Kimmy, I realize that it's difficult for you to argue your case on the merits.

And I realize it's difficult because your company is in financial trouble.

But you shouldn't frabricate statements --- and completely misquote my statements --- to try to boost your arguments.

It won't work because it's completely inaccurate.

I guess it's a byproduct of a desperate situation.

Interesting quote from the article.

interesting article...

thanks for posting the article......interesting read.

Perhaps you need to learn how to read.

For the last time: I did NOT say that.

THIS is what I said:

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

WSB is out of biz."

For reference material --- assuming, of course, that you CAN read --- try:

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

I DID NOT "pretty much say" anything else.

Stop misquoting me.

No, that's not a nice article at all. The whole intent - and tone - is designed specifically to get as many bank names out there as possible in public and put the pressure on them not to deal with porn by doing so. Shit, I'm so sick of mainstream American "media."

As I read the suit it sounded more as if PRI was screwing around by picking shifty clients for the most part. Would be nice for once if adult merchants were recognized for trying to stop fraud, hell, we've reported it and gotten no interest in follow up.

-doug

comming from the investment world, I can say without a doubt that there are as many if not MORE unethical people in that business as in porn.

But anyone who generalizes an entire population lableing them ALL unethical is a BIGGOT - and themselves TOTALLY and COMPLETELY UNETHICAL.

Jesus Christ... this anonymous nobody says something, then denies saying it. And when we call her on it, she turns around and calls us idiots in desperate situation.

I have nothing to do with Mastercard or Epoch. Explain how my situation is desperate, nevermind.

The only person misquoting your statements is yourself, nevermind. And try as you may, you're not going to trick me, Kimmy, or anyone else into thinking otherwise.

Once again, it's obvious that you can't read.

My comment about a desperate situation was directed at Kimmy and Epoch's cash flow problems.

NOT YOU

The quote I was commenting on was Kimmy's quote ...

NOT YOURS

Do you have trouble with basic remedial reading skills?

I NEVER said YOUR situation was desperate.

I was commenting on Epoch's cash flow problems which, with any company, usually creates desperate circumstances.

nevermind, I'd like to ask a simple question.

Why are you attacking epoch?

Actually, I've criticized all of the processors. Epoch just happens to stand out for a few reasons.

They're more active with their PR efforts on this board, always making statements about how supposedly great they are.

I didn't see it that way. When I posted evidence to the contrary, they got pissed.

Their attitude is that you must completely tow the company line, or you must be an MC spy, a disgruntled competitor, or whatever.

Then they start making threats, and offering bounties. It's ridiculous.

If Epoch had said: Look, we screwed up. We're going to make amends with MC and fix this problem. We're going to clean up our billing practices.

I probably wouldn't have said anything. Hell, I would have applauded them.

Instead it's: We're the almighty Epoch. We know everything. We're the victims here. It's all MC's fault. Our sleazy billing practices have nothing to do with our cash flow problems.

So .... I just take issue with their arrogance.

The whole article, from phrases like "porn peddlars" and "porn banks" to out of context quotes like "You're not dealing with the most ethical people in the world." is stridently anti-adult industry.

Interesting info in it tho. Thanx for posting.

I thought First Data handled some or all of VISA/MC's backend, no?

If that is true, ironic that their bank is facing a processing crackdown.

- Titus

You're not dealing with the most ethical people in the world." is stridently anti-adult industry.


No its a true statement as sad as that maybe, we can point fingers at the cc companies all we like but most of this mess was caused by the industry itself. Making false promises and a general fuck the customer attitude . Any industry that embraces the idea of being called a pimp has a ethics problem lol.

Also its the third party processors fault they kept processing the shitbags because they get the fees. They could of prevented alot of the bullshit . We avg a .3 cb ratio(most of those are fraud, try and send a email to the person everytime its a bad one) for these processors to be having all these problems that means there are alot of people that have much higher cb ratios and they keep processing them.

One more thing I have charged back on visa and my wife had charged back on Amex. Neither time did we have to write a letter to anyone, I think if they had to write letters friendly fraud would go down dramatically.

