Quote:
Originally posted by tony404
I have to tell you maybe in the world you live in thats how it works but here in the USA its very easy to cb. Now they are letting them do it online, also they are making no one here jump thru hoops to cb.
You can say someone used my cc card without my knowledge and I dont know who it is, that means its stolen. Why dont they issue new credit cards to those people, if it is so expensive to deal with cb's ?
If someone has this person's number chances are they are going to do it again causing another expensive cb. All those cc numbers that were stolen and they didnt issue new cards, after all those numbers are more cb's waiting to happen. Why not?
They let friendly fraud happen because they profit from it otherwise they would make it painful to cb.
Especially people that are chronic charge backers. My wife had a guy who told her in chat that he cb's porn all time and his cc company doesnt care its porn. Now if they didnt profit would they let him do that multiple times same card same number?
I think maybe they are not being totally honest with you.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/917088.asp?cp1=1
Here is a portion of it:
PROFITING OFF FRAUD?
Ishman said he specializes in Internet crime and filed the lawsuit after the three merchants approached him.
The suit also claims credit card associations and issuing banks actually profit from fraud because of revenue from chargeback fees. Ishman estimated $383 million in chargeback fees was collected from merchants in 2001, based on his estimate that 1.4 percent of all card-not-present transactions that year were fraudulent. In comparison, however, Visa has said that in 2001, only one-quarter of one percent of online transactions were fraudulent.
The lawsuit also alleges the companies are operating in violation of federal and state anti-racketeering laws because they don?t do enough to stop credit card fraud.
?We have strong beliefs that will be supported through discovery that [the credit card associations] have knowledge that certain cards have been stolen or compromised, but they don?t ... share such knowledge,? Ishman said. ?Throughout these transactions, they had many opportunities in which they could have stopped (the fraud) or minimized damages.?
As an example, Ishman said that when a Web site?s database of credit card numbers is compromised, credit card associations and issuing banks don?t immediately cancel the cards or inform consumers; they simply watch the list of potentially stolen cards and look for signs of actual fraud. That happened earlier this year when systems at Data Processors International in Omaha, Neb., were compromised, and 8 million card holders were put at risk.
?We estimated that it would have cost them $2 million to replace the 8 million cards, but if they wait for just one chargeback of $45 on each card, they make $360 million,? Ishman said.
Last year, a federal court threw out an Internet-related racketeering lawsuit against the credit card companies. Consumers who lost money on Internet gambling sites had tried to sue Visa, Mastercard and a host of issuing banks under racketeering laws. The suit was dismissed, and last December, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans upheld the earlier ruling.
The credit card associations ?have made profits from merchants on almost every element of fraud that runs through their hands,? Ishman said, and indeed, the 89-page complaint has a laundry list of charges.
Another of them is the claim that credit card firms make it impossible for merchants to fight what Ishman calls ?cybershoplifting? ? consumers who get what they ordered, but simply call their credit card firm and dispute the charge anyway.
?At that point the credit card company simply reverses the charges. That means the merchant is out the sales price, the shipping costs, the product, a client and is charged a chargeback fee,? he said.
The credit card associations have 30 days to respond to the lawsuit, Ishman said.
|
that lawsuit won't get anywhere.
if you've read any of my previous posts, you'd understand my point. if you're selling an online service, you're fucked if the customer charges back.
if you cannot prove the cardholder did the charge, then the chargeback cannot be resolved in the merchant's favour. and you cannot prove that without the cardholder's ISP logs. good luck getting those.
i'm not pointing fingers, but there should be a lot more verification on the merchant's end. i've used my credit card at every large processor and i put in the wrong address and CVV yet my card was still approved.
also, there should be a lot done on the webmaster's end. make it loud and clear who processes for you. put it on the main page of the members area along with a cancel link. that alone will reduce a lot of chargebacks.