Busted... Caught a liar today and stopped a chargeback - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

pornjudge · 10-12-2002, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sexyclicks
Kanada???

He must be European ; Kanada, I am sure prime minister Chretin would not be very happy to see have Canada typed in the wrong way

psyko514 · 10-12-2002, 04:42 PM

Quote:

because noone wants to wait upwards of 10 days to get a new card and file all the complaints.

that's 100% false.
number one, we can get a card to someone for the next business day, or even the same day if they're in the same city.
number two, if this is the second chargeback they do within the span of a few weeks/months, or if there is more than one charge from a merchant (rebills, for example), we give them two choices: 1. keep the card and be liable for those charges and all future charges they don't recognize.
2. cancel the card and have a new one issued.

Quote:

but what good is it if you have a 0% chance of reversal success?

well, tim has said he has a good success rate when he shows the proof... so maybe you need to find a new acquirer (because they DO play a role in the chargeback)

andrew1009: no check cards are available in canada.

pornjudge: yes, i am european by descent

zoink: good point with the interac information. so the USA doesn't have a similar debit card network?

Cal · 10-12-2002, 04:47 PM

psy: As I said, Canada appears to be totally different in their policies, or at least your bank has their act together. Humboldt is one of the largest adult merchant banks in the US, and most other merchant companies go through them for their high-risk, it's just a hopeless battle in many cases. I'd be interested to see if Tim processes only webmaster (b2b) transactions or actual surfer volume, because the two are obviously quite different.

I will tell you that based on US merchant history dating back 4 years and working with 4 different banks/services, there is little to nothing you can do to dispute the majority of customer chargebacks. Sometimes we get checks in the mail for the funds, but our CB ratios are already messed up at that point, so it's little consolation.

If you do make it to CEO of CIBC try to acquire an American presence so we don't have to deal with these awful American card banks ;)

C.

psyko514 · 10-12-2002, 04:50 PM

I work for TD Bank, my girlfriend works for CIBC. And at TD, we already have some american presence with TD Waterhouse. We're working on opening branches in american Walmarts over the next few years.

DragonAss · 10-12-2002, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cal
I will tell you that based on US merchant history dating back 4 years and working with 4 different banks/services, there is little to nothing you can do to dispute the majority of customer chargebacks. Sometimes we get checks in the mail for the funds, but our CB ratios are already messed up at that point, so it's little consolation.

I will second this without hesitation (and I don't go through Humbolt). Even for internet retail where a product is shipped, we're fucked. As Cal mentioned, we can compile a 10 page essay with photos and fingerprints of the customer... but without a signature, the chargback stands. It's gotten to the point where funds in our bank simply drop, we get a letter about it a few days later, and I file it without wasting anymore time than I have to.

The last time I tried to dispute/reverse a chargeback, the customer had complained he never ordered. About 2 weeks later we got another letter from the issuing bank stating he never received his goods. So now we had a customer who didn't receive the goods which he never ordered. Faxing back these two conflicting stories (in writing!), I thought we might have a small chance. Nope.... whammy! The chargeback sitll stood.

A simple PIN number would fix this situation. I can understand a customer not wanting to give out their regular PIN number (I wouldn't)... so a new PIN just for internet transactions would suffice. I know they have the CVV2 crap, but that's still printed on the card itself. I'm thinking a 5 digit IPIN here or something. Have it pass directly through a VISA server which simply comes back with 'pass' or 'fail' -- kinda like AVS but, again, using info that's harder to mine like a PIN.

Anyway, the solutions are there but the banks need to implement them. Otherwise, this game of "easy chargebacks" combined with "the merchant foots all bills" is going to reach critical mass. It's just a matter of time before consumers find out how easily they can chargeback... then, just like Napster, even people who are generally honest will be tempted to indulge. Fuck, I'd like a new HDTV... I'm tempted!

psyko514 · 10-12-2002, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Even for internet retail where a product is shipped, we're fucked.

DragonAss... send the merchandise with "Signature Required" and get the shipping company to give you the copies.

As for your PIN idea, it's already been brought up several times in this thread (why do people reply to a thread without reading half of it?)

here's more info:
Visa USA: http://www.usa.visa.com/microsites/verified/index.html
Visa Canada: http://visa.tor.leoburnett.com/verified/

Cal · 10-12-2002, 06:47 PM

Again the merchant is required to do the CREDIT COMPANY'S job of fraud screening? It costs extra to send things registered mail, FedEx, etc. Why are we the first and last line of defense against cardholders?

The simplest solution is to do what CIBC/TD or whoever does. Make the customer go through a long process of paperwork and signatures to get the money back, and if they dispute more than 2-3 charges within a year (what I think is reasonable) make them get a new card. I guarantee chargebacks would plummet, since noone would want to go through that even if they got a new card within 2-3 days.

The fact is some (enough) banks will credit customers with no proof other than their say-so, they will credit MANY charges on a single statement (or many months of the same company, i.e. a recurring membership for half a year), and they will do nothing to cause the customer inconvenience. No amount of pincodes, increased consumer security, etc will prevent the majority of chargebacks, made by freeloaders who simply don't want to pay for the porn/whatever they have purchased. Only punitive measures by their card-issuing banks, or lengthy paperwork, will stop the widespread consumer fraud that is the Internet. 0% liability, gotta love it!

C.

