GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - View Single Post - MasterCard Sued for Antitrust Violations & Fraud

jcnlv · 05-12-2003, 07:19 PM

Its always something in this business isn't it?

Does this inclusion of returns/credits in the chargeback totals apply to every high-risk MC merchant, or only those that frequently go over 1% with normal chargebacks? Is this a discretionary penalty or automatic and mandatory? Will every high-risk merchant account holder see these penalties anytime they go over the 1%?

I agree that it especially sucks about all that hacked data not being exempted. There is a lot of hacked info available on the net and you will need outstanding fraud control to keep it under control.

I know most of the 3rd party processors offer the ability to block Email domains and suspect countries, but do any offer Email Address verification prior to processing the transaction? Without it, I don't think you can ever keep chargebacks under control. It isn't perfect but in combination with other fraud prevention features it might make the difference needed to comply.

We found that the cause of chargebacks isn't with "recurring billing", it isn't with so called "friendly fraud", it is from taking bad initial transactions. The recurrings on the transactions that never should have gotten by to begin with are what make chargebacks into the business killers. They grow every month. Add all the trickery some of these sites employ, and I am surprised any of the aggregates can survive with out a whole bunch of low-risk transactions somehow being slipped into the mix.

The problem as I see it is that profits have always been the dominant force with the majority of site operators and processors. Neither want to put in place the safeguards or monitoring needed to maintain compliance with the MC/Visa chargeback regs. The fraudulent transactions look too good coming in... it is only when the return as chargebacks that everyone hates them.

I am not surprised that it has taken this long for the cc companies to start getting tough. They have also enjoyed the profits generated not only from card holders paying for transactions they never made, but also from all the fines charged to the merchants once the card holders chargeback.

They must be getting pressured to do something by the present administration.

05-12-2003, 07:19 PM
jcnlv Registered User Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Las Vegas Posts: 55	Its always something in this business isn't it? Does this inclusion of returns/credits in the chargeback totals apply to every high-risk MC merchant, or only those that frequently go over 1% with normal chargebacks? Is this a discretionary penalty or automatic and mandatory? Will every high-risk merchant account holder see these penalties anytime they go over the 1%? I agree that it especially sucks about all that hacked data not being exempted. There is a lot of hacked info available on the net and you will need outstanding fraud control to keep it under control. I know most of the 3rd party processors offer the ability to block Email domains and suspect countries, but do any offer Email Address verification prior to processing the transaction? Without it, I don't think you can ever keep chargebacks under control. It isn't perfect but in combination with other fraud prevention features it might make the difference needed to comply. We found that the cause of chargebacks isn't with "recurring billing", it isn't with so called "friendly fraud", it is from taking bad initial transactions. The recurrings on the transactions that never should have gotten by to begin with are what make chargebacks into the business killers. They grow every month. Add all the trickery some of these sites employ, and I am surprised any of the aggregates can survive with out a whole bunch of low-risk transactions somehow being slipped into the mix. The problem as I see it is that profits have always been the dominant force with the majority of site operators and processors. Neither want to put in place the safeguards or monitoring needed to maintain compliance with the MC/Visa chargeback regs. The fraudulent transactions look too good coming in... it is only when the return as chargebacks that everyone hates them. I am not surprised that it has taken this long for the cc companies to start getting tough. They have also enjoyed the profits generated not only from card holders paying for transactions they never made, but also from all the fines charged to the merchants once the card holders chargeback. They must be getting pressured to do something by the present administration. __________________ SIG TOO BIG! Maximum 120x60 button and no more than 3 text lines of DEFAULT SIZE and COLOR. Unless your sig is for a GFY top banner sponsor, then you may use a 624x80 instead of a 120x60.