Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Be aware that "When most people think of fraud, they think of stolen account numbers or identity theft, but first party misuse, which can account for up to 75 percent of all chargebacks[1]" looks like marketing spin.

The reference points to a marketing newswire that also states "More than two in five (42%) of surveyed consumers who have filed disputes did so due to true fraud—e.g., unauthorized purchases made with their payment information." https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2021/12/15/235295...

Going deeper the actually 75% comes is stated on this PDF which links (sources) from a company that sells... sells dispute charges services. https://pages.sift.com/rs/526-PCC-974/images/ebook_Sift_Q4_2...

Others things to note: No statement by Visa in decreasing taxes on chargebacks to merchants.



Chargebacks are used as a kind of punitive measure directed at merchants. The idea here is for merchants to figure out the only way to deal with chargebacks is to not get chargebacks at all.

For now this works because for some reason relatively few cardholders are educated enough on what are and how to use chargebacks.

I personally wouldn't be using credit card if not for the chargebacks. I am still paying off entire balance every month, but I am much happier knowing that any dispute on a transaction with a credit card is going to be so much easier than any other form of payment.


I worked at a company that shrugged off customers' threats to chargeback. It was seen as a way to shift customer support load to the bank!

Chargebacks mostly fell into two categories: those who didn't recognize the business's name or financially unstable customers who charged back because they ran out of money at the end of the month and wanted to get some back (sometimes every month).

I guess it helped it was a low risk industry selling a service that can't be resold as only dumb criminals would use stolen credit card information to pay on an account with their name on it.


Just posting it again:

Going deeper the actually 75% comes is stated on this PDF which links (sources) from a company that sells... sells dispute charges services. https://pages.sift.com/rs/526-PCC-974/images/ebook_Sift_Q4_2...

So, to be clear, a non-impartial actor is providing the “data” justifying the anti-consumer activity. I’m shocked!




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: