> “Reducing the impacts of first party misuse on small businesses requires industry-wide support,” says Julie Fergerson, CEO at MRC
Yes, please Mrs CEO, tell me more about small businesses... I think I hurt myself rolling my eyes at this.
This will primarily used by larger companies to fight legitimate chargebacks. If they had a reason to dispute the chargeback there are already means to do it, this process already exists. I can't imagine this new "program" is anything more than a way to screw consumers more.
Visa created the cost of a chargeback AND the process, why not take it up with them? They've swung from one extreme to the other, that's not an improvement.
Visa are the ones framing this as "fraud." Personally I view a business placing a cardholder in a position where they NEED to do a chargeback as anti-consumer.
The chargeback process needs to evolve wherein consumers actually abusing it lose, and businesses abusing consumers lose. Regardless it shouldn't cost a business anything if they WIN.
There are numerous stories in this thread alone about businesses continuing to charge people after cancellation and other good-faith interventions. Visa as essentially saying they won't help in those cases since the business can prove a pre-existing relationship. That's not ok.
Heck, maybe we need a kind of "unsubscribe" mechanism from Visa's side. Something that isn't a chargeback (which they'd reserve for actual fraud) but a mechanism where a vendor just cannot charge that card anymore without getting a NEW agreement/contract.
Yes, please Mrs CEO, tell me more about small businesses... I think I hurt myself rolling my eyes at this.
This will primarily used by larger companies to fight legitimate chargebacks. If they had a reason to dispute the chargeback there are already means to do it, this process already exists. I can't imagine this new "program" is anything more than a way to screw consumers more.