Quote:
Originally Posted by beaner
Likely the subscriber info would match credit card receipt. Im not talking about illegaly downloading people, i am talking about those who illegaly chargeback to not pay for something they bought.
And i think as a merchant, we have a lot more pull then we think.
|
You do.
It is not an easy task, but you can line up information that sways the banks decision in your favor, and on the occasion it fails, you have the documentation to pursue the consumer post chargeback.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colmike7
Whoever allows the chargeback should be trained to be less lenient.. Why is it the subscriber's fault?
|
Banks allow this. The banks rule in favor of the consumer more than 70% of the time, even when the consumer has failed to demonstrate that they are indeed the victims.
Quote:
Originally Posted by beaner
?? The subscriber is who charged back.
2-4 trial join initiated by subscriber
2-7 rebill
2-16 monthly join initiated by subscriber *again*
All of it charged back. Why should the merchant *me* pay all the fees associated with this guy either 1) fucked up and has no clue he joined the site twice as well as joined a trial to subscription or 2) knows he joined and uses chargeback tools to not pay.
Either way, it's fraud. Knowing full well it is fraud or just being dumb fraud... still fraud.
In general, credit card holders are abusing their rights by claiming fraud knowing full well nothing will happen.
I had a $990 chargeback on my mainstream site a couple months back. The guy actually lives in my state and I am going to file a small claims suit against him.
I think globally, some ISP's, local authorities, etc. could be brought into the mix and used to merchant advantages. Just asking the questions though... i'm fairly certain most just write chargebacks off as cost of doing business.
|