(begin rant)

Well...ok. I personally find it more than a little infuriating about VISA/MC when they make so much $ off of cb, yet when - as we did earlier this year - we have a clear case where someone got hold of a database including CVV2 and address, and had the names and addresses of the individuals who were involved, and were not able to deal with VISA to help them catch those crooks. (There was no interest when I called) I got a copy of one statement associated with those people and they hit not just us, but Hustler, Jettis, CCBill, lots of big guys, $20K in charges in two days on one customer's card alone.

SOP for us is to add *any* chargedback transaction - in fact *any* customer who threatens us if we don't manually cancel them instead of using the online form supplied by our processors, pretty much anyone who is causing real trouble including password traders and the like - gets added to our negative database. We even fraud scrub affiliates signing up. Anyone who signs up with a forged or undeliverable e-mail gets auto-voided. We require CVV2 for US customers, AVS, all that. We have our own merchant account and we take this quite seriously.

So when we're doing every single thing practical to avoid fraud, and have even offered assistance to them in tracking down fraud, why should we be subject to judgment based on someone using one of the (honestly) fairly lax IPSP services, illegal content which many of them still process, etc.? The only IPSPs who have offered assistance to us in pulling copyrighted material are CCBill and Verotel. I've e-mailed others who I won't name who did not even respond. One IPSP I could name still owe us money that's a year old.

Give me a tool to fight fraud, I'll use it. Verified by Visa is one such tool supposedly coming out but I've heard reports it will not be available to adult merchants :feels-hot

Give me a way to report all the information I have on fraud, I'll use it.

And, it should not be a legitimate reason for cb that the customer fails to cancel based on clear instructions located on the join page, the main member's page, and the customer service page, in up to ten languages.

Sure, there's some responsibility to bear on online business, but there also needs to be an awareness on VISA/MCs part that online realistically does not have to be more susceptible to fraud than the real world, can't remember the last time I had my ID checked for using my credit card in the real world, and lots of real world merchants also break VISA rules by forcing a minimum amount to charge.

-doug

I've said it before, a very wise man pointed out to me:

if VISA/MC made rules for the issuing banks that after 2 or 3 chargebacks in the course of a year you had to get a new card, NOONE WOULD DO IT. Amazing, no?

One thing that has always mystified me...if you are disputing a charge you are essentially saying 'someone other than me is using my credit card number without my permission'. By not immediately requesting a new card number you are then admitting you are lying, since if someone had your card number would you not, then, want to make sure they couldn't use it again?

I know that errant companies can levy charges on your account for various crap (for example I get TIME magazine now which I never ordered, ditto with Field and Stream, but when I call they credit me back) but a credit is usually the way to solve those. Rarely is there a need for a chargeback.

If VISA and MC made it clear that after a couple of chargebacks you will be issued a new card, it would save merchants a lot of headache. A merchant rep once fax'ed us a copy of the disputing cardholder's monthly statement since they had it on file. Out of 28 or so charges, 20 of the charges had been reversed. They were all porn sites. The other charges (Walmart, etc) were left intact. TWENTY charges disputed. When we spoke to the card issuing bank the rep said 'oh he wouldn't join a porn site, he's a good boy'.

I shit you not.

Rather than implementing crazy fraud procedures or fining merchants millions, VISA could simply regulate the number of chargebacks allowed on any given card. That'd save them billions a year, and save us major headaches. I still think upgrading their systems is in order, but if you're looking for a quick fix, there you go.

Maybe Kimmy or someone can fill us in, I wonder what % of cardholders generate the majority of the chargebacks? I'd wager it's 20-30% of cardholders generating 80-90% of disputes.

- Titus

Why do you take such an adversarial stance against the adult industry ? Did some one frighten you with a copy of Playboy as a child? You have no credibility on this board and are obviously here for destructive and disruptive purposes, what has Epoch ever done to you ? Why don't you answer the questions asked about your involvement in the Adult Industry if any? Because if you have never been involved how would you know what webmasters do or don't do. Your comments are meaningless tirades of unsubstantiated rhetoric that have no foundation in fact . You add nothing constructive to this thread which you started in an effort to malign online processors.

