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.
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.