Snake Doctor · 10-12-2002, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by psyko514
Sure enough, his name came up and he has a membership to PornKing which he started Oct. 10.
Let me tell you, he ended the call as quickly as possible when my co-worker fed him the info and offered to remind him of his username and password...

YOU RAT BASTARD!!!
Now I'm going to have to pay for this fucking membership

psyko514 · 10-12-2002, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Again the merchant is required to do the CREDIT COMPANY'S job of fraud screening? It costs extra to send things registered mail, FedEx, etc. Why are we the first and last line of defense against cardholders?

Why are you the first and last line of defense? Because you're the one doing business with the customer. Visa is only a mode of payment, like cash.

If you own a store and you accept a credit card from a chinese dude who's card says Juan Sanchez, you're responsible for the charge when the real Juan Sanchez claims it as fraud. Same thing if you don't match the signature on the slip to the one on the back of the card. The simplest way to commit fraud is go into a store, buy some clothes, and sign the slip with a completely diff. signature than the one on the back of the card or your application. The majority of merchants hand you back the card right after they swipe without checking the signature.

Obviously, Visa/MC can't do anything to protect against that and it's the merchant's responsibility to do the fraud screening.
How can you prevent it online? Make CVV2 checks mandatory. Sure, some billers ask for CVV2, but they don't check to see if it's valid. Do CVV2 checks and make sure they're actually confirmed, and chargeback rates will drop.

HS-Trixxxia · 10-12-2002, 09:13 PM

In my opinion, every credit card should have a PIN just for online purchases and one for purchases in a store along with a picture on the cards AND when they purchase in a store, they also have to enter their PIN just like a debit card purchase.
This will allow them to have better control of fraudulous transactions - if they lose the card - the finder needs the code - if they manage to get the code - they have to match the picture - not being able to do that - they'd try to go online to purchase - without the online PIN it will be much harder for them to capitalise on the stolen/found credit cards.

As for chargebacks - it's not that easy in Canada because there is more paperwork and there is also a certain amount of time you have to wait to get the form, fill it - they request a copy or proof, investigate, then come back to you with the decision.

The credit card companies should pay a separate company to take the chargeback info, investigate the 'complaint', collect the proof from all parties whether they got what they paid for or not - whether they took advantage of the purchase or not - go back to the credit card company, the merchant and the cardholder with the proof and the decision. (this is basically what Interac does themselves)

Let me tell you, there will be smarter shoppers/surfers and there will be less chargebacks knowing that everyone will know exactly what happened - signature or not.

DragonAss · 10-12-2002, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by psyko514
Why are you the first and last line of defense? Because you're the one doing business with the customer. Visa is only a mode of payment, like cash.

Not like cash. At least with cash the customer needs to come in face to face, have their receipt and return the goods. I miss cash.

Quote:

Originally posted by psyko514
If you own a store and you accept a credit card from a chinese dude who's card says Juan Sanchez, you're responsible for the charge when the real Juan Sanchez claims it as fraud. Same thing if you don't match the signature on the slip to the one on the back of the card. The simplest way to commit fraud is go into a store, buy some clothes, and sign the slip with a completely diff. signature than the one on the back of the card or your application. The majority of merchants hand you back the card right after they swipe without checking the signature.

Obviously, Visa/MC can't do anything to protect against that and it's the merchant's responsibility to do the fraud screening.

Nobody disputes this. However, brick & mortar shops at least have this line of defense. They have an oportunity to protect themselves by obtaining signatures.

Quote:

Originally posted by psyko514
How can you prevent it online? Make CVV2 checks mandatory. Sure, some billers ask for CVV2, but they don't check to see if it's valid. Do CVV2 checks and make sure they're actually confirmed, and chargeback rates will drop.[/B]

I'm not that confident in the CVV2 system. For one thing, it won't matter if the person does charge back... we still don't have a signature. For another, this information is being submitted directly to merchants and so the info has potential to get out. It can also get out if someone's card is stolen.

The only real solution I can see is some type of IPIN (or, similarly, Verified by Visa). Of course, the banks will have to honor the fact that an IPIN (or password) was used during the purchase and not simply honor the chargeback because a signature wasn't obtained. It sounds like Canada has a healthier outlook on the whole situation in general. In America, speaking for myself anyway, the banks have NOT exactly come across as the merchant's friend. Sometimes it feels like we're supposed to lick their collective asses clean for allowing us to conduct business and give them a cut... and this is why I give them the 3-finger salute.

Cal: Requiring a signature for small-ticket items also puts a burdon on the consumer. This has serious potential for hurting sales and causing delivery-related problems (compared to leaving the item like regular mail) all of which has to be weighed against how many chargebacks it may be preventing. Like, how many people are going to arrange their whole day to be somewhere just so they can sign for an X-rated movie?

And, yes, "I'm the real Emmit Smith".

(hmm... that commercial aired like 1-2 years ago... how come I still haven't been notified of any opportunities to implement this system on our site? Is it a Visa USA policy to air commercials for promotions 2 to 3 years before they're available?)

DragonAss · 10-12-2002, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Trixxxia
Just for those who may be more informed with the debit cards - If they work anything like regular debit cards, shouldn't it be harder to charge back if you are using a PIN to confirm the transaction since nobody is *supposed* to have access to your PIN?

I use a check card but I've never come accross a site that takes my PIN number. In fact, I'd be leery if one did and probably forget the order. Your idea about the separate internet PIN (IPIN) is the way to go. That Verified by Visa thing is generally the same concept -- and it has to go through a Visa server directly so it can't get out easily -- but I've no idea what's taking them so long to implement it. They advertised it so long ago that I'd forgotten what it was... and psyko514 says they're now only experimenting on a few sites.

