MasterCard Statement about Paycom's Lawsuit - GoFuckYourself.com

Chris Mallick · 05-13-2003, 02:10 PM

From Cardline News?.
PAYCOM SUES MASTERCARD OVER CHARGEBACK FINES: Paycom Billing Services Inc., a Marina Del Rey, CA-based company that primarily processes card transactions for adult Web sites, has filed an antitrust lawsuit against MasterCard International in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in Los Angeles. Paycom is alleging that MasterCard has established monopolistic rules that allow it unreasonable discretion to dominate Internet merchants, Dennis M.P. Ehling, Paycom's attorney, tells CardLine today. Ehling says MasterCard either has collected or has attempted to collect more than $2.5 million in fines from Paycom for excessive chargebacks that have occurred since June 2001. MasterCard imposes the fines when chargebacks exceed a 1% of ongoing sales threshold. Ehling says that some months Paycom's chargebacks were below the threshold, and some months they were above it. About 40% of the cards Paycom processes are MasterCards. MasterCard called the allegations "baseless."
"It is nothing more than a brazen attempt to avoid complying with MasterCard rules that are designed to protect consumers, merchants and MasterCard's member financial institutions," MasterCard said in a statement.

End News Story

Start Paycom / EPOCH Response

Someone at MasterCard must have gotten up to the ?B??s today in the dictionary. ?Baseless? and ?Brazen?. Good words, not applicable here. Their statement is a testament to their arrogance.

A further note: Regardless of the author?s writing, Paycom (and our attorney knows this and the lawsuits states) has not been over 1% for since last May (12 months).

Chris Mallick · 05-13-2003, 02:18 PM

OK, now I am seriously worried. MasterCard is making public statements without checking Webster?s. Shameless.

bra·zen ( P ) Pronunciation Key (brzn)
adj.
Marked by flagrant and insolent audacity.

base·less ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bsls)
adj.
Having no basis or foundation in fact; unfounded.

ronin · 05-13-2003, 02:20 PM

MasterCard called the allegations "baseless."

End of Story

LOL

FlyingIguana · 05-13-2003, 02:20 PM

what about protecting the sites using mastercard against fraud? they don't seem to care about that because they simply charge them money for every chargeback.

detacided · 05-13-2003, 02:22 PM

It seems like 1/10 posts is something concerning CC processing going to hell

OY · 05-13-2003, 02:23 PM

Good stuff!

Want me to hand them a rope?

andi_germany · 05-13-2003, 02:26 PM

Like always lawyers talk consists of words that normal people have to lookup to make the statement look important.

I bet you 1% of the outcome that it will be a nice settlement

SykkBoy · 05-13-2003, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by FlyingIguana
what about protecting the sites using mastercard against fraud? they don't seem to care about that because they simply charge them money for every chargeback.

exactly!

this is what pisses me off most...
I understand protecting customers and have no problems with that, but I think they need to run that protection both ways. It'll probably never happen, but we can all dream.....

FlyingIguana · 05-13-2003, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SykkBoy2

exactly!

this is what pisses me off most...
I understand protecting customers and have no problems with that, but I think they need to run that protection both ways. It'll probably never happen, but we can all dream.....

i think this lawsuit will change things. mastercard and visa pretty much have a monopoly and they can charge whatever they want. i don't see how mastercard could win.

tony286 · 05-13-2003, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SykkBoy2

exactly!

this is what pisses me off most...
I understand protecting customers and have no problems with that, but I think they need to run that protection both ways. It'll probably never happen, but we can all dream.....

They will never protect the merchant because they can charge the merchant up the ass and merchant can do nothing but smile .

FlyingIguana · 05-13-2003, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tony404

They will never protect the merchant because they can charge the merchant up the ass and merchant can do nothing but smile .

they already lost once so far this year. or settled out of court, but they were going to lose anyways.

flub_stub · 05-13-2003, 02:45 PM

Who knows maybe some of the large main stream High Risk companies will get in on this. Sure would look good, at least on paper or in the paper.

goBigtime · 05-13-2003, 03:06 PM

I dunno how 'baseless' it is when you penalize your clients (the merchants) for issuing refunds or credits to their customers when they aren't happy with the product or service they purchased.

Chris Mallick · 05-13-2003, 05:31 PM

Interesting... This is MasterCard's statement on the Wal-Mart lawsuit... 6 months before they paid Wal-Mart $1 BILLION.

