Credit Card Disputes Keep Rising at Visa as E-Commerce Booms (bloomberg.com) 115
Credit card disputes at Visa continued rising past their pandemic boom despite the proliferation of prevention software, as fraud grows alongside e-commerce and inflation. From a report: Disputes on Visa's network rose to more than 90 million in 2022, data provided by the payment company showed. More than 70 million disputes were filed in 2019, Visa said in a presentation, before rising 24% in 2020 during the pandemic and about 2% a year in 2021 and 2022.
Despite being easy for consumers to file, making it one of the most-common credit card frauds, disputes are an opaque part of the payments industry. Both Mastercard Inc. and American Express declined to provide disputes data. Visa and Mastercard both bought dispute prevention companies in 2019, Verifi and Ethoca, respectively, and regularly promote their offerings at conferences. Disputes can be costly and onerous for both credit card companies and merchants to process, while chargebacks, when a dispute results in a refund, cost merchants dearly -- about $2.40 for every dollar disputed, according to Visa's Verifi, or as high as $3.36 for every dollar, according to Mastercard's Ethoca.
Despite being easy for consumers to file, making it one of the most-common credit card frauds, disputes are an opaque part of the payments industry. Both Mastercard Inc. and American Express declined to provide disputes data. Visa and Mastercard both bought dispute prevention companies in 2019, Verifi and Ethoca, respectively, and regularly promote their offerings at conferences. Disputes can be costly and onerous for both credit card companies and merchants to process, while chargebacks, when a dispute results in a refund, cost merchants dearly -- about $2.40 for every dollar disputed, according to Visa's Verifi, or as high as $3.36 for every dollar, according to Mastercard's Ethoca.
Bitcoin (Score:1, Insightful)
There are no transaction disputes with Bitcoin.
3...2...
Re: (Score:3)
Unless you can pull off a 50% attack.
Re:Bitcoin (Score:5, Interesting)
You don't need Bitcoin for secure transactions.
Other countries have figured this out. Credit card fraud is (mostly) an American problem, as is identity theft.
When I buy something online in China, a QR code appears on my computer screen. I scan it with my cell phone and then approve the transaction.
For a fraudulent transaction, a scammer would need:
1. My phone
2. My fingerprint
3. The passcode to my banking app (WeChat).
That's 3FA, about as secure as it can get.
There's no card to lose or have stolen, and no 3% MC/Visa tax tacked onto transactions below 1000 RMB ($150).
Re:Bitcoin (Score:4, Interesting)
Pretty much like 3D-Secure, when you authorize the payment with an app on your phone or on the bank's web app. I do that with my VISA card in Europe.
Re:Bitcoin (Score:5, Interesting)
The US has apps like that... but way too many of them. Venmo, CashApp, PayPal, Apple Pay, GPay, Samsung Pay, and others. The closest to a standard that I can easily scan and use at a gas pump would be Apple Pay/GPay. However, the weakness with those apps is that they are tied to the phone, and it would be nice if they had an option for a specific code for the banking part, so an attacker who shoulder-surfed someone's unlock code couldn't use one's unlock PIN for access if they found a way to get access to that.
Historically, I've wondered why the US has been in the dark ages for so long. We still have many stores that don't accept chips, and almost no systems use chip and PIN unless it is a debit card. Credit card skimmers are a common nuisance, and even swipe PINs.
What might be nice is a credit card that has a e-ink display that has a different six digit code when a button is pressed. Since credit cards are replaced every few years, why not add a battery and use them like SecurID cards? With a card present, that doesn't matter as much, but for card not present transactions, having one's PIN + the six digit code from the card would ensure some form of 2FA used.
Re: Bitcoin (Score:4, Interesting)
Great idea about the card. I was part of a startup that developed a card like that. We were partnered with Visa Europe. The card could do dynamic CVV and generate codes based on challenges, amounts and the PIN. The display could be eInk or LCD. The microprocessor used the 6502 instruction set so my c64 days came in useful. The start up failed as banks didnâ(TM)t see the value over a $10 US credit card vs a mobile app.
http://www.emue.com/node/15.ht... [emue.com]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Great idea about the card. ... banks didn't see the value over a $10 US credit card vs a mobile app.
