3 ms·
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). I
by 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 agoDefinitely! I've seen people use them in spite before so I just wanted to add on that it's not an absolute protection.