4 ms·

You're almost never liable for any fraudulent charges made on your credit card or debit card. Provided you notify your bank, the standard procedure is to issue

You're almost never liable for any fraudulent charges made on your credit card or debit card. Provided you notify your bank, the standard procedure is to issue you a new card and reverse the charges. While it's not convenient, I'd gladly trade the convenience of paying with plastic over cash. Additionally, any situation where you COULD pay in cash, you're not providing billing information to the merchant, so there's no risk of information compromise (aside from your name).

wdewind 13y ago
Not only that, if you're paying back your credit card every month you're getting some kind of points/rewards thing which definitely covers the risk of inconvenience if your number is stolen.
- deveac 13y ago
  And cards like Amex can come with their own unconditional return policies that are more generous then those if the retailer you purchased from. There are a lot of pro-consumer reasons to use a card. That, the ability to execute chargebacks in disputes, and rewards make for an attractive package. I personally get about 3.5 flights a year off of a credit mechanism that needs to be employed regardless, so not bad. Usually have fraudulent charges show up at least once a year though.
  - jimktrains2 13y ago
    A charge back doesn't immediately make the merchant eat the cost. The merchant has a chance to rebuttal the dispute (show proof of purchase and delivery &c). If the merchant did nothing wrong the card issuer eats the cost, and if said person makes a habit of doing bad charge backs you better believe their card will be canceled. Just saying, charge backs should be used as a last resort, not in spite or without even contacting the merchant. They can negatively affect the consumer if the consumer abuses them.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - deveac 13y ago
      |A charge back doesn't immediately make the merchant eat the cost. The merchant has a chance to rebuttal the dispute (show proof of purchase and delivery &c). If the merchant did nothing wrong the card issuer eats the cost,| Absolutely, but it remains a strong consumer protection. Certainly a 'plus' on the consumer side at the end of the day.
      - jimktrains2 13y ago
        Definitely! I've seen people use them in spite before so I just wanted to add on that it's not an absolute protection.

wdewind 13y ago

Not only that, if you're paying back your credit card every month you're getting some kind of points/rewards thing which definitely covers the risk of inconvenience if your number is stolen.

deveac 13y ago
And cards like Amex can come with their own unconditional return policies that are more generous then those if the retailer you purchased from. There are a lot of pro-consumer reasons to use a card. That, the ability to execute chargebacks in disputes, and rewards make for an attractive package. I personally get about 3.5 flights a year off of a credit mechanism that needs to be employed regardless, so not bad. Usually have fraudulent charges show up at least once a year though.
- jimktrains2 13y ago
  A charge back doesn't immediately make the merchant eat the cost. The merchant has a chance to rebuttal the dispute (show proof of purchase and delivery &c). If the merchant did nothing wrong the card issuer eats the cost, and if said person makes a habit of doing bad charge backs you better believe their card will be canceled. Just saying, charge backs should be used as a last resort, not in spite or without even contacting the merchant. They can negatively affect the consumer if the consumer abuses them.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - deveac 13y ago
    |A charge back doesn't immediately make the merchant eat the cost. The merchant has a chance to rebuttal the dispute (show proof of purchase and delivery &c). If the merchant did nothing wrong the card issuer eats the cost,| Absolutely, but it remains a strong consumer protection. Certainly a 'plus' on the consumer side at the end of the day.
    - jimktrains2 13y ago
      Definitely! I've seen people use them in spite before so I just wanted to add on that it's not an absolute protection.