End users might not either. If I recall correctly, better fraud protection usually comes with end users being more on the hook for fraud.
Better security would be nice, I remember that I used to get verified by visa password prompts. That went away and now I just get transaction declined, periodically, even for sites I've used before. Then I have to call the issuer and tell them the transaction is legit. In another instance, I was told the cvv code was wrong, no way that happened, multiple times. The tr
Re:Bitcoin (Score:4, Informative)
Don't put a battery in the card, power it from the reader. You need a working reader to use it anyway. But also instead of a six digit code, put a pin pad on the card. That way you know you're entering your pin on a valid pad and not on a skimmer's pad.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need a reader for an online transaction. In fact, you can't user a reader for an online transaction.
You've just eliminated all online transactions.
Re: (Score:3)
You don't need a reader for an online transaction. In fact, you can't user a reader for an online transaction.
In fact, you can. USB smartcard readers are cheap AF. Many laptops have one already. It would be easy and cheap to add them to keyboards in the future as well.
You also don't need to use a reader for an online transaction, or your card. That can be handled by your bank's systems without your card being involved at all.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need a reader for an online transaction. In fact, you can't user a reader for an online transaction.
In fact, you can. USB smartcard readers are cheap AF. Many laptops have one already. It would be easy and cheap to add them to keyboards in the future as well.
Not common, and not to the same technical standards. Real chip card readers not all that cheap, the way the encryption currently works . . . wouldn't, for the home user connecting to different web sites, since the keys are specific to the other end.
You also don't need to use a reader for an online transaction, or your card. That can be handled by your bank's systems without your card being involved at all.
What I replied to was specifically recommending using only card readers for all transactions.
Try to pay attention.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't want to have to enter a fucking pin every time I buy something.
Swipe or insert, fuck the pin.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
get over it.
Re: (Score:2)
The U.S. has tap to pay with credit cards, and debit cards, but most people are still used to swiping or inserting the card. There's a little symbol on the card, three radiating lines, which indicate you can tap to pay.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet still half the times the terminal doesn't read, or the damn sensor is in a different spot without a clear indicator. I can see the slot. I put it in the slot. I would prefer to tap, but the user experience is amazingly somehow shitty in the US. I travel to the EU annually for 2 weeks so I get to experience how it should work, so I have a basis to compare. Some how we screwed up settled science.
Re:Bitcoin (Score:4, Interesting)
The US has apps like that... but way too many of them. Venmo, CashApp, PayPal, Apple Pay, GPay, Samsung Pay, and others. The closest to a standard that I can easily scan and use at a gas pump would be Apple Pay/GPay. However, the weakness with those apps is that they are tied to the phone, and it would be nice if they had an option for a specific code for the banking part, so an attacker who shoulder-surfed someone's unlock code couldn't use one's unlock PIN for access if they found a way to get access to that.
Those apps aren't really similar to what he's talking about. They're 3rd party apps that either require to be pre-loaded or are just wrappers for your credit card (especially Samsung/Apple/Google pay, mostly for the purposes of avoiding banking regulations/legislations). What he's referring to are apps that are provided by your bank, link direct to your bank account (protected by local legislation) and can use your phone's NFC to make transactions like a card. So there's no middle man, at least not an additional one besides your bank, Visa/MC/AMEX and the merchant bank.
Historically, I've wondered why the US has been in the dark ages for so long. We still have many stores that don't accept chips, and almost no systems use chip and PIN unless it is a debit card. Credit card skimmers are a common nuisance, and even swipe PINs.
What might be nice is a credit card that has a e-ink display that has a different six digit code when a button is pressed. Since credit cards are replaced every few years, why not add a battery and use them like SecurID cards? With a card present, that doesn't matter as much, but for card not present transactions, having one's PIN + the six digit code from the card would ensure some form of 2FA used.
