> Stuff like this is why I think a business should have a system that abstracts away the payment processor.
Realistically, more humanly, payment processors and other big tech companies that are basically societies digital gum and infrastructure can simply not be tasked with making these calls. I also don't think they are very keen to do it but in the absence of timely regulation they must.
There have to be more rigorous ground rules (what is the business allowed to do, what must they do, what is the user allowed to do, and what are they entitled to), by law, and quickly.
But there are tons of rules and laws around payments already, and they are often the reason why providers are so trigger happy and conservative even if it means losing clients. Regulatory requirements (KYC, money laundering, sanctions) usually force them to make those calls, quickly and by design. It's very clear that most financial regulations are customer/client unfriendly, and inherently treat them with distrust.
I'm not saying that's an inherently good or bad thing... But it sure would be hard to fit both customer protections laws and service guarantees while at the same time having laws that explicitly force providers to do the opposite.
There is nothing intrinsic about financial regulations that needs to be customer unfriendly. Checks can work both ways and what happened at stripe could for example be avoided by a statue which requires a reasonable explanation and a clear path and timeline towards resolution for the customer, regardless of the company they work with.
Realistically, more humanly, payment processors and other big tech companies that are basically societies digital gum and infrastructure can simply not be tasked with making these calls. I also don't think they are very keen to do it but in the absence of timely regulation they must.
There have to be more rigorous ground rules (what is the business allowed to do, what must they do, what is the user allowed to do, and what are they entitled to), by law, and quickly.