I feel good

December 13th, 2002

Noah Hanft, MasterCard general counsel, said: "The retailers' groundless claims are based on the notion that MasterCard has somehow stunted the development of online debit utilizing a PIN number in the U.S. The absurdity of that argument is self-evident when one simply considers the undisputed fact that PIN debit - including STAR, NYCE, PULSE and other PIN debit networks - has grown enormously over the last decade:

No MasterCard rule stops Wal-Mart from suggesting - as it routinely does - that customers pay with PIN debit. Given these undisputed facts, Wal-Mart and other retailers have no basis to claim that MasterCard has somehow impaired their ability to accept or promote their preferred forms of payment. But in the end, it is the American consumer that should ultimately decide how to pay, not Wal-Mart or any other retailer. For this reason as well, this case is simply without merit and should be dismissed now."
American antitrust laws, which are designed to protect consumers, encourage practices like MasterCard's Honor All Cards rule, which creates a greater range of choice for consumers and protects their freedom of choice. For these reasons, this groundless lawsuit should be dismissed."

ronin · 05-13-2003, 05:38 PM

only 1 billion.. shit

grampatex · 05-13-2003, 05:43 PM

Good luck to you Paycom. You have balls. Hope you don't end up like Website Billing. Didn't they take on Visa. Doesn't seem like things have worked out for them.

Giorgio_Xo · 05-13-2003, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Chris Mallick
From Cardline News?.
PAYCOM SUES MASTERCARD OVER CHARGEBACK FINES: Paycom Billing Services Inc., a Marina Del Rey, CA-based company that primarily processes card transactions for adult Web sites, has filed an antitrust lawsuit against MasterCard International in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in Los Angeles. Paycom is alleging that MasterCard has established monopolistic rules that allow it unreasonable discretion to dominate Internet merchants, Dennis M.P. Ehling, Paycom's attorney, tells CardLine today. Ehling says MasterCard either has collected or has attempted to collect more than $2.5 million in fines from Paycom for excessive chargebacks that have occurred since June 2001. MasterCard imposes the fines when chargebacks exceed a 1% of ongoing sales threshold. Ehling says that some months Paycom's chargebacks were below the threshold, and some months they were above it. About 40% of the cards Paycom processes are MasterCards. MasterCard called the allegations "baseless."
"It is nothing more than a brazen attempt to avoid complying with MasterCard rules that are designed to protect consumers, merchants and MasterCard's member financial institutions," MasterCard said in a statement.

End News Story

Start Paycom / EPOCH Response

Someone at MasterCard must have gotten up to the ?B??s today in the dictionary. ?Baseless? and ?Brazen?. Good words, not applicable here. Their statement is a testament to their arrogance.

A further note: Regardless of the author?s writing, Paycom (and our attorney knows this and the lawsuits states) has not been over 1% for since last May (12 months).

How much for Paycom? I want an excuse to move to Marina del Ray. I'll pay in Dollars.

Lensman · 05-13-2003, 05:49 PM

Deja Vu. Both lawsuits are very similiar.

Chris is fighting for all of us and the fact that MC even responded pubically shows that they are very concerned about it. If it truly was baseless, they wouldn't even start their PR campaign.

Giorgio_Xo · 05-13-2003, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lensman
Deja Vu. Both lawsuits are very similiar.

Chris is fighting for all of us and the fact that MC even responded pubically shows that they are very concerned about it. If it truly was baseless, they wouldn't even start their PR campaign.

I would agree! I hate seeing the adult industry trampled by the Man simply because we sell naked lady pictures.

hershie · 05-13-2003, 05:52 PM

another article on the story:

MasterCard sued over Net billing methods
By Dawn Kawamoto
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
May 13, 2003, 4:51 PM PT
http://news.com.com/2100-1019-1001393.html

Internet payment firm Paycom Billing Services has filed a lawsuit against MasterCard, alleging the credit card issuer committed fraud when processing merchants' online transactions.
Paycom, which filed its suit in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles on Monday, said MasterCard used its "monopolistic...power to illegally impose fines and penalties in the millions of dollars" when processing merchants' online sales. Paycom is seeking more than $23 million in damages.

Paycom's lawsuit comes on the heels of a $1 billion settlement MasterCard reached earlier this month with Wal-Mart and Sears, Roebuck over allegations the credit card giant added excessive fees to debit card transactions.

"We understand we're not a brick-and-mortar merchant, and we understand online payments are a different type of transaction than one in person," said Chris Mallick, Paycom's chief executive. "But what we don't understand is the charge backs to Paycom."

In the lawsuit, Paycom said MasterCard charges Internet merchants transaction fees much higher than those charged to traditional retailers, where customers pay with cash or checks.

"MasterCard attempts to justify this difference by arguing that Internet merchants like Paycom are more prone to fraud, but as the District Court established in USA vs. Visa, this explanation is belied by the fact that Paycom and other Internet merchants...bear virtually all risk of loss from fraudulent transactions," the suit stated.

