Be careful when taking verbatim advice from internet strangers.
Be careful when taking verbatim advice from internet strangers.
So nobody really knows about it.
When i started selling digital download content. Some people will buy, download and instantly charge back.
In Western Europe, a chargeback is not that unheard of, but it still requires you to make your case and follow a procedure and review. It's not that lengthy or difficult, but you cant just buy something online and then do a chargeback, unless you can clearly show that the download is not working and tried the helpdesk or you were mislead or something
I suspect most decisions are now made based on ambient factors such as “does this customer file above average chargebacks; if not, believe whatever they entered in our multiple choice questionnaire” or “if we have any undisputed payment on the same card by the same account, push back, otherwise eat the loss”. Part of this is even getting codified by newer network dispute evidence rules as well.
Since nobody ever seems to hold cardholders accountable for misrepresentation, and since it’s psychologically much easier to lie on a whimsical multiple choice form you fill on your bank app when bored on the bathroom than to sign a printed document containing a short summary of the legal consequences of willful deception, the situation is what it is.
Sometimes, whether a society is actually “high trust” depends on the transaction amount, and whether that amount warrants legal expenses on either side.
And let me tell you, nowhere in my circle that I know of have ever raised one single chargeback in these 15 years. Not one.
This seems more of a developed-countries thing to me.
The strongest signal is whether they use an eBank/app that has a one-click button to report transactions as fraudulent. The Apple card(?) seems especially prevalent.
I think that caused her to over-scrutinize things.
But (years) later I saw her using apple pay. She had charges she didn't recognize and would immediately flag them. Thing is, I couldn't help but think they might have been real charges with weirdly named companies on the transaction.
Not universally supported unfortunately, but the major stores support it.
Many banks only show payments (so only after cleared) and not reserved funds. They will just show that you don't have the full credit available
This was introduced to not unnecessarily block debit card funds for days but it works like that for credit cards as well now.
That's completely the companies fault. If you give a transaction a reference that the customer will not recognise, that's on you!
The cardholder’s contractual relationship is always with the card issuer, which is usually a bank or some other financial institution. This is no different in the US. If something on your bill seems off, you contact the one that issued it, i.e. your bank.
Viseca seems like it might actually be an issuer directly (it’s also a common model that banks only act as program managers, delegating actual issuance to a different entity) but I’m not familiar with them.
Whether your bank knows how to use them well to represent your interests is a different matter. For example, I’ve seen banks decline chargebacks against bankrupt merchants in certain countries because they were poorly advised about the legal ramifications, and other banks in the same country win the exact same kind of dispute. Lacking sufficient reading comprehension to parse the dispute rules (it’s a long PDF!) also seems common.
in the case of these "friendly fraud" schemes, they are much more likely to come from more developed regions with strong consumer protection laws like the NA.
if anything in many of those "high risk" regions, chargeback are much less common because fewer consumer protection law e.g. banks would automatically reject chargebacks for transactions with 3DS OTP.
Great advice which is why data is what I'm relying on vs anecdotes.
One chargeback a quarter is a lot, depending.
Not very easy to do with prepaid cards AFAIU.