Having a dispute, especially one which is so reasonable like this, being grounds for banning is insane to me. Companies as large as Airbnb cannot be just banning whoever they want.
This whole notion of, we don't agree with you, so we'll just ban you thing has got to stop.
Once you file a dispute through the credit card company, the dispute process is moved to the credit card company and now the company has a LOT less power on what might be happening. They also get severely impacted from having a high amount of charge back and hurts them the next time they want to negotiate their credit card rate.
So from a market perspective, it makes total sense for a company to ban you. You're causing them problems, refuse to follow procedure on how to handle the dispute, and hurt their bottom line in ways that could impact them at the rate of millions of dollar. They would rather not have you as a customer at all than deal with you again. Statistically, a customer that uses charge back is a lot likely to end up using it again, so they avoid themselves future trouble as well.
A chargeback is the burn-all-the-bridges, fuck-you-pay-me nuclear option, and you will be banned from any business that you use it against. You should not use it against any business you intend to patronize in the future.
Yes, sometimes you need to break relationships with certain companies as well. But that should be fine in general.
I struggle to think that a person should bear literally any consequences if they weren't in the wrong, which AIUI in this case he isn't.
You can fire that business as a vendor, they can fire you as a customer.
From a contract point of view, merchants who ban consumers for charge backs are in violation of card association rules.
> refuse to follow procedure on how to handle the dispute
The merchant agreed to accept charge back rulings when they signed their merchant agreement. The chargeback process is a pain for consumers - they have to do a quite a bit of paperwork to file one.
> Statistically, a customer that uses charge back is a lot likely to end up using it again
A business that forces consumers into charge backs and loses deserves the charge back. Consumers don't automatically win. Source: owned an MSP for about a decade.
BTW, Visa, MC, AMEX and others can fine and ban merchants who fail to comply with card association rules (including chargebacks). Likewise, card associations can also cancel cards on consumers who file abusive charge backs.
Blows my mind; reshipping the item would (given they sell it for a profit) cost HD less than me doing a 100% chargeback, and it would be better customer service. I guess they use the friction of doing a chargeback to be their fraud prevention.
The only time I made a charge back the CC company actively told me to not add any documentation.
It sounds to me like they refuse to follow the law.
Hotel owners, however, can and do ban individuals for chargebacks.
If you disagree, you need to change the definition of "utility" then; a utility such as an electricity company can't just cut you off for no reason.