MasterCard said that the suit is without merit and the company's rules are meant to "protect merchants by requiring that the (customer) promptly pay its merchant for all MasterCard transactions and by affording certain protections against bogus cardholder complaints."

Meanwhile, Paycom has received inquiries from more than 24 online merchants and attorneys about filing their own lawsuits or joining Paycom for a class-action suit.

Kimmykim · 05-13-2003, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by grampatex
Good luck to you Paycom. You have balls. Hope you don't end up like Website Billing. Didn't they take on Visa. Doesn't seem like things have worked out for them.

I dont think that WSB's issues have arisen over the fact that they filed suit against Visa -- I seem to recall that being settled and things going back to normal. I would guess their problems stem more from not screening their larger clients more carefully before allowing them to do a few things that were probably bad business ideas.

goBigtime · 05-13-2003, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Chris Mallick
Interesting... This is MasterCard's statement on the Wal-Mart lawsuit... 6 months before they paid Wal-Mart $1 BILLION.

I feel good

Remember us little guys when you get that cool billlion.

PornoDoggy · 05-13-2003, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by andi_germany
Like always lawyers talk consists of words that normal people have to lookup to make the statement look important.

I bet you 1% of the outcome that it will be a nice settlement

Will that come out of the 40% that the lawyer gets?

goBigtime · 05-13-2003, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lensman
Deja Vu. Both lawsuits are very similiar.

Chris is fighting for all of us and the fact that MC even responded pubically shows that they are very concerned about it. If it truly was baseless, they wouldn't even start their PR campaign.

Meanwhile somewhere in GFYam city....

Hmmmm I wonder if they are here... lurking....

Quick! Lensman!... to the logmobile!

Swoit · 05-13-2003, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Meanwhile, Paycom has received inquiries from more than 24 online merchants and attorneys about filing their own lawsuits or joining Paycom for a class-action suit.

Hi Chris

Can you tell us any more about this - I have a very close relationship with several billing companies, and they all believe it is definately in the industrys best interest.

Have any other billing companies approached you about a class action ?

Steve

Ludedude · 05-13-2003, 06:08 PM

Good job guys.

ronin · 05-13-2003, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by goBigtime

Meanwhile somewhere in GFYam city....

Hmmmm I wonder if they are here... lurking....

Quick! Lensman!... to the logmobile!

haha LOL

tony286 · 05-13-2003, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by goBigtime

Remember us little guys when you get that cool billlion.

Chris gets a billion dollars he will be having his retirement party at Internext lol.

Chris Mallick · 05-13-2003, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Swoit

Hi Chris

Can you tell us any more about this - I have a very close relationship with several billing companies, and they all believe it is definately in the industrys best interest.

Have any other billing companies approached you about a class action ?

Steve

You can email me at [email protected] and I will put you in contact with our lawyers.

Chris Mallick · 05-13-2003, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lensman
Deja Vu. Both lawsuits are very similiar.

Chris is fighting for all of us and the fact that MC even responded pubically shows that they are very concerned about it. If it truly was baseless, they wouldn't even start their PR campaign.

Thanks Lens.....
See you in LALA Land in a couple for the D$ Show Live.

C

Cassie · 05-13-2003, 06:30 PM

i am truly impressed! we talked, internally here, a while ago about trying to get webmasters together for a class action suit again visa, mc and amex at the time (discover is the only company who we never had problems with) and much to our surprise, quite a few webmasters weren't interested in signing a petition to file a suit. it floored me how so many webmasters at the time, would just go with the flow of how these companies changed their rules and regulations on the fly without a care for the merchant who they were guaranteed to make money from every month, whether the customer actually paid or not.

kudos to you and give it to them where it hurts!

CigarMan · 05-13-2003, 06:55 PM

Another reason why I'm happy Epoch is my primary processor.

I've had merchant accounts and CC processing since 1990 in several different businesses. Visa/MC don't give a rats ass about the merchants or the consumers. They only care about collecting fees. Since they want the customers to keep using the cards so they can keep collecting interest it's in their best interest to screw over the merchants.

tucker · 05-13-2003, 07:16 PM

Chris - you know this is typical big business B.S. When in doubt deny, deny, deny and then deny again and hope people start believing the BS. Good example ENRON - oh yeah nothing wrong here. AOL anti trust suit, oh yeah we never cooked the books, well maybe a little.

You have them and we all support the fight for the truth. Kick em and then kick em again so they remember.

totalsexcams · 10-12-2010, 07:08 PM

. .

