[HN Gopher] Visa Changes Chargeback Dispute Program
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Visa Changes Chargeback Dispute Program
        
       Author : cwwc
       Score  : 31 points
       Date   : 2022-07-20 20:15 UTC (2 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (usa.visa.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (usa.visa.com)
        
       | brianhorakh wrote:
       | This is awful. I've canceled subscriptions so many times only to
       | get billed again, and again, blabla "it's a bug in the billing
       | system" run around.
       | 
       | So now vendors can keep auto billing with dark patterns such as
       | unnavigable automated phone lines, and visa is going to take
       | their side? (because the merchant will have proof of billing
       | history?)
       | 
       | I hope Amex doesn't adopt these rules. I am going to think
       | strongly about canceling my visa cards as a response.
       | 
       | Bitrix24 a SaaS crm/VoIP service was the worst abuser I can
       | recall (kept randomly reappearing a $10.00 months after id asked
       | visa to block them). Free Trial My ass.
        
         | phpisthebest wrote:
         | This is why I use capital ones service to create a new number
         | for every vendor (similar to privacy.com) then I can just turn
         | off that card once I cancel the service
        
         | vineyardmike wrote:
         | I think if you can prove that you tried to cancel and the
         | merchant screwed up you should be fine. Hopefully you have a
         | paper trail of them admitting its a "bug in Billings".
         | 
         | Aside: One of the best things about AMEX is their customer
         | support around chargebacks and I agree I hope they stay super
         | friendly to this.
        
         | InfamousRece wrote:
         | Cancellation is not always easy. Any "recurring" charge will
         | helpfully reopen your closed account. I guess it's better to
         | just use prepaid gift cards for subscriptions.
        
         | danlugo92 wrote:
         | www.privacy.com
        
         | rurp wrote:
         | I totally agree. Chargebacks are one of the few tools consumers
         | have to fight back against shady companies. I think I've only
         | done one or two chargebacks in my life, but I have threatened
         | them other times when dealing with dishonest companies, which
         | usually leads to them suddenly resolving an "impossible" issue.
         | 
         | If Visa ends up crippling this ability there's no chance I'll
         | use their cards again.
        
           | toomuchtodo wrote:
           | > If Visa ends up crippling this ability there's no chance
           | I'll use their cards again.
           | 
           | Curious how this makes other options more competitive. If
           | liberal dispute policies are one of the value props of using
           | a CC, and merchants eat the fees, the value of using a CC
           | declines if dispute resolution is tightened up making it
           | closer to parity of irreversible funds transfers.
           | 
           | https://www.moderntreasury.com/learn/what-is-fednow
           | 
           | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32098635
        
         | jimbob45 wrote:
         | It cuts both ways. You could make a very strong argument that
         | "friendly fraud" is the single reason that the porn industry is
         | having to turn to crypto. Husbands are frequently caught by
         | their spouses and, while pretending that the charge was
         | fraudulent, commit "friendly fraud" themselves.
         | 
         | I, for one, am very happy to see Visa taking steps against
         | this. We've kvetched for years over how how much power payment
         | processors have in the system and now they're finally doing
         | something about it (themselves, to boot!).
        
         | snoopy_telex wrote:
         | Privacy dot com. It's the only thing I use for anything that's
         | not a major player (Amazonish). It's saved me a lot of time and
         | hassle. Cancel the account and the card at the same time.
        
       | tumetab1 wrote:
       | Be aware that "When most people think of fraud, they think of
       | stolen account numbers or identity theft, but first party misuse,
       | which can account for up to 75 percent of all chargebacks[1]"
       | looks like marketing spin.
       | 
       | The reference points to a marketing newswire that also states
       | "More than two in five (42%) of surveyed consumers who have filed
       | disputes did so due to true fraud--e.g., unauthorized purchases
       | made with their payment information."
       | https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2021/12/15/235295...
       | 
       | Going deeper the actually 75% comes is stated on this PDF which
       | links (sources) from a company that sells... sells dispute
       | charges services.
       | https://pages.sift.com/rs/526-PCC-974/images/ebook_Sift_Q4_2...
       | 
       | Others things to note: No statement by Visa in decreasing taxes
       | on chargebacks to merchants.
        
