Quote:
Originally posted by cash69
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by tony404
A jury would be quicker to go in favor of MC which is in their pocket, then the processing company that helps pornographers. They already said in the press they are protecting the consumer, unfortunately the jury will be made of consumers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Should that even be relevant? Why should the jury know this? The jury should not be told what they process.. so they can look straight at the facts.
|
This will become a very active part of the the MC defence team's argument. Why? It's simple. Paycom is saying that they are being unfairly treated when it comes to how refunds, cancellations and other consumer activites are being added to their Chargeback ratio. And as a result, fines are being imposed on Paycom and other 3rd party billers which Paycom feels are unfair.
It will then be the MC defence teams job to show what is causing these innocent sounding "refunds".
Here's just one example that they could use (this particular one is not Paycom-it's IBILL..but give me a minute and I will find a compariable site):
1)
http://www.indianhussies4free.com
Banner says FREE FREE FREE FOREVER
2) Clicked on banner...hmm, what's this...already it's not FREE FOREVER, it's a 1 day trial
3) O.K. I clicked on the instant access, to take advantage of my 1 day trial (even though I originally thought it was free) Oh my, there is no 1 day free membership. The only choice, which has been pre-checked for me, is a $39.95 one month membership.
And some of you are still questioning why Mastercard HAS TO come down very hard on this industry....