4 ms·

I think you may have missed this part: "Chase and other banks say they will cover unauthorized transactions that customers report."

sliverstorm 13y ago
I think your parent misunderstood, thinking there was an implicit promise that you won't even be inconvenienced by fraud.
- wmf 13y ago
  They're inconveniencing you for potential fraud that may not even happen. It seems like a high price to pay for what is ultimately someone else's problem.
possibilistic 13y ago
I had to call Chase last night to get them to approve an eBay transaction I was trying to make. In total, I waited about 45 minutes to do what normally takes about two. My feeling is that Chase would rather inconvenience their customers than lose money from reversed merchant transactions. The burden of this mishap got placed largely on us, the consumers. Target is getting off easy at this point.
- pandemicsyn 13y ago
  Its definitely true that we consumers are the ones getting shafted by this deal. However, I'd rather they use this approach and temporarily drop limits than potentially let some consumers (who are more than likely unaware of what happened) possibly wake up XMas day to a drained checking account because they made the mistake of using a debit card. Theres nothing quite as a bad as going to put gas in your tank only to find someone drained your account.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
nanidin 13y ago
Is that really code for "merchants who sold something to a fraudulent card will have that money taken back, and effectively lose the merchandise they sold"? In my experience (several years ago, through PayPal though) that was the case.
- ceejayoz 13y ago
  That's unlikely in a situation like this where the merchants are faultless. Chase has insurance for stuff like this, and they can always sue Target as well.

4 ms·

I think you may have missed this part: "Chase and other banks say they will cover unauthorized transactions that customers report."

by pandemicsyn 13y ago

sliverstorm 13y ago
I think your parent misunderstood, thinking there was an implicit promise that you won't even be inconvenienced by fraud.
- wmf 13y ago
  They're inconveniencing you for potential fraud that may not even happen. It seems like a high price to pay for what is ultimately someone else's problem.
possibilistic 13y ago
I had to call Chase last night to get them to approve an eBay transaction I was trying to make. In total, I waited about 45 minutes to do what normally takes about two. My feeling is that Chase would rather inconvenience their customers than lose money from reversed merchant transactions. The burden of this mishap got placed largely on us, the consumers. Target is getting off easy at this point.
- pandemicsyn 13y ago
  Its definitely true that we consumers are the ones getting shafted by this deal. However, I'd rather they use this approach and temporarily drop limits than potentially let some consumers (who are more than likely unaware of what happened) possibly wake up XMas day to a drained checking account because they made the mistake of using a debit card. Theres nothing quite as a bad as going to put gas in your tank only to find someone drained your account.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
nanidin 13y ago
Is that really code for "merchants who sold something to a fraudulent card will have that money taken back, and effectively lose the merchandise they sold"? In my experience (several years ago, through PayPal though) that was the case.
- ceejayoz 13y ago
  That's unlikely in a situation like this where the merchants are faultless. Chase has insurance for stuff like this, and they can always sue Target as well.