Quote:
Originally Posted by pompousjohn
Chargeback = Blacklist. As it should.
Surfers cannot be allowed to constantly be charging back and signing up again every time they want to rub one out.
Visa and MC rules are too strict to allow this.
Some processors even share the blacklist, if they are using the same bank.
I do agree though that CCBill can be a pretty thick headed about refunds. I was told by someone at CCbill that by default the only reason they will do a refund at a surfer's request is if the surfer insists that his password is not working or alledges fraud.
I had to ask them specifically to ad a note to my account viewable by CSR's stating that we have an open refund policy.
Shortly afterward I called their customer service line requesting a refund for a customer who had contacted me and the CSR did not want to do it, since the account is in my partner's name and I didn't happen to have his SSN handy to claim I was him.
I told the CSR that we have an open refund policy and that if he checks his notes he will see that. He checked, saw it, and did the refund, but I still had to point it out.
|
I have to disagree. I have a real problem with most fraud scrubs for reasons similar to the OP.
For obvious reasons, the gateway operator can't disclose their scoring methodology and most try to provide a "tuning" system that loosens or tightens the scrub based on performance but you often have cases where good sales are being declined.
There are many things a program operator can do to limit chargeback activity on their accounts and maximize sales that don't include scrubbing.
Many webmasters here complain about programs that drop out, stop paying, etc, etc. There are also programs who have billing methods/practices that will increase their likelihood of getting chargebacks. If a legitimate customer who feels like he was taken advantage of charges back a transaction because the operator won't provide them with a credit (when they should) that customer is not necessarily a risk to the next program.