I would assume the order page needs to detect that the card is Visa and only redirect when it is. Then, it either needs to detect a response from Visa or have all the order form variables passed through during this little step.

psyko514: I emailed Visa for more details on being a guinea pig. Do you know what kind of time-line merchants are looking at before this becomes a little more widespread? I know you aren't in the US, but any idea if this will be a defacto chargeback stopper? (sans cases of merchant fraud)

psyko514 · 10-13-2002, 01:18 AM

i'll respond tomorrow when i'm not so drunk and stuuuupid.

BJ · 10-13-2002, 02:00 AM

I will say this:

We receive in the ballpark of 30 chargebacks a month, moslty for recurring orders we process, and we dispute and win 99.9% of them. We are in the US, we use humboldt bank and have good relations with the chargeback department. We do not use fuzzy marketing tactics either. We submit transaction logs, our tos, and proof of delivery and we win almost every time. We do not accept returns on recurring orders, so even if a customer returns a recurring order to us they do not get a refund.

Also, we sell larger ticket items, average transaction is about 149.00.

This whole "we are totally screwed without a signature" thing is bullshit from my experience.

When a customer does win the dispute it is usually a mistake on our behalf.

DragonAss · 10-13-2002, 03:26 AM

PureMeds: My ears are open if you want to share your secrets.

I'd be tickled pink if the regulations have changed, as I haven't attempted to dispute a chargback since 1998 and could've fallen behind the times. As late as 2000, it doesn't look like disputing chargebacks was going very well for most other merchants either (adult or non-adult):

http://www.thestandard.com/article/d...,11974,00.html

From page 2:

"But when dealing with a number instead of a card, the merchant is always liable. While the rules are the same for mail order and telephone orders - "MOTO" in industry parlance - as they are for online transactions, the Internet makes it easier for criminals to put merchants at risk."

It's that first sentence which makes me believe our nuts are in the Visa grip.

DragonAss · 10-13-2002, 03:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by psyko514
i'll respond tomorrow when i'm not so drunk and stuuuupid.

If intelligence and sobriety were requirements for posting, most of our titles would still say "I am probably spamming".

cool1 · 10-13-2002, 04:15 AM

Very interesting thread.

kocur26 · 10-13-2002, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by PureMeds
I will say this:

We receive in the ballpark of 30 chargebacks a month, moslty for recurring orders we process, and we dispute and win 99.9% of them. We are in the US, we use humboldt bank and have good relations with the chargeback department. We do not use fuzzy marketing tactics either. We submit transaction logs, our tos, and proof of delivery and we win almost every time. We do not accept returns on recurring orders, so even if a customer returns a recurring order to us they do not get a refund.

Also, we sell larger ticket items, average transaction is about 149.00.

This whole "we are totally screwed without a signature" thing is bullshit from my experience.

When a customer does win the dispute it is usually a mistake on our behalf.

The difference is you are shipping an item and can provide proof of delivery. That is why you win chargebacks. With a website membership there is no physical product and no proof of delivery.

psyko514 · 10-13-2002, 03:19 PM

ok, i've gotten over my hangover, and I'll reply now

so here goes...

Quote:

I'm not that confident in the CVV2 system. For one thing, it won't matter if the person does charge back... we still don't have a signature. For another, this information is being submitted directly to merchants and so the info has potential to get out. It can also get out if someone's card is stolen.

CVV2 can only be obtained on the card itself.
If the guy lost his card and someone used to sign up for a porn site, then the chargeback is valid, right? Nonetheless, if he lost his card, failed to report it to us within 48 hrs and we can prove that we could have avoided fraud, then he can be held responsible for up to $500. Otherwise, if he's saying he hasn't lost the card and just doesn't recognize the charge, we hold him responsible for it anyways as the CVV2 was confirmed/

Quote:

all of which has to be weighed against how many chargebacks it may be preventing. Like, how many people are going to arrange their whole day to be somewhere just so they can sign for an X-rated movie?

obviously, no plan is foolproof. you have to make certain decisions in a business. so you weigh your choices and see what comes out better. losing money by losing customers or losing money to chargebacks.

Quote:

Do you know what kind of time-line merchants are looking at before this becomes a little more widespread? I know you aren't in the US, but any idea if this will be a defacto chargeback stopper?

I couldn't give you a timeframe unfortunately. I got some training on the program in January or sometime around then. As for it being a defacto chargeback stopper, it could very well be (except for both merchant fraud and cardholder fraud ie. stolen cards or people reporting their cards as stolen to get away from transactions)

psyko514 · 10-13-2002, 08:24 PM

[BUMP]

cause there's so useful info
(yes, i am biased cause i started the thread, but oh well)

prostock · 10-14-2002, 12:33 AM

I am glade to see some one here is giving alot of input on all this

for the charge back matters all i can do if tell on how they done us when we had a retail shop ,
I had a lady go there and buy something from us ,, then trun and charged it back ,,,, it was a braclet that she got from one of our store`s
This we around 6 years ago so thing yes have changed but it was with our bank and we said we was got to fight it and we did and then it went to court ,, the lady had to show up there and i was the one that sold it to her , well before she had ever got there i told the clark what she looked like and to a order book we had there at the shop and showed them what she had got ..