05-13-2003, 02:10 PM	#1
Chris Mallick Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Marina del Rey, CA, USA Posts: 679	MasterCard Statement about Paycom's Lawsuit From Cardline News?. PAYCOM SUES MASTERCARD OVER CHARGEBACK FINES: Paycom Billing Services Inc., a Marina Del Rey, CA-based company that primarily processes card transactions for adult Web sites, has filed an antitrust lawsuit against MasterCard International in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in Los Angeles. Paycom is alleging that MasterCard has established monopolistic rules that allow it unreasonable discretion to dominate Internet merchants, Dennis M.P. Ehling, Paycom's attorney, tells CardLine today. Ehling says MasterCard either has collected or has attempted to collect more than $2.5 million in fines from Paycom for excessive chargebacks that have occurred since June 2001. MasterCard imposes the fines when chargebacks exceed a 1% of ongoing sales threshold. Ehling says that some months Paycom's chargebacks were below the threshold, and some months they were above it. About 40% of the cards Paycom processes are MasterCards. MasterCard called the allegations "baseless." "It is nothing more than a brazen attempt to avoid complying with MasterCard rules that are designed to protect consumers, merchants and MasterCard's member financial institutions," MasterCard said in a statement. End News Story Start Paycom / EPOCH Response Someone at MasterCard must have gotten up to the ?B??s today in the dictionary. ?Baseless? and ?Brazen?. Good words, not applicable here. Their statement is a testament to their arrogance. A further note: Regardless of the author?s writing, Paycom (and our attorney knows this and the lawsuits states) has not been over 1% for since last May (12 months). __________________ Chris Mallick [email protected]

05-13-2003, 02:18 PM	#2
Chris Mallick Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Marina del Rey, CA, USA Posts: 679	OK, now I am seriously worried. MasterCard is making public statements without checking Webster?s. Shameless. bra·zen ( P ) Pronunciation Key (brzn) adj. Marked by flagrant and insolent audacity. base·less ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bsls) adj. Having no basis or foundation in fact; unfounded. __________________ Chris Mallick [email protected]

05-13-2003, 02:22 PM	#5
detacided Registered User Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Washington, D.C. Posts: 83	It seems like 1/10 posts is something concerning CC processing going to hell __________________ This is my sig. Flashy, huh?

05-13-2003, 02:23 PM	#6
OY Industry Pioneer Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: USA/EU/ASIA Posts: 5,401	Good stuff! Want me to hand them a rope? __________________ Around since 1997, and the company that introduced "Cascading Billing" in MPA3® Affiliate Management and Tracking Software Outsourcing With A Norwegian Twist - NordBits - Inquire within!

05-13-2003, 05:31 PM	#14
Chris Mallick Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Marina del Rey, CA, USA Posts: 679	Interesting... This is MasterCard's statement on the Wal-Mart lawsuit... 6 months before they paid Wal-Mart $1 BILLION. I feel good December 13th, 2002 Noah Hanft, MasterCard general counsel, said: "The retailers' groundless claims are based on the notion that MasterCard has somehow stunted the development of online debit utilizing a PIN number in the U.S. The absurdity of that argument is self-evident when one simply considers the undisputed fact that PIN debit - including STAR, NYCE, PULSE and other PIN debit networks - has grown enormously over the last decade: No MasterCard rule stops Wal-Mart from suggesting - as it routinely does - that customers pay with PIN debit. Given these undisputed facts, Wal-Mart and other retailers have no basis to claim that MasterCard has somehow impaired their ability to accept or promote their preferred forms of payment. But in the end, it is the American consumer that should ultimately decide how to pay, not Wal-Mart or any other retailer. For this reason as well, this case is simply without merit and should be dismissed now." American antitrust laws, which are designed to protect consumers, encourage practices like MasterCard's Honor All Cards rule, which creates a greater range of choice for consumers and protects their freedom of choice. For these reasons, this groundless lawsuit should be dismissed." __________________ Chris Mallick [email protected]

05-13-2003, 02:20 PM	#3
ronin Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Main St. Posts: 1,300	MasterCard called the allegations "baseless." End of Story LOL

05-13-2003, 02:20 PM	#4
FlyingIguana aspiring banker Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: toronto Posts: 10,870	what about protecting the sites using mastercard against fraud? they don't seem to care about that because they simply charge them money for every chargeback.

05-13-2003, 02:26 PM	#7
andi_germany Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Germany Posts: 768	Like always lawyers talk consists of words that normal people have to lookup to make the statement look important. I bet you 1% of the outcome that it will be a nice settlement

05-13-2003, 02:45 PM	#12
flub_stub Registered User Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 15	Who knows maybe some of the large main stream High Risk companies will get in on this. Sure would look good, at least on paper or in the paper.

