I wish everyone handled things like Epoch in this business. I'm happy with them.

Evidently, you don't get the reasoning behind this argument. We're pointing out the fact that we are getting picked on because we are adult companies. We're not arguing the fact that they can get away with it and we can't. We're arguing the fact that they are treated a lot more leniently and don't have bullshit fines pushed against them. We're seen as easier to pick on due to the nature of our products/services.

Wait... you're going to turn around and use the "scamming adult webmasters" argument again, right? Back up your words with facts. In case you haven't caught on, I work for Visa. When customers want to initiate a chargeback, they call me and my co-workers. And I can assure you that we get a lot more calls concerning scamming gyms, ISPs and cable companies (individually) than calls concerning adult memberships.
In fact, I dealt with one call concerning a gym yesterday, one today and an ISP problem today as well. The last time I dealt with an adult site-related chargeback was last Thursday. Those are hard facts that cannot be disputed.

As for Epoch/Paycom, the last chargeback I initiated against them was several months ago. As far as chargebacks go, ccBill and IBill have the most complaints, followed by a lot of the smaller companis (PSW, Globocharge, etc). Paycom, Globill and Jettis account for perhaps a combined 5% of the chargebacks we iniate and personally, I've only initiate one against Globill, 3 against Paycom and 6 against Jettis.

If you're so confident that your words are true and not slanderous, why are you so secretive about your identity? You dodge every single question about your identity.

If you were as confident as you say you are, you'd have no problem exposing who you are. Or you'd at least have the balls to call Chris and discuss your alleged slander on the phone with him, before this turns into a lawsuit.

If you don't want to listen to me, or even read my posts, that's fine.

But I ask you, what has the Almighty Epoch done for you lately?

In the past year they've told everybody don't worry about the chargebacks. They've got it all under control. They're the experts. They know what they're doing.

Now they're facing a MC cutoff and ... let's not forget ...

CASH FLOW PROBLEMS

And your measure of a successful processor is what?

Bankruptcy?

I suppose you'll be touting Epoch's expertise even if they go broke.

:1orglaugh

For crying out loud.

Like I need to be worried about a lawsuit with Epoch.

Actually, it would be fun, if they really wanted to go there.

But I think they have enough problems paying their legal bills with MC.

:1orglaugh

LOL, and the class action lawsuit against Visa and MC that originated in North Carolina is NOT a group of adult merchants. They are a group of INTERNET merchants who alledge nearly identical complaints in THEIR NON PORN dealings with the credit card companies.

Of course I was surprised to find the lights on and the water still running in the Epoch offices today... after all of nevermind's posts, I really figured I'd get there and it would be dark and we'd have to use the neighbors' toilets.

I hope this gets blown over by the time our alternate account gets set up

Hi CHRIS.

How is everything?

Great.

You request info from me, say 'Im waiting', and I send minutes later after your request.

THREE FUCKING MONTHS now, IM still waiting ??

So whats the answer? Is it THAT hard to admit your system was FUCKED UP? Yea, that would be bad for business, wouldnt it?

ANSWER.

Yeah. Big deal.

WSB sued Visa too. That really did them a lot of good.

WSB is out of biz.

Really? Fascinating.
Epoch isn't suing Visa.

The point --- which I thought was obvious --- is that lawsuits don't necessarily solve these problems for the processors.

OK, pysko514, let me ask you directly. Are "porn complaints" handled differently than ogfther chargebacks? It's taken us since Feb to get a chargeback handled by Providian for a fraudulent hotel res.

-doug

Pretty lame point seeing as how it implies that they necessarily create more problems for the processors.

Internet chargebacks are handled differently than brick+mortar merchant chargebacks.

We have no clue if your iBill charge is from a porn site or a financial advice site.

Speaking of chargebacks ...

I just got an email from one of my credit card accounts touting a new, easy chargeback service.

You can dispute the charge online much "faster and easier" with this new system.

Interesting.

OK, psyko, what is "differently" - automatic?

-doug

Nope. As there is no signed draft to order, the customer has to write a letter stating they never authorized the charge. Then, like all chargebacks, a letter is sent to the merchant bank. The merchant has the option of representing the chargeback (disputing it). In the case of internet chargebacks, most merchants won't represent the chargeback as it's nearly impossible to prove the cardholder authorized the charge.

Don't try to take my quote out of context.

I wasn't implying that the lawsuits cause more problems. We really don't know because these lawsuits are new, and there's no court rulings --- to the best of my knowledge.

But we do know that it didn't help WSB, and it didn't solve their problems.

That's all I was saying.

wouldn't be suprised if the president doesn't have something to do with all of this.. we need a new president.. this one is stupid.. trying to help the economy and it's about to colapse everywhere.. giving people an extra 100$ a month from taxes isn't going to do shit.. that's all going twards beer for most people

Your post pretty much says "WSB went out of business because they sued Visa."
I didn't take anything out of context. Perhaps you just need to figure out the nuances of the english language?