Well to show what a dumm hahahaha this was not only she show up there but she was wearing what she had bought from our shop .. there i thought the bank people was going to kill some one ,, they was hot and the people went off on her ,,, i know that us a item she got and had her sign we was able to fight it and was very lucky ,,,

it just sucks that there isnt a better way we can keep these jerks from doing this ..

I sell content now and i had made the change over . I will only take money three ways

1 CASH !!!!
2 BANK WIRE !!!
3 WESTERN UNION .
SO FARE LOST NOT ONE SALE ,,,, ... BUT I FEEL FOR ALL THE GUYS WITH THE PAYSITES AND THIS BULLS SHIT THEY ALL HAVE TO DEAL WITH ..

nuclei · 10-14-2002, 01:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by psyko514

well, tim has said he has a good success rate when he shows the proof... so maybe you need to find a new acquirer (because they DO play a role in the chargeback)

andrew1009: no check cards are available in canada.

pornjudge: yes, i am european by descent

zoink: good point with the interac information. so the USA doesn't have a similar debit card network?

We have accounts at 4 banks here, 2 of them national. All of them will tell you the exact same thing regarding killing a debit card and getting a replacement. generally up to 10 days, and they DO make you file paperwork to do so.

nuclei · 10-14-2002, 01:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by psyko514

Why are you the first and last line of defense? Because you're the one doing business with the customer. Visa is only a mode of payment, like cash.

I understand this part form Visa's standpoint, tho I still disagree that it ALL has to fall on us, when your systems should be setup far better as you have many more resources available to you and your gateways.

Make CVV2 checks mandatory. Sure, some billers ask for CVV2, but they don't check to see if it's valid. Do CVV2 checks and make sure they're actually confirmed, and chargeback rates will drop.

This is a load of shit. I have seen many many password sites that carry not only the card holders full details, but also the cvv2.

Brown Bear · 10-14-2002, 01:15 AM

another good thing about debit cards is that when people use them to signup for a site, the money comes out of their bank account immediately, so this avoids the shocking credit card bill in the mail 30 days later when people don't even remember what the hell they spent $39.99 on

ReFresh · 10-14-2002, 01:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by pine
Cal, you have hit the proverbial nail on the head.

I've NEVER been able to understand why Visa/MC are so willing to let their customers "charge back" without any questions at all. Essentially they are saying "No valid purhcases have ever been made over the Internet".

Pskyo, enlighten us. Why are the major CC banks so quick to let their consumers perpetrate fraud?

My favorite excuse "Oh, I didn't know I was signing up". As if the join page, the username selection, AND TYPING IN YOUR CREDIT CARD NUMBER wasn't a big clue.

That can actually happen because of the fucks that put "FREE! We just need your credit card to verify your age", then they make it damn near impossible to find the part in the legalease that says "Oh, but we're going to charge you next month and forever after that".

If free actually meant free... But some people are too stupid to know NOTHING'S FUCKING FREE.

psyko514 · 10-14-2002, 07:30 AM

Quote:

This is a load of shit. I have seen many many password sites that carry not only the card holders full details, but also the cvv2.

look at an ibill sign up form. they ask for cvv2. but they got this little text also:
The Card ID is used to verify that you have possession of the credit card you are attempting to use. If there is not a Card ID number on the back of your card then please leave the field blank.

my card has a cvv2. when i tested it on a site, i didn't put in a cvv2. my signup went thru no problem. now i gotta try it with a wrong cvv2 and see what happens.

Cal · 10-14-2002, 10:10 AM

When we enabled CVV2 checking our declines went up maybe 20-30%. Some guys will literally try 20 different 3 number combos before giving up (who knows why). When we enabled ADDRESS and ZIP checking as well, declines went through the roof. A testament to how stupid and dishonest most surfers are, I suppose.

Just to let you guys know, saying AGE VERIFICATION and asking for a credit card number is actually against the VISA Int'l regs. Every site who uses that disclaimer is in direct violation, VISA considers that grounds for immediate termination.

C.

Juge · 10-14-2002, 10:17 AM

Great job!

tony286 · 10-14-2002, 10:46 AM

I called Ibill yesterday to say if I am visable to Visa now.I want the charge back info so I can defend myself, since Visa is watching my charge backs. I worked for a site a few years ago ,that had their own merchant account and 98% of charge backs were bullshit. I told ibill this and they said I can recommend it to my salesperson. The one that was supposed to call me back from two weeks ago lol. Visa could give pins to everybody on the net , they dont want to do that so they can make money on the charge backs. Its all a cash grab.

HS-Trixxxia · 10-14-2002, 11:32 AM

I have other ideas to add to online Credit Card security, too bad Visa/MasterCard and the rest of the CCMob won't implement it. (spelling corrected)

Let me recap:

1) CVV2 Obligatory (& Address etc) - & verified by CC servers
2) PIN for regular purchases - IPIN for online purchases

Additions to protect all involved:

3) An additional code - which changes every month & is on the statement ( this would confirm that the person making the purchase has seen the statement)
4) Putting the mother's maiden name (you have to put this on your application)
5) Maybe give a different card number for online purchases and putting a fraction of the authorized limit for online purchases.
Big ticket items need a telephone call & info verified by the CC center to unblock the funds.