This wont happen, not because we don't have the tech but because it will annoy people enough that some will just start using cash. Every person who uses cash instead of a card is losing the banks and credit card networks money. Every middleman you put into a transaction expects a cut of the transaction. So if you pay $9.00 at the store, the merchant is probably only going to see $8.60 of that (and he has to pay tax on the sale price, as well as for every other cost).
Out here in the ROTW, EMV (chip and pin) has killed card cloning, but criminals have moved onto making online transactions instead. The proliferation of NFC, which using Visa and MC's specs, give out your card number, name and expiry date to anything that asks for it has been a huge boon to them. So much so that my bank now requires me to verify almost every single online transaction.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand why Visa/MC haven't created some 3-legged OAuth-like system to authorize transactions online. Something l
Re:Bitcoin (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't understand why Visa/MC haven't created some ...
The reason is that the Visa/MC duopoly makes no sense at all. We pay them fifty billion dollars a year for providing an insecure service that is secure and free in other countries.
So they don't want to fix the system because once they propose a change, people will think about it, and then raise the obvious question of why keep Visa/MC in the loop at all?
A better/cheaper/secure system that doesn't include Visa/MC is trivial to implement: Just look at what other countries have done.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand why Visa/MC haven't created some ...
The reason is that the Visa/MC duopoly makes no sense at all. We pay them fifty billion dollars a year for providing an insecure service that is secure and free in other countries.
So they don't want to fix the system because once they propose a change, people will think about it, and then raise the obvious question of why keep Visa/MC in the loop at all?
A better/cheaper/secure system that doesn't include Visa/MC is trivial to implement: Just look at what other countries have done.
Further more, it's not Visa/MC/AMEX/et al.'s responsibility to secure the transaction. That responsibility is on the banks and banks, at least here in the UK, are now forcing 2FA for online transactions, either an SMS code or via their abysmal "apps". Your bank is the first hop in the chain (You -> your bank -> Visa/MC -> merchant's bank -> merchant) so it makes sense for them to handle security with the end user.
To be fair, card security up until recently has been almost entirely security b
Re: (Score:1)
What might be nice is a credit card that has a e-ink display that has a different six digit code when a button is pressed. Since credit cards are replaced every few years, why not add a battery and use them like SecurID cards?
I swear that's basically what the chip does in the card, but with no user interaction.
Re:Bitcoin (Score:4, Interesting)
The reason why the USA is way behind on this and still has this issue is as follows.
Bank fraud is the responsibility of the bank and it is on their dime.
People started committing fraud. The banks to shift their burden onto the consumer changed the name to identity theft. It now become the consumer's issue to resolve.
The banks now have 0 incentive to correct the issue.
If it was still on them and they were losing money they would have had a fix for this in 1 week.
Re: (Score:2)
We still have many stores that don't accept chips, and almost no systems use chip and PIN unless it is a debit card.
I found it quite curious that when I insert my European Credit Card into a machine in the USA it asks for the PIN and also the signature. I don't understand the point of the latter when the former is already authenticating the transaction, and yes it is actually checking it because I typed the wrong number in once.
Re:Bitcoin (Score:5, Informative)
What you're talking about is a push method of payment, whereas credit cards are a pull method. Any pull method obviously favors the retailer and has massive scope for fraud.
But card disputes are not just for fraud, it's also for when retailers have failed to live up to their obligations.
I have filed two disputes in the last few years resulting in a refund.
In the first i bought something online, the shipping company claims they delivered it and "left it behind my gate", only there was nothing there. I have CCTV which covers both sides of the gate, and there was no delivery attempted nor any item left on the day they claimed.
I disputed this with the retailer and with paypal, both claimed that because the shipping company marked the item as delivered there was nothing they could do. The shipping company also claimed that it was delivered and refused to accept the CCTV. My only recourse was to dispute the charge with the card issuer, who refunded me.
I found out 9 months later that the item had been delivered behind the gate of the property next door. This property was empty at the time, so i didn't find out until someone moved in and found the cards left by the shipping co. Obviously after 9 months being left outside the item itself was a total loss anyway.