         | twawaaay wrote:
         | Chargebacks are used as a kind of punitive measure directed at
         | merchants. The idea here is for merchants to figure out the
         | only way to deal with chargebacks is to not get chargebacks at
         | all.
         | 
         | For now this works because for some reason relatively few
         | cardholders are educated enough on what are and how to use
         | chargebacks.
         | 
         | I personally wouldn't be using credit card if not for the
         | chargebacks. I am still paying off entire balance every month,
         | but I am much happier knowing that any dispute on a transaction
         | with a credit card is going to be so much easier than any other
         | form of payment.
        
       | rvz wrote:
       | > A recent study by SIFT found that nearly one in five consumers
       | who have filed a chargeback dispute have committed first party
       | fraud by submitting false claims in order to get their money back
       | on legitimate purchases. In fact, according to the NRF, the
       | losses from friendly fraud totals over $25 billion a year.
       | 
       | Yes, this is a problem and so many merchants are getting their
       | accounts and funds locked up by being unable to fight these
       | friendly fraud disputes that have been taken advantage of by the
       | consumer.
       | 
       | This sort of fraud hurts both the consumer and mostly the
       | merchant as the bank which doesn't know any of the context of the
       | payment takes 3 seconds to see the dispute and 98% of the time,
       | the merchant loses and the bank forcibly takes the money away and
       | gives it back to the customer, especially for digital
       | subscriptions. Instead the consumer should contact the merchant
       | directly to resolve the dispute.
       | 
       | At least VISA knows it is a problem. What is Mastercard doing
       | about this?
        
         | wilde wrote:
         | > Instead the consumer should contact the merchant directly to
         | resolve the dispute.
         | 
         | Hahaha. Have you tried this recently? I had a company ship us
         | defective baby food with broken seals. They said they couldn't
         | refund but they were happy to ship us a replacement. When we
         | said we wanted a refund instead, they said "whoops we already
         | shipped it". It arrived with more broken seals. I issued a
         | chargeback. Got my money instantly.
         | 
         | Some merchants are bad. Visa's whole value to me is that they
         | insure me against these situations.
        
         | nathanaldensr wrote:
         | When both sides of a marketplace are willing to commit fraud,
         | what can the middleman do? Most likely not much. As long as
         | purchases are not "notarized" or otherwise observed in person
         | by a neutral third party, it is very, very difficult to
         | reliably and fairly police unethical or fraudulent intentions
         | for internet purchases.
        
           | im3w1l wrote:
           | Keep the money for themselves. Disincentives fraud, and it's
           | profitable too!
        
         | noSyncCloud wrote:
         | >$25 billion a year.
         | 
         | What an amazing number, wonder where that came from ;)
         | 
         | Now let's compare that figure to the amount stolen yearly by
         | unethical merchants :)
        
       | tehwebguy wrote:
       | > "Friendly fraud is not always friendly, especially from a
       | merchant's perspective," said Mike Lemberger, Senior Vice
       | President of North America Risk at Visa.
       | 
       | Incredible quote, Mike must be the smartest guy in the whole
       | company!
        
       | gruez wrote:
       | Many commenters in this thread seem to be against this change,
       | but looking at the article they seem... pretty reasonable?
       | 
       | >With this change, if merchants can provide additional data or
       | evidence to show that the disputed charge is valid, then the
       | dispute will be invalid.
       | 
       | >This change will empower merchants to protect themselves against
       | first party misuse by enabling them to submit additional evidence
       | that a purchase was indeed legitimate and authorized by the
       | cardholder in order to stop the dispute claim. Additional
       | examples that can help identify that a purchase is legitimate
       | include a customer using the same payment credential previously
       | at the merchant, login credentials, proof of use of a product and
       | more.
        