** Most importantly - anyone who disputes an online purchase and is proven to have benefitted from the purchase/charge - gets fined - to compensate the merchant.**

So anybody who wants to try online fraud:

1) Has to have the actual card with them to have the CVV2 info
Has to have the person's billing address
2) Has to have the IPIN number
3) Has to have received a statement in order to have the monthly code to purchase.
4) Has to know the cardholder's mother's maiden name
5) If a different number is given for online purchases, the *fraud* artist - even if he's gotten through all the other barriers, he won't have the Virtual Credit Card number and won't know the spending limit.
6) If people would get fined for disputing something to the full extent (not having contacted to say they remembered what the purchase was) and they did benefit from the product or service or membership, there would be alot less bogus disputes.

The other point I'd want to make is I know that people will say that this is going too far - but in the end, it'll give surfers more of a secure feeling of shopping online.

This would also have to be implemented simultaneously worldwide, not at card renewal.

Ok....everyone tell me to shut up now

psyko514 · 10-14-2002, 01:38 PM

Quote:

All of them will tell you the exact same thing regarding killing a debit card and getting a replacement. generally up to 10 days

if you tell your bank you need it asap, they'll get it to you asap. threaten to close your account if they don't. i've gotten cards to customers across the country overnight. as for a debit card, they cancel one and the bank hands you a new one right away, and then assigns that card number as yours.

Quote:

When we enabled CVV2 checking our declines went up maybe 20-30%. Some guys will literally try 20 different 3 number combos before giving up (who knows why). When we enabled ADDRESS and ZIP checking as well, declines went through the roof. A testament to how stupid and dishonest most surfers are, I suppose.

Just to let you guys know, saying AGE VERIFICATION and asking for a credit card number is actually against the VISA Int'l regs. Every site who uses that disclaimer is in direct violation, VISA considers that grounds for immediate termination.

a lot of people wanna make their internet surfing as anonymous as possible... i personally think checking all that shit is great as long as the checks work. as for age verification... visit any site billed by supabill. check out http://www.consumerripoffreport.com and see how many people complained about the age ver. thing.

psyko514 · 10-14-2002, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Trixxxia
[B]I have other ideas to add to online Credit Card security, too bad Visa/MasterCard and the rest of the CCMob won't implement it. (spelling corrected)

Let me recap:

1) CVV2 Obligatory (& Address etc) - & verified by CC servers
2) PIN for regular purchases - IPIN for online purchases

CVV2 verification is the merchant's choice... and it's in their best interests.
IPINs are on their way.

Quote:

3) An additional code - which changes every month & is on the statement ( this would confirm that the person making the purchase has seen the statement)

The majority of people don't check thier statement, or check it weeks/month later.

Quote:

4) Putting the mother's maiden name (you have to put this on your application)

you don't have to put it... and verification of that would be difficult. often, especially in the case of asians/europeans, they don't know the proper spelling and might spell it differently. some people put a password instead, or their wife's maiden name.

Quote:

5) Maybe give a different card number for online purchases and putting a fraction of the authorized limit for online purchases.

a lot of paranoid people already do that. but that can be a hassle. what if you want to buy something large online?

Quote:

Big ticket items need a telephone call & info verified by the CC center to unblock the funds.

in general, that already happens. Visa has a detection system called Falcon which monitors accounts for suspicious activity. if you've had the account for 5 years and only spend 200$ a month then you try and buy a plasma tv for 12k, the falcon system will decline the transaction and block your card until you call us or we can reach you. similarily, if you never go overseas and then there's a purchase in europe, we'll block it. or if there's several transaction attempted online, on the phone or in an automated system (gas pumps, pay phones, etc), falcon will block your card. master card also has a similar system.

Quote:

** Most importantly - anyone who disputes an online purchase and is proven to have benefitted from the purchase/charge - gets fined - to compensate the merchant.**

if we prove a charge is theirs, they have to pay the charge, interest and a fee for the chargeback. you can't "fine" a customer.

Quote:

5) If a different number is given for online purchases, the *fraud* artist - even if he's gotten through all the other barriers, he won't have the Virtual Credit Card number and won't know the spending limit.

getting a credit number isn't that hard. a cc# generator will still figure out an online cc#, and as soon as he uses the number online, a hacker can get it. also, fraudsters *rarely* know the limit, or even if the card is still good. often, they test the card in a gas pump or pay phone a few times first.

psyko514 · 10-14-2002, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tony404
Visa could give pins to everybody on the net , they dont want to do that so they can make money on the charge backs. Its all a cash grab.

you sir are disillusioned. visa does not make a cent in chargebacks. it costs the issuing bank $25 to do a chargeback, plus the labor of the employee taking care of the file, plus the paperwork. if the chargeback is resolved in favour of the cardholder, visa then loses the comission they would have made on the sale, plus any interests that may have possibly accrued on the account. they also lose customers if the chargeback process takes "too long"

tony286 · 10-14-2002, 03:28 PM

I doubt that if it wasnt a cash grab and this big paper hassle they would fix the system. Ipin would be net wide but its not so that means it benefits them to have things the way they are . Big company like Visa if it was costing them all kinds of money as you state to do cb's they would be harder to do and a system would be in place to take away fraud but thats not the case so someone is benefiting.

DragonAss · 10-14-2002, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by psyko514
Visa does not make a cent in chargebacks. it costs the issuing bank $25 to do a chargeback, plus the labor of the employee taking care of the file, plus the paperwork.

Where does the $30 chargeback fee (paid by merchants) ultimately go then?

You seems to say here it does not go to:

1) Visa
2) Issuing Bank (they pay $25 too?)