The other was a third party hotel booking website. I booked an overnight stay in a hotel, and the email confirmation from the booking site made it clear it was an overnight stay. Upon arriving at the hotel, the record in their system showed "day use" from 0800-1500, and as i didn't show up until the afternoon they had written me off as a no show. Although the hotel showed me the booking they had, the booking site refused to refund this payment and started becoming evasive, including shutting down of online support and expecting customers to call an expensive international phone number.
When furnished with the evidence, the card issuer accepted the dispute and provided a refund.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, disputes are probably more commonly done as a workaround for bad customer service, not due to a security fault.
Re: (Score:3)
You don't need Bitcoin for secure transactions.
Other countries have figured this out. Credit card fraud is (mostly) an American problem, as is identity theft.
When I buy something online in China, a QR code appears on my computer screen. I scan it with my cell phone and then approve the transaction.
For a fraudulent transaction, a scammer would need:
1. My phone
2. My fingerprint
3. The passcode to my banking app (WeChat).
That's 3FA, about as secure as it can get.
There's no card to lose or have stolen, and no 3% MC/Visa tax tacked onto transactions below 1000 RMB ($150).
Card fraud is definately not just an American thing. You know the banking app just uses a 16 digit card number like your normal bank card, right? It's just using your phone to do it.
The reason credit card fraud is such a huge problem, especially for developed nations, is that the card numbers are inherently insecure. With NFC giving them out to anything and everything that asks for them in a 2.5m radius, it's never been a better time for credit card fraud.
In fact European card numbers are more desire
Re: (Score:2)
You know the banking app just uses a 16 digit card number like your normal bank card, right? It's just using your phone to do it.
Yes, but it is IN MY PHONE, so to access it a scammer would need:
1. My phone.
2. My fingerprint.
3. The PIN to my banking app.
That 3FA.
With a credit card, the number is PRINTED ON THE CARD.
That's 0FA.
card numbers are inherently insecure. With NFC giving them out to anything and everything
That is stupid but not universal. My banking app does not use NFC. It uses QR codes, and I approve each by tapping my PIN into my phone.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess that works out if the only time to buy something online is when you are at your computer screen.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
How many times has that happened since Bitcoin was launched in 2009?
Zero? Oh.
Re:Bitcoin (Score:4, Funny)
3...2...
1... 0... -1: Troll.
Re: (Score:2)
There's also no consumer protection whatsoever, and a massive auditing problem that would make it nigh-on impossible to just accept Bitcoin without being able to identify your customers.
Re: (Score:2)
There's also no consumer protection whatsoever...
It appears that fraud 'prevention' software effectively offers the same damn thing. Wonder how much longer that scam will be accepted by those buying it.
Competition is the only real reason Visa even entertains consumer protection via a reasonable claim and refund process. If every other credit card company stopped being so 'compassionate' about fraud claims, Visa would take all of 0.0003ms to follow suit.
Re: (Score:2)
Or you could encase their responsibilities in consumer law like the rest of the world, and solve the problem once and for all.
Oh, sorry... US and "consumer law" doesn't go together, right?
Re: (Score:2)
There is also the fact that all a person's transactions become a matter of public record, forever.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
And the smarter people recognize that with all that transaction info available, correlating a wallet to an individual is generally quite doable.
Anonymity in blockchain world is a myth.
Re: (Score:3)
other than transactions touching those addresses.
Yes, that's the point. If you know the reality behind one of those transactions, the other pieces fall into place. This isn't some hypothetical talking points, this has been reality, several people have been tracked successfully. When everyone knows how much money moves between any two addresses at will, it doesn't take much for tracing to happen. These aren't some completely ungrounded abstract things, they get grounded in real things, maybe something that is delivered to you, maybe your face is on cam
Re: (Score:2)
That would be a real feat if you ever want to receive the things you buy online.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not surprising (Score:5, Interesting)
I the past few years I've seen a distinct rise in idiots weaponising credit card disputes, and I say "idiots" because they are being recommended for the dumbest thing. The most recent was only a few days ago on the r/monitors sub, some guy posts a question asking if it is normal to buy a new monitor and have it arrive with 2 hours power on time on the OSD, and literally the first post was "file a credit card dispute". Like WTF. No, call vendor, no talk to OEM, no RMA, just straight to credit card dispute.