Tell us who you really are or take a hike

Cindy xx

Hi Cool1g
If you have a link to the story plaese post it

traffic addict - I had to register to read the article. if this link doesn't work, follow the instructions under the link...


forbes article



+ go to: www.forbes.com
+ enter 'paycom' in the search box.
+ 2 articles show up listed by date. you want the current article (haven't read the other - its from 2001 and also deals with online porn billings).
+ they will ask you to register. Nice thing is that you can give a fake email addy if you want - you get instant access.

If we could only get someone from Visa and MC in here who has the power to make decisions (no offense, Psyko), we could really get some work done.

One-click disputes are outrageous. Visa's prominent display of no-fault purchasing on their site is outrageous. It all tells the customer "buy what you want, you'll never have to pay for it!"
It completely puts this ALL on the back of the merchant. And the CC companies are just begging the customers to commit fraud.
Rather than making it harder for them to do so, they're making it EASIER! Whomever thought this was a good way to do business really needs to be shot in the head.

3 chargebacks in a year and you get a new card? Screw that - ONE chargeback and you get a new card. As an honest customer who has had my Visa debit card number stolen twice (without ever losing the physical card) in the past year, you'd better believe that the instant I see ONE fraudulent charge on my account, I want my card cancelled!
And so would any HONEST customer.

Make folks write letters? Hell yes - why not? "Sir all we require is a handwritten letter with your signature stating that you did not make this charge (please be sure to include the charge, date, and amount you're contesting), and we will be happy to credit the money back to your account." No forms to fill out, no disputing letters going back and forth three times - just one simple letter and it *does* get credited back. This is very easy for an HONEST customer to do and takes five minutes plus one stamp. Do you realize how much "friendly fraud" that would cut down on? Then couple it with "For your protection, sir, once we receive that letter, along with crediting your account for the amount contested we will cancel your current credit card and immediately issue you a new one so that no further fraudulent transactions can be made on your account."
Do it! Please! Honest customers would welcome this kind of protection, especially when their "visa" cards are tied directly to their bank account as mine is with my debit card. A fraudulent charge is not just a credit that I can take my time paying back - it's immediately money out of my pocket that could mean the difference between groceries or no groceries.

Why the hell don't the cc companies see it that way? Because they have positioned themselves where they can completely wash their hands of any responsibility AND make money from it!
When fraud makes the cc companies money and makes their customers happy, you're damn right they'll do it!
The customer gets to keep what he ordered (or in the case of porn sites he got to enjoy his membership), so the customer is happy. The cc company takes the money from the merchant and gives it back to the customer, so the cc company doesn't lose anything. Then to top it off, the cc company charges the merchant a FEE for that chargeback - so the cc company MAKES money from the whole fraudulent transaction. Hot diggity look we can push it even further... if we get a bunch of these fees then we can start levying daily fines against the merchant and make even MORE money!

They have no incentive to change things and make it harder for fraud to occur. None whatsoever - and by doing so, they'd actually be *losing* money!
You wonder why "Verified by Visa" has taken so long to come about? It's because it would cut into their damn profits, that's why.

Requiring a hand-written, signed letter and issuing a new card EACH time a transaction is supposedly "fraudulent" would wipe out friendly fraud in a matter of months. It would be SO easy to do and wouldn't even require a huge investment in new technology or serious upgrading of any systems.
They simply don't do it because they like the money they get from collecting those chargeback fees.

Thanks :thumbsup

hmm i wonder if this is part of the reason why my sales with sponsors using epoch as a processor totally dropped off this week...if its not one thing its a fucking other with CC companies these days its seems.

The Epoch team is motivated, bright and savvy when it comes to their business.

I am 100% confident that they will make whatever adjustments are needed. And they have Cybernet's full support and resources in whatever they may need.

After reading this thread, it confirms my pretty open belief that public chat boards for the Adult industry can many times pose more of a threat to the industry than act as helpful resources.

I think many positive days are ahead for those that continue to focus on building their business.

That is what I am doing.

I don't have a case here you mindless twit, what is so hard for you to understand? psychko is right, you have just done a 180 and are trying to play it off as a slight of hand. As usual you presume to know things that you don't, and you make statements you expect other people to take for real when they are blatantly false and definitely made up.