We know it doesn't go to the mechant, they pay it:
3) Merchant

... nor to the consumer:
4) Card Holder

Which leaves the acquiring bank:
5) Acquiring Bank

Are you suggesting that the acquiring banks make money here or the $30 chargeback fee merchants pay goes entirely to the issuing bank (which covers their $25)? That would still leave a $5 profit for someone... if we're to believe they have $50/hr employees handling 30 minutes of paperwork. I can't see the paperwork taking more than 15 minutes personally, especially for these small-ticket items, but perhaps there's more to it than the 1 to 3 pages I'm sent.

Joel · 10-14-2002, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by psyko514
brownbear... i honestly couldn't tell you as no canadian banks offer visa or mastercard debit cards. but i too have heard that they're doing really well. i have a paypal debit card and use it all the time.

There is only one Australian bank that I know of that offers Visa debit cards. I have one and it works great.

BrutalMaster · 10-14-2002, 08:50 PM

I've NEVER been able to understand why Visa/MC are so willing to let their customers "charge back" without any questions at all. Essentially they are saying "No valid purhcases have ever been made over the Internet".

The reason is simple, a few years ago VISA and MC were clearly concerned that people were not buying into online commerce . They both ran huge ad campaigns assuring their cardholders that online transactions are safe. With that in mind, it's pretty clear they would much rather turn a blind eye to a thousand scumbags who are charging back legitimate online transactions than have one truly fraudulant transaction go through.

In a sense, they used the online adult world as the testing ground, to get people used to charging online. I've never seen any stats on this, but I'd be willing to bet the first thing a lot of people bought over the 'net was an adult site.

I was in a bar in NYC a few months ago, and this asshole standing a few feet away was "bragging" to some girl he was with that he had six credit cards and bought all sorts of things over the 'net and never paid for any of them. Just rotated the cards and then charged back. My girlfriend was with me and she wanted to kill the jerk

This is a great thread and I certainly appreciate knowing someone somewhere is trying to do something about it!

Brutal

BuggyG · 10-14-2002, 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by psyko514
Chargeback policies are set by Visa International, not by issuers, so they're the same worldwide.
For an unrecognized internet transaction, the cardholder must first send us a letter stating he did not authorize these charges. Now it wouldn't be a good business practice to outright call every cardholder a liar, would it? So we have to take his word for it.
The company that gets chargedback has every right to representment, which is basically saying "Yes, he did authorize these charges", but there are fees for that and it's usually less expensive and easier for the merchant to say "charge us back" then it is to go into representment...

and when we see more than three unauthorized charges within the span of a few months, we consider it as fraudulent use of the card and we cancel the card and send a new one.

not many people call up and say "i never authorized these charges, please credit me back". they usually say "i never authorized these, please give me a new number"

Ok..am a newcomer here and just was reading the posts. Try to see what was going on, and have to just say. Seriously, wouldn't you logically think someone mmight have ya card if ya get 20 transactions that you say you did not do? Anybody would think somethign wrong and cut their card up and call the CC company and get new # and card. Logibcally speaking and we all know. Not many think that way. But have to say...sounds like ya know ya stuff and get the peopel that try to scam ya. NISHE!!!

psyko514 · 10-15-2002, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DragonAss
Are you suggesting that the acquiring banks make money here or the $30 chargeback fee merchants pay goes entirely to the issuing bank (which covers their $25)? That would still leave a $5 profit for someone... if we're to believe they have $50/hr employees handling 30 minutes of paperwork. I can't see the paperwork taking more than 15 minutes personally, especially for these small-ticket items, but perhaps there's more to it than the 1 to 3 pages I'm sent.

there's definetly more to it than 15 mins of paperwork. i personally get paid 15$ an hour. a typical chargeback call takes me close to 10 mins, which is slightly over $2 for my time alone. i initiate the chargeback, and it then gets assigned to a chargeback agent who is in charge of that case. anything to do with the chargeback is handled by that specific agent (who is making upwards of $20/hr). this includes receiving and looking over faxes, scanning them for archives, contact the cardholder if there are any problems (fax/letter illegible, missing information, past the time limit, etc). another phone call to the cardholder can take anywhere from 5mins to 30mins depending on how much of an asshole he is. then there's the paperwork that has to be filed, letters that have to be sent, the toll free phone bill, the toll free fax machine, etc. it all adds up.

10-13-2002, 02:00 AM	#64
BJ Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: asia Posts: 5,590	I will say this: We receive in the ballpark of 30 chargebacks a month, moslty for recurring orders we process, and we dispute and win 99.9% of them. We are in the US, we use humboldt bank and have good relations with the chargeback department. We do not use fuzzy marketing tactics either. We submit transaction logs, our tos, and proof of delivery and we win almost every time. We do not accept returns on recurring orders, so even if a customer returns a recurring order to us they do not get a refund. Also, we sell larger ticket items, average transaction is about 149.00. This whole "we are totally screwed without a signature" thing is bullshit from my experience. When a customer does win the dispute it is usually a mistake on our behalf. Last edited by BJ; 10-13-2002 at 02:02 AM..