Waaaa waaa waaaa, I detect some seriously sour grapes in your tone. Perhaps you need to chill out a bit, bitterness is not becoming in a woman.

For crying out loud. I guess I'll really have to spell it out for you from now on.

I was not saying that WSB went out of business because they sued Visa. For all I know, the legal fees alone may have prevented them from fully pursuing the case.

What we DO know is that it didn't do them much good. They sued Visa a year and a half ago, and now they're out of biz.

Is that clear enough?

No, it really isn't.
You're creating a direct link between their previous lawsuit and the fact that they went out of business.

The fact is, lawsuit or not, they'd probably be in the same position.

bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch.. that's all you guys do.. sounds like 2 women on the phone

Do me a favour and spell out your reply to my previous posts earlier tonight.

Yeah I got the same email for my Platinum Chase card. Like a new online 'one-click' dispute feature they've added.

Hmm, how do you KNOW it didn't do them much good? How can you be so sure that their issues with Visa at the time they filed suit were not resolved with Visa and their demise was not based upon something entirely unrelated?

For instance how do you KNOW that they weren't fined into oblivion by Mastercard to the point they became unable to pay?

How do you know that their bank didn't get out of the 2257 business and they couldn't get a new processing account in time to keep running?

How do you know that they didn't just spend all their money on drugs and hookers and that's why they went belly up?

Let's see, you DON'T know.

But yet you care to speculate and make potentially libelous comments about more than just one processor.

Your idea of what you know and what you don't know are absolutely amazing to me.

oooh ooh ooh... i get to correct kimmy on something for once! you mean the 5969 business ;b

isn't this their excuse?

:pimp Musta been all the hookers and drugs! That would, after all, make for the most interesting story.... if we're going to make one up... since we really don't know what happened...

Brad

Nevermind is a woman? If you know who nevermind is, I think Chris Mallick has offered a public reward for her true identity.

Do tell! These posts are a better than a soap opera and it would be cool to see her unmasked so that she (whoever she is) and Mallick can then duke it out for real!! I'd pay for tickets to that show!

:1orglaugh

In this business only time will tell, how many times have people argued over companies and stuff hosting companies, billing companies, dialers etc.

But like I said earlier all companies that are about to fold in most cases have ZERO communications with their clients.

If I was an epoch client I would only worry if communication was lost and payments would start showing up real late without warning.

Webmasters also have to remember that unlike WSB that operated out of a residential building in Florida <-- FACT not fiction, epoch has a real facility, real managment team etc.

Good luck

Hahaha, I am tired... but it's actually 5967 for the MCC code ;)

Kimmy:

WSB's closing website statement cites their Visa lawsuit and their attempts to "fight through these issues."

http://www.websitebilling.co.uk/

Despite these efforts, WSB says their bank dropped them because of pressure from Visa (and, of course, MC.)

My original and only point was that WSB's Visa lawsuit didn't do them much good.

This statement confirms that.

Other than that, I'm not sure why we are arguing about this.

Interestingly enough, you are the one arguing, as well as speculating. I don't particularly find their reasons for losing their business to be my business. Suing Visa doesn't get you terminated as a merchant, and suing Mastercard won't either. That is not speculation on my part either. My facts are in order.

goddamnit. fuck fuck fuck.
that's what i meant.

uhh... i'm tired too!

Kimmy, you are completely out of line here.

I NEVER said that suing Visa or MC would get you terminated. I NEVER even speculated to that effect.

I ONLY said that WSB's lawsuit didn't do them much good, and their own statement confirms this.

Are you guys just making stuff up so you can argue about this?

Oh my god I feel the love !!!

The only one making stuff up is you. The only one arguing is you. What part of this do you keep refusing to understand?

I'm suprised that Chris hasn't mentioned this article...it came out in the new issue of Forbes. Two page article near the front of the magazine...

maybe it will shed more light on the situation...




On The Cover/Top Stories
Dirty Little Secret
Seth Lubove, 06.23.03


Online porn racks up over a billion in sales. A few (little-known) banks make it happen
Porn buyers spend over a billion dollars a year procuring dirty pictures on the Internet, browsing the offerings of Housewife Harlots, Man Lover, Porky Babes and thousands of other naughty or depraved Web sites.

Hidden behind all that forbidden skin is the engine making Web porn possible: the banks that handle the credit card purchases. They are a secretive lot, mostly unknown for their porn patronage. Among the banks currently or previously facilitating the titillation trade: Minotola National Bank of Vineland, N.J.; Heartland Bank of St. Louis, Mo.; Benchmark Bank of Dallas; Amtrade International Bank of Atlanta; and First Data's First Financial Bank.