I'm seeing this suggestion again and again over basic communication. It's turned into quite a cancer.
Re:Not surprising (Score:5, Informative)
I the past few years I've seen a distinct rise in idiots weaponising credit card disputes, and I say "idiots" because they are being recommended for the dumbest thing. The most recent was only a few days ago on the r/monitors sub, some guy posts a question asking if it is normal to buy a new monitor and have it arrive with 2 hours power on time on the OSD, and literally the first post was "file a credit card dispute". Like WTF. No, call vendor, no talk to OEM, no RMA, just straight to credit card dispute.
I'm seeing this suggestion again and again over basic communication. It's turned into quite a cancer.
Disoutes should be a last recourse, except in cases of fraud. Mistakes happen, defective products slip by, but at least give the vendor a chance to fix it. A reputable vendor will work to resolve a problem because first and foremost they value their reputation as well as good customer service, and because disputes cost money. Too many disputes can result in loss of credit card processing as well. Using disputes as a first choice is ridiculous and hurts reputable companies unnnecssarily.
Re: Not surprising (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, customers should always try to work it out with the merchant, but the threat of a charge back is a great way to keep shady companies in line. If I get sold a faulty product, I'm getting my money back one way or another. Shady stores can't hide behind a bullshit no return policy or store credit only return policy. Like any tool, use it responsibly and only when justified.
Exactly, and shady companies should feel the pain. I read somewhere the penis enhancement companies are quick to refund to avoid chargebacks, as that would deflate their business pretty quickly; and the money they make is far bigger than the refunds.
Re: Not surprising (Score:4, Interesting)
I'd guess penis pill/pump companies rely on a lot of customers being too embarrassed to go through the chargeback process or even contact the seller for a refund.
I recall back in the day a company came up with a great scheme. They offered something, expecting a lot of refund requests. When the requests came they issued cheques, from a company name that'd leave people embarrassed to present the cheques to be cashed.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Not surprising (Score:2)
Interesting! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... [wikipedia.org]
I wonder if anybody actually tried this?
Re: (Score:2)
I read somewhere the penis enhancement companies
"read"? Oh, come now...who are you kidding?
as that would deflate their business pretty quickly
You're cracking me up...
they make it far bigger
Stop it! Stop it! You're killing me with your comedy jabs!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately far too many companies give people the runaround and many people have just had it and are no longer civil first. How many times do you need to get told that you didn't get the product from an authorized seller or that it was manufactured for a different market or that you have to pay for shipping it back or that you need to contact the manufacturer / the seller instead, before you just charge back the price and let the chips fall where they may? Not having your money already is a strong incentive for better customer service. Companies treat people like shit because there are a lot of asshole customers, and customers return the favor.
While I agree overall, I think buying from a non-authorized reseller or out of market goods are the seller’s responsibility, not the manufacturer’s; and a chargeback against them is reasonable. In the case of out of market goods, they may be form the same manufacturer but sold by a separate subsidiary or an authorized importer and not the company in your area. Some companies offer world wide warranties, others don’t for a variety of reasons, such as price protection due to market or curr
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Too many companies introduce far too much friction in the support & RMA process. These companies deserve the chargebacks.
You know what companies have a very low percentage chargebacks? Amazon. Netflix. Etc. These companies allow the consumer to easily manage their own RMA without talking to a human, and allow one to easily manage their subscription without calling anyone.
You want to reduce chargebacks, eliminate humans from the loop as much as possible.
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't call Netflix frictionless for refunds - they don't offer refunds, period. If you cancel your account, your account stays active until it's time to renew at which point it's closed.
For services the easiest way is to just not offer any refunds at all
Re: Not surprising (Score:2)
Netflix is not an example of refunds, it is one of being able to easily cancel your subscription in a few clicks without talking to humans.