10-13-2002, 04:15 AM	#67
cool1 sex is good Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Carman, MB Canada Posts: 24,939	Very interesting thread. __________________

10-14-2002, 12:33 AM	#71
prostock On probation Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: not telling you , the exwife might find me Posts: 4,160	I am glade to see some one here is giving alot of input on all this for the charge back matters all i can do if tell on how they done us when we had a retail shop , I had a lady go there and buy something from us ,, then trun and charged it back ,,,, it was a braclet that she got from one of our store`s This we around 6 years ago so thing yes have changed but it was with our bank and we said we was got to fight it and we did and then it went to court ,, the lady had to show up there and i was the one that sold it to her , well before she had ever got there i told the clark what she looked like and to a order book we had there at the shop and showed them what she had got .. Well to show what a dumm hahahaha this was not only she show up there but she was wearing what she had bought from our shop .. there i thought the bank people was going to kill some one ,, they was hot and the people went off on her ,,, i know that us a item she got and had her sign we was able to fight it and was very lucky ,,, it just sucks that there isnt a better way we can keep these jerks from doing this .. I sell content now and i had made the change over . I will only take money three ways 1 CASH !!!! 2 BANK WIRE !!! 3 WESTERN UNION . SO FARE LOST NOT ONE SALE ,,,, ... BUT I FEEL FOR ALL THE GUYS WITH THE PAYSITES AND THIS BULLS SHIT THEY ALL HAVE TO DEAL WITH .. __________________ ICQ # :158519717

10-14-2002, 01:15 AM	#74
Brown Bear Confirmed User Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 4,982	another good thing about debit cards is that when people use them to signup for a site, the money comes out of their bank account immediately, so this avoids the shocking credit card bill in the mail 30 days later when people don't even remember what the hell they spent $39.99 on __________________ Surrender all your independent thinking and Click Here for re-programming.

10-14-2002, 11:32 AM	#80
HS-Trixxxia Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Montreal Canada Posts: 2,946	I have other ideas to add to online Credit Card security, too bad Visa/MasterCard and the rest of the CCMob won't implement it. (spelling corrected) Let me recap: 1) CVV2 Obligatory (& Address etc) - & verified by CC servers 2) PIN for regular purchases - IPIN for online purchases Additions to protect all involved: 3) An additional code - which changes every month & is on the statement ( this would confirm that the person making the purchase has seen the statement) 4) Putting the mother's maiden name (you have to put this on your application) 5) Maybe give a different card number for online purchases and putting a fraction of the authorized limit for online purchases. Big ticket items need a telephone call & info verified by the CC center to unblock the funds. Most importantly - anyone who disputes an online purchase and is proven to have benefitted from the purchase/charge - gets fined - to compensate the merchant. So anybody who wants to try online fraud: 1) Has to have the actual card with them to have the CVV2 info Has to have the person's billing address 2) Has to have the IPIN number 3) Has to have received a statement in order to have the monthly code to purchase. 4) Has to know the cardholder's mother's maiden name 5) If a different number is given for online purchases, the fraud artist - even if he's gotten through all the other barriers, he won't have the Virtual Credit Card number and won't know the spending limit. 6) If people would get fined for disputing something to the full extent (not having contacted to say they remembered what the purchase was) and they did benefit from the product or service or membership, there would be alot less bogus disputes. The other point I'd want to make is I know that people will say that this is going too far - but in the end, it'll give surfers more of a secure feeling of shopping online. This would also have to be implemented simultaneously worldwide, not at card renewal. Ok....everyone tell me to shut up now Last edited by HS-Trixxxia; 10-14-2002 at 11:33 AM..

10-12-2002, 04:47 PM	#53
Cal Registered User Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Orange County, CA Posts: 72	psy: As I said, Canada appears to be totally different in their policies, or at least your bank has their act together. Humboldt is one of the largest adult merchant banks in the US, and most other merchant companies go through them for their high-risk, it's just a hopeless battle in many cases. I'd be interested to see if Tim processes only webmaster (b2b) transactions or actual surfer volume, because the two are obviously quite different. I will tell you that based on US merchant history dating back 4 years and working with 4 different banks/services, there is little to nothing you can do to dispute the majority of customer chargebacks. Sometimes we get checks in the mail for the funds, but our CB ratios are already messed up at that point, so it's little consolation. If you do make it to CEO of CIBC try to acquire an American presence so we don't have to deal with these awful American card banks ;) C.

10-12-2002, 04:50 PM	#54
psyko514 See sig. Join Epic Cash. Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Montreal, Quebec. ICQ: 214702014 Posts: 22,366	I work for TD Bank, my girlfriend works for CIBC. And at TD, we already have some american presence with TD Waterhouse. We're working on opening branches in american Walmarts over the next few years.

10-12-2002, 06:47 PM	#57
Cal Registered User Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Orange County, CA Posts: 72	Again the merchant is required to do the CREDIT COMPANY'S job of fraud screening? It costs extra to send things registered mail, FedEx, etc. Why are we the first and last line of defense against cardholders? The simplest solution is to do what CIBC/TD or whoever does. Make the customer go through a long process of paperwork and signatures to get the money back, and if they dispute more than 2-3 charges within a year (what I think is reasonable) make them get a new card. I guarantee chargebacks would plummet, since noone would want to go through that even if they got a new card within 2-3 days. The fact is some (enough) banks will credit customers with no proof other than their say-so, they will credit MANY charges on a single statement (or many months of the same company, i.e. a recurring membership for half a year), and they will do nothing to cause the customer inconvenience. No amount of pincodes, increased consumer security, etc will prevent the majority of chargebacks, made by freeloaders who simply don't want to pay for the porn/whatever they have purchased. Only punitive measures by their card-issuing banks, or lengthy paperwork, will stop the widespread consumer fraud that is the Internet. 0% liability, gotta love it! C.