05-13-2003, 03:06 PM	#13
goBigtime Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 7,761	I dunno how 'baseless' it is when you penalize your clients (the merchants) for issuing refunds or credits to their customers when they aren't happy with the product or service they purchased.

05-13-2003, 05:38 PM	#15
ronin Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Main St. Posts: 1,300	only 1 billion.. shit

05-13-2003, 05:43 PM	#16
grampatex Registered User Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 21	Good luck to you Paycom. You have balls. Hope you don't end up like Website Billing. Didn't they take on Visa. Doesn't seem like things have worked out for them. __________________ grampatex

05-13-2003, 05:49 PM	#18
Lensman GFY Chaperone Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Adult.com Posts: 9,846	Deja Vu. Both lawsuits are very similiar. Chris is fighting for all of us and the fact that MC even responded pubically shows that they are very concerned about it. If it truly was baseless, they wouldn't even start their PR campaign.

05-13-2003, 05:52 PM	#20
hershie Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 4,642	another article on the story: MasterCard sued over Net billing methods By Dawn Kawamoto Staff Writer, CNET News.com May 13, 2003, 4:51 PM PT http://news.com.com/2100-1019-1001393.html Internet payment firm Paycom Billing Services has filed a lawsuit against MasterCard, alleging the credit card issuer committed fraud when processing merchants' online transactions. Paycom, which filed its suit in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles on Monday, said MasterCard used its "monopolistic...power to illegally impose fines and penalties in the millions of dollars" when processing merchants' online sales. Paycom is seeking more than $23 million in damages. Paycom's lawsuit comes on the heels of a $1 billion settlement MasterCard reached earlier this month with Wal-Mart and Sears, Roebuck over allegations the credit card giant added excessive fees to debit card transactions. "We understand we're not a brick-and-mortar merchant, and we understand online payments are a different type of transaction than one in person," said Chris Mallick, Paycom's chief executive. "But what we don't understand is the charge backs to Paycom." In the lawsuit, Paycom said MasterCard charges Internet merchants transaction fees much higher than those charged to traditional retailers, where customers pay with cash or checks. "MasterCard attempts to justify this difference by arguing that Internet merchants like Paycom are more prone to fraud, but as the District Court established in USA vs. Visa, this explanation is belied by the fact that Paycom and other Internet merchants...bear virtually all risk of loss from fraudulent transactions," the suit stated. MasterCard said that the suit is without merit and the company's rules are meant to "protect merchants by requiring that the (customer) promptly pay its merchant for all MasterCard transactions and by affording certain protections against bogus cardholder complaints." Meanwhile, Paycom has received inquiries from more than 24 online merchants and attorneys about filing their own lawsuits or joining Paycom for a class-action suit.

05-13-2003, 06:08 PM	#26
Ludedude Suck it! Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Who wants to know? Posts: 4,432	Good job guys. __________________

05-13-2003, 06:30 PM	#31
Cassie Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: NJ Posts: 3,139	i am truly impressed! we talked, internally here, a while ago about trying to get webmasters together for a class action suit again visa, mc and amex at the time (discover is the only company who we never had problems with) and much to our surprise, quite a few webmasters weren't interested in signing a petition to file a suit. it floored me how so many webmasters at the time, would just go with the flow of how these companies changed their rules and regulations on the fly without a care for the merchant who they were guaranteed to make money from every month, whether the customer actually paid or not. kudos to you and give it to them where it hurts! __________________ ICQ: 309756847 ]

05-13-2003, 06:55 PM	#32
CigarMan Registered User Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 81	Another reason why I'm happy Epoch is my primary processor. I've had merchant accounts and CC processing since 1990 in several different businesses. Visa/MC don't give a rats ass about the merchants or the consumers. They only care about collecting fees. Since they want the customers to keep using the cards so they can keep collecting interest it's in their best interest to screw over the merchants.

05-13-2003, 07:16 PM	#33
tucker Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: LA Posts: 584	Chris - you know this is typical big business B.S. When in doubt deny, deny, deny and then deny again and hope people start believing the BS. Good example ENRON - oh yeah nothing wrong here. AOL anti trust suit, oh yeah we never cooked the books, well maybe a little. You have them and we all support the fight for the truth. Kick em and then kick em again so they remember.

10-12-2010, 07:08 PM	#34
totalsexcams Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 275	. . __________________ ----> Promote Myfreecams Crakrevenue Sign up now!!! <---- ----> Cam Models Earn $10,000 a month <---- Webmasters Join the AWE Cam Program Last edited by totalsexcams; 10-12-2010 at 07:11 PM..