         | uoaei wrote:
         | It sounds like a great way to create a system that concentrates
         | and abuses power, not unlike a "secret court". If the company
         | claims something like "it's covered in the ToS/EULA" what
         | recourse do consumers have if that statement is not exactly
         | true? If Visa agrees with Walmart about some nebulous wording
         | in legalese, where a judge would read it differently, how can
         | consumers advocate for themselves? Lawsuits are an option only
         | for those with the time and access to pursue remuneration
         | through the legal system so that is not a serious option here.
        
         | twawaaay wrote:
         | If I understand this correctly it is essentially doing second
         | presentment preemptively. ("Hey, Visa, just in case the client
         | questions authorisation, here you have some additional data to
         | shoot those down immediately without you having to contact me
         | for those details")
        
         | tristor wrote:
         | The biggest issue here is that the "proof" allowed essentially
         | means recurring billing scams can run rampant without any
         | recourse. Unfortunately a significant amount of "businesses"
         | online and offline are forms of recurrent billing scams.
         | Chargebacks are the /only/ protection consumers have against
         | this form of scam, other than going to court at their own
         | expense.
         | 
         | This GREATLY weakens consumer protections for basically no
         | upside by enabling bad actor merchants. End of story.
        
       | BrandoElFollito wrote:
       | I am not sure I understand the problem. Why is everyone telling
       | about VISA? Do you deal directly with VISA?
       | 
       | Here in France (and generally, the EU) your interlocutor is a
       | bank that happens to deliver VISA or Mastercard cards.
       | 
       | If something is wrong, you contact your bank which is obligated
       | to give you back the money and then does an investigation
       | afterwards.
        
       | runnerup wrote:
       | Considering temporary card numbers like privacy.com are also
       | getting harder to use...
       | 
       | I guess I'll just open and close online checking accounts giving
       | 30-day windows for online purchases using a debit card.
       | 
       | After 30 days the debit card will no longer be valid, linked to a
       | closed account, and cannot be charged recurrently.
        
         | vineyardmike wrote:
         | FYI usually banks keep accounts "shadow open" for upwards of
         | 6mo in case a charge comes through. So you still may get over
         | drafted.
         | 
         | These sort of schemes will probably make chargebacks harder to
         | use than just closing the account that would do the billing. If
         | the card is leaked/frauded than you're already legally
         | protected. If you just want to avoid the act of cancelling an
         | account you opened... then you're playing into the arms race
         | that is making these things harder.
         | 
         | > but first party misuse, which can account for up to 75
         | percent of all chargebacks, is when a cardholder disputes a
         | legitimate purchase that they intended with their issuer. This
         | includes customers refuting valid purchases such as long-
         | forgotten recurring subscriptions
         | 
         | If you agree to a purchase, and sign up for something re-
         | occurring, you're committing to it. You have to tell the
         | business to stop charging you, you can't just stop paying.
        
           | runnerup wrote:
           | And what when the 8th company this year refuses to honor the
           | proper cancellation? Lawsuits take way more energy.
        
         | snoopy_telex wrote:
         | I haven't had any issues with privacy cards after the latest
         | switch. They've not been flagged as prepaid cards for me.
        
       | rationalfaith wrote:
        
       | atourgates wrote:
       | There's a tremendous amount of devil in the details of how this
       | is implemented:
       | 
       | > "With this change, if merchants can provide additional data or
       | evidence to show that the disputed charge is valid, then the
       | dispute will be invalid."
       | 
       | I've seen (from the merchant side) unfair chargebacks. No
       | question.
       | 
       | But my fear is that Visa is going to implement this something
       | like YouTube copyright claims, where basically, the merchant just
       | has to respond and that's it.
       | 
       | The last chargeback I issued was for an electronics seller who
       | never credited me for a return. I explained the issue to American
       | Express' automated system. Uploaded receipts (including the
       | seller's return instructions, and delivery confirmation of the
       | returned item), and got an instant refund.
       | 
       | I'd love to know how Visa's changes will affect this type of
       | chargeback. It's wasn't "fraud" in the sense that someone used my
       | credit card without authorization. But it certainly was a
       | merchant that didn't follow up on their end of the deal.
        
         | bestouff wrote:
         | Then they'll finish to loose it to Paypal.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2022-07-20 23:00 UTC)