buyer's remorse" for a service that's not available to them, per terms and conditions) seems like an easy win for the issuer.
        closewith 1y ago
        > Are you even trying to see things from a different perspective, or are you just dead set on winning an argument via ad hominems based on incorrect assumptions about my background? I'm very open to a different perspective if it's grounded in reality. I'm only judging you on your comments, which to date have been factually inaccurate (to the point that I wonder if you're trolling?), > Both in and outside the US, merchants can and do win chargebacks, At vastly different rates (~10% vs ~80%) > but a merchant being completely unresponsive to cancellation requests of future services not yet provided (i.e. not of "buyer's remorse" for a service that's not available to them, per terms and conditions) Geoblocking a region is not being unresponsive and will not result in a breach of network rules. Lots of precedent and completely uncontroversial but yet you believe otherwise. > seems like an easy win for the issuer. Seems is the operative word here, but it only seems so from your uninformed position. Even after quoting the MC terms that show that you're incorrect, you're still not open to new information.
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

> 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
      Are you even trying to see things from a different perspective, or are you just dead set on winning an argument via ad hominems based on incorrect assumptions about my background? It's quite possible that both of our experiences are real – at least I'm not trying to cast doubt on yours – but my suspicion is that the generalization you're drawing from yours (i.e. chargeback rules, or at least their practical interpretation, being very different between the US and other countries) isn't accurate. Both in and outside the US, merchants can and do win chargebacks, but a merchant being completely unresponsive to cancellation requests of future services not yet provided (i.e. not of "buyer's remorse" for a service that's not available to them, per terms and conditions) seems like an easy win for the issuer.
      - closewith 1y ago
        > Are you even trying to see things from a different perspective, or are you just dead set on winning an argument via ad hominems based on incorrect assumptions about my background? I'm very open to a different perspective if it's grounded in reality. I'm only judging you on your comments, which to date have been factually inaccurate (to the point that I wonder if you're trolling?), > Both in and outside the US, merchants can and do win chargebacks, At vastly different rates (~10% vs ~80%) > but a merchant being completely unresponsive to cancellation requests of future services not yet provided (i.e. not of "buyer's remorse" for a service that's not available to them, per terms and conditions) Geoblocking a region is not being unresponsive and will not result in a breach of network rules. Lots of precedent and completely uncontroversial but yet you believe otherwise. > seems like an easy win for the issuer. Seems is the operative word here, but it only seems so from your uninformed position. Even after quoting the MC terms that show that you're incorrect, you're still not open to new information.

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.