You speak of my company being in financial trouble? MY company is SpotBrokers, that I own in partnership with Backov. You are saying that WE are in financial trouble? That's definitely libel and slander right there missy, unless you have some sort of proof that SB is trouble, so I'll expect a retraction of that statement immediately.

If you think I'm kidding then I suggest you try me.

LOL Cory, chat boards don't make people come off as complete idiots, the THINGS THAT SOME PEOPLE say on chat boards make themselves come off as idiots. Our little friend nevermind is a prime example of it...

Tell Cormac he owes me an email, and I'll owe you guys a round of cocktails in Miami :)

And last but not least for now - anyone who's interested in hearing the REAL story behind the Heartland Payment Systems fiasco and the Robb Evans receivership on that deal, this is a lengthy, detailed article that has way more truth in it than any other porn coverage by the mainstream press that I can recall.

http://riverfronttimes.com/issues/20...l/1/index.html

oh nevermind, where did you disappear to?

I want that retraction, especially after I read about this thread on Luke's column.

Doug,

You know your business well and are lucky that you are able to enforce and adjust your fraud controls to match your sites and business plan. Contact me next week if you wish to discuss Verified by Visa (which we have implemented but not rolled out to the merchants yet). I have another payment method you may want to use with us as well.

Mitch

I am down. So long as cops are not involved. I tend to have a very bad relationship with our friendly civil servants.

I think that jumping to any kind of conclusion, or dragging any company through the mud on a "public" forum is just dangerous and irresponsible. I would know, it has happened to me as much as anyone.

This is one of the main reasons you don't see me around here too often. Some people are serious about making money (I egotistically(sp) assume my place here) and those that are more serious about abject slander.

Just my thoughts. Not intended to harm.

Just for the record, you're way off on a lot of things.

#1 - A chargeback does not mean the card was used without authorization. There are approx. a dozen reasons for chargebacks, including (but not limited to) services/goods not as described, credit not received, recurring charges not cancelled, merchandise not received, etc. Also, it can be something as easy as billing error. I've had multiple customers send me copies of emails stating their recurring membership (online, offline, adult, mainstream) has been cancelled yet they still get billed months later.

#2 - These one-click chargebacks don't mean the chargeback is immediately resolved in the favour of the customer. A chargeback is a complicated process. The customer disputes the charge with his bank. A letter is sent to the merchant's bank informing them of the dispute. In most cases, the merchant has 45 days to "represent" the dispute and provide proof that the customer authorized the charge. In the case of goods and services, it's as simple as showing a signed draft. In the case of internet/phone/mail orders, it's as simple as showing a delivery receipt signed by the customer.

#3 - Internet merchants providing an online service (memberships, selling traffic, content, design, etc) take a risk in doing business online. You cannot have a signed receipt and therefore you cannot prove the cardholder authorized the charge. IP logs are not enough. The only way you can prove the cardholder authorized the charge is by tracing the IP address to the customer's ISP. Then you have to subpoena the ISP and get them to release the logs to prove that the IP address you have was in fact assigned to the cardholder at the time he signed up for your site. Without that, you cannot legally prove the cardholder doing the dispute is the one who signed up for your site. With out legal proof, you're representment of the chargeback will fail.

#4 - I don't know how it works in the US, but in Canada, banks require a signed statement from the customer saying they never authorized the online charge. Some banks (ex. my bank, TD) require the customer to send a letter saying they never authorized the charge. Other banks send an affidavit to the customer which the customer must sign and return within 10 days.

#5 - Banks do not make money from a chargeback. Chargebacks cost an average of $25 to each bank involved in the dispute (the credit card issuer and the merchant's acquirer). Not only are there mandatory fees implemented by Visa Intl and Visa USA/Canada/Whoever, there are also paperwork costs and the cost of employees time. Also, the majority of banks will write-off charges less than $15-$25, which comes from their pocket. And sometimes, if the chargeback drags on for too long (ie errors on the acquirer's or issuer's part), they whole transaction is written off by the issuer.

#6 - A customer using his credit card does not necessarily translate to profit for a credit card company. The bank makes money one of two ways on a credit card. When a customer pays interest and when a customer uses his card at a merchant who acquires at the customer's bank.