The banks' role is revealed in several lawsuits that have roiled the online porn biz. The main driver of two of those legal spats is a firm known mainly to porn peddlers: Paycom Billing Services of Marina del Rey, Calif. Last month the firm, one of a few obscure processors of credit card purchases outside the mainstream, filed a lawsuit against MasterCard alleging antitrust violations and fraud. The suit is pending in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles. MasterCard denies the charges.

Before that Paycom initiated another battle in the same court, suing middleman Payment Resources International, which used to line up banks for porn companies, alleging it schemed to rip off tens of millions of dollars in porn charges due to Paycom. PRI, of Newport Beach, Calif., countersued, claiming $60 million in lost business. Bizarrely, the suit drags IBM (nyse: IBM - news - people ) into the mess, giving new meaning to the nickname Big Blue. Paycom accuses IBM's Denmark unit of taking part in the alleged rip-off. IBM has moved to dismiss itself from the case.

Paycom's suit also targets Minotola National Bank, accusing it of "purposefully" bungling the billing for its account. Minotola, with $500 million in assets, characterizes itself as "a legend in hometown banking." It settled the Paycom complaint by returning the $1 million in credit card funds Paycom claimed Minotola was withholding. Beyond the $1 million, says Minotola's attorney, Thomas Robins, in Los Angeles, "Minotola was so clean in all of this that we didn't part with any money."

Robins, acting on behalf of a receiver, has sued a bank in another case related to porn peddling: Heartland Bank and its since spun-off credit card processing unit. The suit was related to Heartland's alleged role in a notorious porn scandal involving the theft of 800,000 credit card numbers from yet another former porn bank--Charter Pacific. The case was dismissed on summary judgment last year.

"We thought we understood what we were getting into, but we didn't," says Robert Carr, chief executive of Heartland Payment Systems, adding that the processor has stopped handling porn purchases altogether. "You're not dealing with the most ethical people in the world."

So why even try it? Because of sexy returns. Heartland was able to charge more than the fees it levied on other merchants--a 3.5% take compared with only as much as 2.25% typically. Paycom in turn charges its porn clients up to 15%. One porn peddler paid $3.6 million to Heartland for handling $72 million in purchases. Paycom, in its suit against IBM and the others, says IBM and the banks took 30 cents per transaction plus up to a 6.5% slice.

But it's an ugly business. PRI had the unenviable task of trying to find banks that would handle Paycom's porn clientele. No sooner did PRI find a bank willing to serve than it claims the bank got fed up with the high incidence of disputed charges and dropped the Paycom account. These "chargebacks" are the bane of the porn trade: Your spouse finds a suspicious charge on the monthly Visa bill, and you deny making the purchase rather than fess up and catch hell.

In such snags, the credit card company usually just wipes off the charge and zings the bank (who zings the merchant) for an outsized processing fine. This is the crux of Paycom's suit against MasterCard, which Paycom accuses of abusing its power to unfairly penalize Internet merchants for chargebacks.

PRI says it first lined up Benchmark Bank of Dallas for Paycom, then landed Amtrade International Bank of Atlanta, which was shut down last fall by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. for other reasons. After that deal soured, PRI placed Paycom with Minotola and Banco Uno, a Costa Rican bank. Those deals flopped, too. Paycom, "desperate to find a replacement," then hooked up with Global Payment Systems Ltd. of Britain, PRI says. And because Global did business with IBM, IBM's Danish unit found itself holding $17 million of Paycom's porn loot.

Paycom and PRI agree that IBM held Paycom's money hostage because of a "prior unresolved dispute" with Global, according to PRI. PRI in turn sued Global Payments and settled with a deal to jointly finance a separate lawsuit against IBM. An IBM spokesman declines to comment; an outside lawyer for the computer maker quips that he will "dive for cover" when this story comes out.

Even if it wins its various lawsuits, Paycom and the rest of the Internet porn industry face tough times. Chargebacks and general annoyance with the less savory aspects of the business have prompted credit card companies to crack down on the sex trade. They now force every individual merchant to register directly--and lay bare intimate business details. Paycom's latest bank, First Data's First Financial, recently received notice from Visa that it must identify and report on thousands of independent merchants in its portfolio, not just a porn aggregator such as Paycom.

One Paycom rival, WebsiteBilling, suddenly shut down in May, blaming the Visa crackdown. Besides First Data's bank, just two other banks are known to handle porn in the U.S.: Redwood Empire Bancorp of Santa Rosa, Calif. and Roseville, Calif.-based Humboldt Bancorp's Humboldt Merchant Services unit, which was recently sold to a privately owned bank. The rest of the pleasure underwriters operate overseas.

From reading that article the logical solution seems to be its time to form First National GFY Bank & Trust. Then just change the FDIC Insured part to BP4L Insured and we'll all be good to go.

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh