Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook Let Kids Rack Up Charges on Parents' Credit Cards

revealnews.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 193 posts

Re: Facebook Let Kids Rack Up Charges on Parents' Credit Cards

#41

Post by [deleted] »

om2 wrote: post #40
DanielDent wrote: post #29

"Friendly fraud" is not a Facebook-invented term. It's a term used and understood by card issuers, acquirers, and merchants. Friendly fraud encompasses: - Dissatisfied customers who don't find refuge in a refund policy/process - Customers who are embarrassed by their purchases. This situation is commonly triggered when a significant other reads a credit card statement. - Customers who spend beyond their means, and th…

That’s not how I’ve heard the term used. The meaning I’m familiar with is “person closely known to the card holder incurs a charge that isn’t really authorized”, for example you might have access to their computer but aren’t supposed to use their saved credit card info for purchases. For example, companies ask for the ability for websites to do biometric authentication via TouchID/FaceID to combat friendly fraud. Tha…

[deleted]

Re: Facebook Let Kids Rack Up Charges on Parents' Credit Cards

#43

Post by nategri »

DanielDent wrote: post #29

"Friendly fraud" is not a Facebook-invented term. It's a term used and understood by card issuers, acquirers, and merchants. Friendly fraud encompasses: - Dissatisfied customers who don't find refuge in a refund policy/process - Customers who are embarrassed by their purchases. This situation is commonly triggered when a significant other reads a credit card statement. - Customers who spend beyond their means, and th…

Wikipedia seems to agree with you:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chargeback_fraud

Re: Facebook Let Kids Rack Up Charges on Parents' Credit Cards

#44

Post by dang »

DamnInteresting wrote: post #34
sctb wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18937640

Hmm, that's an earlier story from the same site announcing that the documents are expected to be released, whereas this link is about what the released documents actually revealed. They are related links, but not quite the same.

Ok, we'll de-dupe it.

Re: Facebook Let Kids Rack Up Charges on Parents' Credit Cards

#45

Post by microcolonel »

DanielDent wrote: post #29

"Friendly fraud" is not a Facebook-invented term. It's a term used and understood by card issuers, acquirers, and merchants. Friendly fraud encompasses: - Dissatisfied customers who don't find refuge in a refund policy/process - Customers who are embarrassed by their purchases. This situation is commonly triggered when a significant other reads a credit card statement. - Customers who spend beyond their means, and th…

> I find it weird the way Facebook seems to be using the term here. These are charges that were never contemplated by the cardholder. There is no "buyer's remorse" dimension.

It's my understanding that it's the responsibility of the cardholder to "contemplate" the consequences of delegating charges to others. What Facebook maybe should do in this case is make it painfully obvious that other users of one's Facebook account could incur additional charges without reentering the payment card information.

Re: Facebook Let Kids Rack Up Charges on Parents' Credit Cards

#48

Post by microcolonel »

Just don't save payment card information in your Facebook account which you share with an irresponsible minor. If you primarily blame Facebook for this problem, you are failing as a parent.

The fact that it is technically possible for Facebook to validate some purchases and prevent some instances of this problem does not make it Facebook's responsibility not to do something practically equivalent to handing your wallet to a toddler at a carnival.

Re: Facebook Let Kids Rack Up Charges on Parents' Credit Cards

#49

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

wl wrote: post #32
DanielDent wrote: post #29

"Friendly fraud" is not a Facebook-invented term. It's a term used and understood by card issuers, acquirers, and merchants. Friendly fraud encompasses: - Dissatisfied customers who don't find refuge in a refund policy/process - Customers who are embarrassed by their purchases. This situation is commonly triggered when a significant other reads a credit card statement. - Customers who spend beyond their means, and th…

> Dissatisfied customers who don't find refuge in a refund policy/process It's dangerous to label such things as fraud. Chargebacks are a consumer protection mechanism of last resort as well as a remedy for unauthorized charges. If a merchant doesn't deliver what they promised and doesn't issue the appropriate refund, the merchant is the one engaging in fraud.

As any seller on eBay can attest, it's definitely possible to deliver exactly what you promise and still have the customer demand a refund or chargeback.

Re: Facebook Let Kids Rack Up Charges on Parents' Credit Cards

#50

Post by crysin »

wl wrote: post #32
DanielDent wrote: post #29

"Friendly fraud" is not a Facebook-invented term. It's a term used and understood by card issuers, acquirers, and merchants. Friendly fraud encompasses: - Dissatisfied customers who don't find refuge in a refund policy/process - Customers who are embarrassed by their purchases. This situation is commonly triggered when a significant other reads a credit card statement. - Customers who spend beyond their means, and th…

> Dissatisfied customers who don't find refuge in a refund policy/process It's dangerous to label such things as fraud. Chargebacks are a consumer protection mechanism of last resort as well as a remedy for unauthorized charges. If a merchant doesn't deliver what they promised and doesn't issue the appropriate refund, the merchant is the one engaging in fraud.

Chargebacks are a mechanism that can definitely be abused and in those cases would be fraud. I don't see that as dangerous at all. Heck, in posts on these forums people brag about using chargebacks to cancel services because they didn't want to call or follow the guidelines set by the merchant to cancel an account. Whether they're in the right or not that's most certainly bordering abuse of the system.
Post reply on HN