3 ms·
I don't understand why the merchant should pay the chargeback on fraud. Online payment works best by making electronic wire transfers. This is how payment norma
by nawitus 14y ago
I don't understand why the merchant should pay the chargeback on fraud. Online payment works best by making electronic wire transfers. This is how payment normally works in Finland: you buy something, and at checkout click the logo of your bank. You're redirected to the bank's website where you login and accept the payment. Then you're redirected back to the website.
That's quite similar to 'Verified by Visa' model, where the client has to accept the payment on Visa's website.
Recurring billing (e.g. monthly payments) could be authorized once.
If a customer's computer gets hacked and the access to the online bank gets compromised, then that situation should be dealth completely by the bank (in the same way it's being dealth even now).
Merchants and online stores shouldn't have to worry about preventing fraud, that should be centralized and dealt by banks
- PeterisP 14y agoThe answer to "I don't understand why the merchant should pay the chargeback on fraud." is very simple - [non-huge] merchants are presented with an offer they can't refuse: accept the rules as-is, or don't accept credit cards. For most global businesses accepting credit cards is better, since a significant portion of customers prefer cards for various reasons, including the ability to chargeback if they have a disagreement with the merchant. And wire transfers aren't a good option in many countries due to their cost - while they should cost a few cents or less (an order of magnitude less than CC processors charge), in many countries, including USA, wire transfers are rather expensive.
- devdas 14y agoUnless you are buying at a shop in a different country, in which case your bank isn't in the list of valid banks.