It's largely the card issues fault. They charge a fee for each chargeback and punish or increase the fees for merchants who receive many chargebacks, so merchants try to avoid chargebacks, which includes banning everybody who uses them.
What surprises me is that the card issuers don't come down harder on businesses with this practice. I suppose Airbnb is a pretty large customer (of the card issuers) and so aren't so easy to influence, however...
There is also the fun technique of attacking a merchant (or charity) by sending them money from stolen credit cards, which will stick them with chargeback fees and an eventual ban by the card processor.
I agree that customers should make reasonable attempts to resolve issues with merchants, and not go straight for the nuclear option of a chargeback.
However, if I deal with a company and they don't resolve issues to my satisfaction within what I consider a reasonable period, I do not hesitate to make it clear that I will be contacting my bank to dispute the charges.
Funnily enough, I have never actually had to do so: the mere threat seems to be sufficient to convey to the company that yes I do actually expect them to solve my problem.
The system works, at least for those privileged enough to be aware of their rights, and to have the ability to issue effective threats to merchants who don't respond to complaints within good time.
The chargeback is for the exact fraudulent type of activity described in the article, and the business who allows it should be punished.
Heck, that is the primary reason I use my credit card, for this type of protection.
On the contrary, AFAIK some banks or at least payment processors now clearly state than some "sharing economy" services cannot be subject to charge backs, or payment reversals, like if you use Paypal for a Kickstater. So it's basically the opposite of what you wish.
Sure but at the same time, fraud is fraud. If a project is fraudulent, then who should bear the consequences? That's not that simple. Ultimately, backers do pay Kickstarter, never the project creator directly.
Declining a charge in this way is thus less insurance, and more telling the merchant "I am not paying you." While it may be justified (like in this story), the merchant is never going to be happy about losing those funds and losing the control over the funds.
I had a similar situation with the App Store where I purchased a subscription under a mistaken assumption and when I could not find any recourse through Apple or the publisher (I simply could not find any way to get in touch with anyone), I declined the charge on my credit card. This led Apple to block all activity with that card - so much so that I was unable to download any free apps until I added another payment method to my profile.
When I attempted to contact Apple to resolve this issue I was told that it was "for my security", to prevent further fraudulent transactions on my card. Explaining the situation, and that there was no fraudulent use of my card or account, just a misleading subscription did nothing to help. They insisted that the only way to resolve the situation would be if I reversed the dispute from the credit card (thus releasing the funds back to Apple), and only after that was completed would I be able to try to get a refund from Apple. Left with no other choice that is what I did.
The issue at hand here was obviously that Apple was refusing to give up control to the credit card companies. By effectively banning any user that disputes a charge they are able to force their users to keep all complaints within Apple's purview (and they do not provide a way to submit complaints digitally).