Many companies make it very difficult to cancel subscriptions and require you to call numbers and wait on hold, then try to convince you to stay. These companies create a large number of chargebacks because consumers just don't put up with it anymore since dispute are easier.
Re: (Score:2)
On the flip side, they know what disputes you filed.
You won't commit fraud more than once or twice before they'll suddenly require a WHOLE lot more evidence before even looking at your claim.
Easy CC dispute fraud only works once or twice and your done. Marked for the foreseeable future as untrustworthy.
Of course, and frequent returns or disputes will get you black listed, and rightly so.
Re: Not surprising (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...I'm seeing this suggestion again and again over basic communication. It's turned into quite a cancer.
Hopefully this isn't also more a sign of a society maxed out on credit. Literally. The credit dispute is prioritized with any unacceptable purchase because every dollar of credit tied up, is that critical.
I can only hope that theory isn't too true.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't the bank normally require you to try RMA and all the other stuff first?
When you do a chargeback or dispute in the UK, your bank will want you to have exhausted all the other options, and had no reply from the vendor for a few weeks.
Re: (Score:2)
Quite often. A chargeback isn't magically and automatically ruled in favour of the customer. But this shit still costs time to investigate.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes usually. All chargebacks are investigated. Just because your experience has been smooth doesn't mean there wasn't a lot of effort to determine its legitimacy in the background. This is what makes this kind of advice so dumb, weaponised chargebacks are often rejected.
Don't blame them, blame the vendor (Score:2, Troll)
If vendors and retailers did not put some much friction in the process, then this would not happen. The expectation for todays millenial and GenZ consumer is that anything and everything should be able to be done via a mobile digital channel. If you can not, then frankly you are going to be SOL.
- If you are forcing me to call a phone number and talk to a person to do a job that should be able to be automated, that is friction
- If you are forcing me to write an email, that is also needless friction
- If your
Re: (Score:2)
- If your RMA process requires me to go to a website that is not mobile-optimized that is also friction
Say the RMA process lets the user supply evidence that a product is significantly not as described, and Apple WebKit lacks features needed to gather this evidence. Is it acceptable for the RMA process to work only on Firefox for Android and Chrome (and other Chromium-based browsers) for Android? If not, what ought a manufacturer to do to ease the friction of returns using Safari or other browsers that wrap Apple WebKit?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm seeing this suggestion again and again over basic communication. It's turned into quite a cancer.
What do you expect when companies are making it harder and harder to actually communicate with them? A lot of times you're lucky to find a chat link that connects you to a barely-able-to-speak-your-language person that apparently has the IQ of a turnip. Don't even think about finding a phone number any more, and if you do, it's a maze of menus or terrible IVR that might eventually connect you to another turnip.
Can't really blame people for just filing a dispute, because it's a hell of a lot easier, and CC c
Re: (Score:2)
I the past few years I've seen a distinct rise in idiots weaponising credit card disputes, and I say "idiots" because they are being recommended for the dumbest thing. The most recent was only a few days ago on the r/monitors sub, some guy posts a question asking if it is normal to buy a new monitor and have it arrive with 2 hours power on time on the OSD, and literally the first post was "file a credit card dispute". Like WTF. No, call vendor, no talk to OEM, no RMA, just straight to credit card dispute.
I'm seeing this suggestion again and again over basic communication. It's turned into quite a cancer.
Was always thus.
People don't understand how credit card disputes work. It's not an automatic "get out of jail free" card as people keep treating it, it's an arbitration between you and the merchant. The merchant gets to contest the charge back (although they still cop the fee for it) and can demonstrate that they've met the terms of the sale. Chargebacks are for when the merchant or provider has clearly not met the terms of the sale.
When there's an issue with a product, yeah, first talk to the merchan
Re: (Score:2)
Have you tried contacting any of the people you recommended? You can wait on hold for an hour then be disconnected. If you are lucky enough to navigate the IVR and actually reach a purported human, they are typically in India or Philippines, don't speak very good English, rarely even understand what you are complaining about, and have no power to actually do anything.
