Hacker News Reader

Comment by bartvk | Hacker News Reader

The Dutch system is not on the side of the consumer. It's simply a bank transaction before they send you the goods.

Yes, because the banks are not the ones who should be protecting the consumer. There are consumer protection laws in place to do the same thing the credit card companies seem to take care of from my POV :)

Just curious, what exactly are these laws? Unreversible transactions front loads the burden of verifying inauthentic sales/services onto the consumer or government, doesn't necessarily provide a mechanism for returning a consumer's money when inauthentic merchants do show up, and restricts consumer choice either through having to be more discerning than a credit card user or relying on a government program to oversee merchant authenticity.

I absolutely agree that banks should not be the ones discharged with consumer protection but unreversible payments are not nearly as beneficial for consumers even if insured in some ways by the government.

Protecting the consumer with chargebacks or regulations quickly becomes "Only big corporations can afford the risk of selling to consumers, small businesses can't risk losing 15$ on every transaction (on which they also pay 3%)"

I'd rather have a market protecting me with verified reviews and as close to zero costs for sellers. Not unlimited refunds that put small sellers out of business, leaving only Amazons and eBays.

But if the seller doesn't fulfil their end of the bargain, the bank will do a refund AND the seller will be kicked out of the system or prosecuted if they're actually defrauding people.

Banks have developed and signed off on the ideal system; THEY are saying the system is safe, therefore THEY are responsible if something goes wrong with your payment.

The barrier is of course much higher for the consumer to take on such a case.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com