#7 - Verified by Visa has taken a while to be implemented because it requires two things. Merchants who are willing and ready to implement it, and banks who are willing and ready to implement it. Once both of the above happen, we need customers who are willing to sign up for the service. FYI, the majority of Canadian banks will offer VbV by the end of this year. CIBC already does and TD will this fall.

#8 - I may not have the power to make decisions, but I do have the power to influence decisions. I implemented a pilot project to cut down friendly fraud at my bank, with the help of many IPSPs here. If it's successful, it's something that may spread.

Psyko
Hey that all makes perfect sense to me, our own merchant account sends us notification of any dispute, non delivery, wrong items, refund requests and fraud. We don't get many but i am guessing out of every 10,000 transactions we get around 4 or 5 letters all are sorted out within days to everyone's satisfaction. so touch wood after running our own merchant account for 3 + years not a single chargeback and no refunds, all it takes is good admin and customer service.
This will always be a problem for webmasters using third party processing as not one single company we have used sends us an e-mail or letter re refund or access or chargeback situations. Ibill use to send an e-mail, but now they have stopped doing that over the last year or so. Without the ability to respond to chargeback claims how the hell are we ever going to help stop them. Members know that for the most part they can get away with it and billing companies in the main always come down against the adult webmaster because of actions of the webmasters who just want to rip off clients. My merchant account experience not only covers the USA but Europe where my company had accounts for 20+ years and i can confirm that banks in the UK also send out letters requesting reply's to possible fraud, chargebacks and undelivered produce. One action billing companies should start to take is to forward these letters re chargeback to each and every client to at least give them the ability to respond. I applaud your innovative actions in Canada and hope that some like minded person in Visa or Mastercard reads this thread and instigates some similar actions here in the states. One final thought is that Visa / Mastercard should start to make a much more visible stand against fraud, i realize this is an expensive undertaking but a few extremely well publicized examples of stamping down on CC fraud would go a long way to make members and webmasters realize that they are on the ball and online transactions can be as safe as in person retail purchases given the right company and the right security measures.

Cindyxx

:2 cents:

Great link Kimmy...still reading it :thumbsup


Expedia.com is going to eat between 4-6 million this year in chargebacks. Nice to know its not just us

In the US you dont have to write a letter.

Still no nevermind?

Yep.

Originally posted by AC Cory

I think many positive days are ahead for those that continue to focus on building their business.

That is what I am doing.


If thats the truth I think you would of took the time to respond to my icq.

ive been lurking here for awhile, but this thread motivated me to register to make a quick comment :)

i notice many of you wave around your e-penis with threats of litigation - you probably should consult a lawyer before doing that, since doing this excessively and without merit is within the definition of battery in most (all?) states, but i'm sure you're aware of that.

second, check up on the definition of libel and slander - this is written, so it's not slander. slander is spoken word.

third, check up on defamation (collectively, libel and slander). you have to prove what was said or written was done with malice.

anyway, thats all. this isn't really directed solely at kimmy, just a pedestrian observation. and im not trying to get involved in the argument since i dont keep up on billing company drama. plus, it looked like nevermind's original comment was in regards to epoch.

Nevermind = Nyquil ?

Thank's for the link that was an interesting read.

5 - Banks do not make money from a chargeback. Chargebacks cost an average of $25 to each bank involved in the dispute (the credit card issuer and the merchant's acquirer). Not only are there mandatory fees implemented by Visa Intl and Visa USA/Canada/Whoever, there are also paperwork costs and the cost of employees time. Also, the majority of banks will write-off charges less than $15-$25, which comes from their pocket. And sometimes, if the chargeback drags on for too long (ie errors on the acquirer's or issuer's part), they whole transaction is written off by the issuer.

I got to tell you I was thinking about this and I dont believe it . I think if the cc companies didnt make money from charge backs. They wouldnt happen, they would of come up with a digital signature everyone could use to protect themselves along time ago. Like the verified by visa cant be used on adult sites if they are making no money on chargebacks and adult websites are charge back heaven. Adult websites would of been the first to use Verified by Visa and it would of been manditory for them to use it. This is based on if it was such a loss for them, good business would say protect yourself but they are not doing that so they are making money on cb's. lol