The only exceptions I have encountered so far are Amazon and Walmart. All tech companies are by far the worst.
So, yes, just file a dispute
Re: (Score:2)
> I'm seeing this suggestion again and again over
> basic communication.
I suspect that may be because basic customer service has fallen by the wayside and more and more companies are, themselves, refusing to communicate with their customers; even companies that used to have, and have well-deserved reputations for, good customer service.
Amazon, for example, used to post not just their CS email address openly on their site, but the phone number too. And the people on the other side of both were responsi
Credit cards are a wonderful service (Score:2)
Shame creditcards collude with government to force non creditcard users to pay for the benefits of creditcard users.
US finally started abandining the corrupt credit card laws and now the EU bureaucrats let themselves be bought instead. Disallowing credit card surcharges is an unjustified regressive subsidy for credit card companies and users.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much all forms of payment incur a processing cost. The problem is when a retailer favors one method above others, subsidising it by swallowing (or hiding) the fees.
Re: (Score:2)
Which they are forced to do in the EU. The processing fee is reasonable, only 0.1% more than debit, but all the chargeback costs sellers incur by accepting credit cards get spread over all customers by order of the EU, thanks to some revolving door shenanigans no doubt.
Left to their own device any but the most high end sellers would have credit card surcharges to cover the costs.
Re: (Score:2)
What constitutes retailer favoritism is not at all straightforward, since as you say the fees are only part of the equation. What I think the market is telling us is that consumer-friendly policies like free return shipping, no restocking fees, and accepting credit cards are more profitable for the business in the end, even though they have a lot of direct costs for the retailer, sinc
Re: (Score:2)
A merchant who charges a credit or debit card processing fee is still subsidizing customers paying with top-tier rewards cards or using business/corporate cards, at the expense of customers paying with a basic no-frills card. See Helcim's Visa interchange fee schedule [helcim.com] as one example. A Chase Sapphire Reserve (Visa Infinite) is more expensive than a Chase Sapphire (Visa Signature) to process. But a Chase Ink Business (Visa Business Signature) is more expensive than the Reserve. And a Visa business debit card
Perhaps due to lower quality of customer service? (Score:3)
I went through something similar recently, booked a car rental with a large rental company direct through their own website. Show up at the counter, they don't have the reservation and it is nowhere to be found. I initiate a new rental out of pocket and get a customer service number to call. I call after I'm done with my trip, 2hrs on the phone, navigating automated menus, most ending up with a "please visit out website, good bye", while the website tells me it cannot find this reservation (which is already in the past). Eventually I found a way to speak to a human, by trying random options, all they could tell me "you reached the wrong department, there is nothing we can do for you, and give me the main 800 number to call". I even drove to a local branch of the rental company just to be told to call the 800 number. Guess what my next step was... They owe me 3hrs of my life now which I will never get back. Next time, I give them 15 minutes, if their hold line is longer, they better have a way to leave a message so they can call back, or an email contact I can use, then they can take a couple of days, I'm reasonable. But if not, sorry, credit card dispute is just faster, quick call, then fill out a form they send - quick an easy.
Re: (Score:3)
I've noticed that a lot of companies will only provide support via telephone and/or some interactive chat app on their site, but won't answer emails.
With an email you can detail your case, attach evidence, send it across and they can have someone read and respond to it when available. With a telephone call or live chat both you and the agent need to be available at the exact same time and since they don't want to hire enough agents to ensure there is always one available, this will mean a lot of wasted time
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it is maddening. I dread when I *know* my situation will require an escalation, it rarely goes right.
First, as you say, no email, no submit a ticket, and the live chat won't support things like pasting a picture of the problem when a picture might be relevant. When your problem goes off their script, you run into them trying to throw stuff at the wall, desperately hoping not to escalate.