10-12-2002, 09:13 PM	#60
HS-Trixxxia Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Montreal Canada Posts: 2,946	In my opinion, every credit card should have a PIN just for online purchases and one for purchases in a store along with a picture on the cards AND when they purchase in a store, they also have to enter their PIN just like a debit card purchase. This will allow them to have better control of fraudulous transactions - if they lose the card - the finder needs the code - if they manage to get the code - they have to match the picture - not being able to do that - they'd try to go online to purchase - without the online PIN it will be much harder for them to capitalise on the stolen/found credit cards. As for chargebacks - it's not that easy in Canada because there is more paperwork and there is also a certain amount of time you have to wait to get the form, fill it - they request a copy or proof, investigate, then come back to you with the decision. The credit card companies should pay a separate company to take the chargeback info, investigate the 'complaint', collect the proof from all parties whether they got what they paid for or not - whether they took advantage of the purchase or not - go back to the credit card company, the merchant and the cardholder with the proof and the decision. (this is basically what Interac does themselves) Let me tell you, there will be smarter shoppers/surfers and there will be less chargebacks knowing that everyone will know exactly what happened - signature or not.

10-13-2002, 01:18 AM	#63
psyko514 See sig. Join Epic Cash. Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Montreal, Quebec. ICQ: 214702014 Posts: 22,366	i'll respond tomorrow when i'm not so drunk and stuuuupid.

10-13-2002, 03:26 AM	#65
DragonAss Confirmed User Join Date: May 2001 Location: Philly, PA USA Posts: 206	PureMeds: My ears are open if you want to share your secrets. I'd be tickled pink if the regulations have changed, as I haven't attempted to dispute a chargback since 1998 and could've fallen behind the times. As late as 2000, it doesn't look like disputing chargebacks was going very well for most other merchants either (adult or non-adult): http://www.thestandard.com/article/d...,11974,00.html From page 2: "But when dealing with a number instead of a card, the merchant is always liable. While the rules are the same for mail order and telephone orders - "MOTO" in industry parlance - as they are for online transactions, the Internet makes it easier for criminals to put merchants at risk." It's that first sentence which makes me believe our nuts are in the Visa grip.

10-13-2002, 08:24 PM	#70
psyko514 See sig. Join Epic Cash. Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Montreal, Quebec. ICQ: 214702014 Posts: 22,366	[BUMP] cause there's so useful info (yes, i am biased cause i started the thread, but oh well)

10-14-2002, 10:10 AM	#77
Cal Registered User Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Orange County, CA Posts: 72	When we enabled CVV2 checking our declines went up maybe 20-30%. Some guys will literally try 20 different 3 number combos before giving up (who knows why). When we enabled ADDRESS and ZIP checking as well, declines went through the roof. A testament to how stupid and dishonest most surfers are, I suppose. Just to let you guys know, saying AGE VERIFICATION and asking for a credit card number is actually against the VISA Int'l regs. Every site who uses that disclaimer is in direct violation, VISA considers that grounds for immediate termination. C.

10-14-2002, 10:17 AM	#78
Juge Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2001 Posts: 1,917	Great job!

10-14-2002, 10:46 AM	#79
tony286 lurker Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: atlanta Posts: 57,021	I called Ibill yesterday to say if I am visable to Visa now.I want the charge back info so I can defend myself, since Visa is watching my charge backs. I worked for a site a few years ago ,that had their own merchant account and 98% of charge backs were bullshit. I told ibill this and they said I can recommend it to my salesperson. The one that was supposed to call me back from two weeks ago lol. Visa could give pins to everybody on the net , they dont want to do that so they can make money on the charge backs. Its all a cash grab.

10-14-2002, 03:28 PM	#84
tony286 lurker Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: atlanta Posts: 57,021	I doubt that if it wasnt a cash grab and this big paper hassle they would fix the system. Ipin would be net wide but its not so that means it benefits them to have things the way they are . Big company like Visa if it was costing them all kinds of money as you state to do cb's they would be harder to do and a system would be in place to take away fraud but thats not the case so someone is benefiting. Last edited by tony299; 10-14-2002 at 03:30 PM..

10-14-2002, 08:50 PM	#87
BrutalMaster Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: New England, US Posts: 256	I've NEVER been able to understand why Visa/MC are so willing to let their customers "charge back" without any questions at all. Essentially they are saying "No valid purhcases have ever been made over the Internet". The reason is simple, a few years ago VISA and MC were clearly concerned that people were not buying into online commerce . They both ran huge ad campaigns assuring their cardholders that online transactions are safe. With that in mind, it's pretty clear they would much rather turn a blind eye to a thousand scumbags who are charging back legitimate online transactions than have one truly fraudulant transaction go through. In a sense, they used the online adult world as the testing ground, to get people used to charging online. I've never seen any stats on this, but I'd be willing to bet the first thing a lot of people bought over the 'net was an adult site. I was in a bar in NYC a few months ago, and this asshole standing a few feet away was "bragging" to some girl he was with that he had six credit cards and bought all sorts of things over the 'net and never paid for any of them. Just rotated the cards and then charged back. My girlfriend was with me and she wanted to kill the jerk This is a great thread and I certainly appreciate knowing someone somewhere is trying to do something about it! Brutal __________________ "Don't worry, I won't bite...oh, wait a minute, I forgot, yes I will." www.brutalmaster.com