Then, when time to "escalate", they direct you to another field of front line support. The other day I got pushed
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, they cost money for the caller, and sometimes the costs are highly punitive - charges for calls made while roaming can be in excess of $5/minute and if you're on hold for extended periods of time that soon adds up. Also many countries mandate a cap on roaming fees so once you hit that the call is disconnected and then it's very hard to get the cap raised.
I had this problem with a travel provider who notified me (via email) there was a problem with my return flight and expected me to call to even find ou
Sneeze in a snowstorm (Score:2)
As near as I can find, Visa processes a transaction volume of around $10 trillion each year [wallstreetzen.com]. If annual dispute are $100 million (round figure), that represents 0.001% of their transaction volume. That's not even a sneeze in a snowstorm, that is literally nothing.
So...they are raising fees, because?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Even better is disputes are a source of revenue for them, they can charge as much as $25 per dispute.
Data breaches?! (Score:3)
After so many data breaches in the decade including Equifuckingfax is it any surprise that all this data is finally being used? I've had several fraudulent charges in the last year. One was successful as they used same day Amazon delivery so they got the product! The credit card company called me & gave me a 10 min interview on that one. Like somehow it was my fault & it wasn't the result of all these (dozens? hundreds?!) data breaches.
Of course there is an increase in fraud. It's the CC companies problem, they make billions, let them sort it out. Of course due to corporate greed, they will attempt & likely succeed in getting some sort of government help. Privatize the profits, socialize the losses.
Re: (Score:2)
Over here, fraud is the credit card company's problem - unless they can *prove* you were negligent. All those breaches don't mean anything - it's still their issue. Funnily enough, fraud isn't a major factor in anyone's experience of owning a credit card. It happens of course, but it's pretty rare (and in some cases, they'll "try it on" to see if you accept the charge without arguing, but all you've got to do is say "I didn't authorise this payment" or similar and it goes away).
The card companies do spend a
I’m confused (Score:3)
Really? Really? Cause if I try that even a few times, I’m absolutely sure that I’ll suddenly find it impossible to get a credit card. Blacklists are a real thing. Pulling that is a ticket on the fast train to “no credit”.
Surely this is a self-limiting problem.
Re: I’m confused (Score:2)
Summary doesn't mention dispute fraud, it's about a rise in disputes filed and apparently chargebacks, but I haven't read the article yet.
Re:I'm confused (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If banks and credit companies are overwhelmed by this stuff, they’re being too lax in handing out credit cards to any old hobo that asks for one. Tighten up income standards. Problem solved.
This will probably go away in the near future (Score:2)
If Swift continues with asset tokenization [swift.com] it will be a very bearish market for the CC companies because banks will be able to directly offer competing services without the overhead and without the problems for merchants that CCs have. Disputing charges will be a lot harder because you'll have to actually prove fraud because it will be bank-on-bank (ie your bank will have to convince the other bank and their client that fraud happened), but it will result in a much healthier banking system.
Re: (Score:3)
What you've essentially described is Ontario's "no fault" car insurance. The result has been an insurance industry that is very healthy indeed...and powerless consumers who are thoroughly and comprehensively screwed over on a regular basis.
credit card disputes aren't always vendor misdeeds (Score:2)
Recurrence (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Compelling evidence 3.0 (Score:2)
Visa has a new automated scheme it rolled out this year to reduce chargebacks where people who make repeat purchases from the same place are basically SOL.
Its a feature, not a bug (Score:2)
Wondering Why?
Its not a bug, its a feature. They want it that way.
This sets up a high barrier to entry. Unless you are big enough to eat millions of dollars in losses, unless you reach volumes of billions of dollars to make the
They all fuck you comeing and going (Score:2)
Visa, Amex, MasterCard, Strip, etc etc- they all fuck you coming and going.
If a customer opens a dispute, they bill you a "dispute fee" even if you totally prevail. Ask me how I know.
If you sell inexpensive items, the "dispute fee" can be waaaaay more than the cost of the item- for a $1 item, you lose ~$20 plus the item and shipping. A simple coordinated campaign could put most sellers out of business- just buy something and dispute it. Do that over and over and the costs will add up.
Win or lose, they win.