241–250 of 258 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just force 3d secure, as it shifts the liability to the customer's bank. Most people don't mind opening their banking app on the phone for confirming the transaction if they really want the product for itseprice.
if customer fraudulently claims to their bank that they haven’t received the product, the bank files a chargeback and 3DS does not protect the merchant against it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no gap between those things. Any fraud signal at all either causes people to get blocked, then it's a cross-merchant block, or it doesn't cause people to get blocked, then it's useless.
The gap between “block on first signal” and “ignore the signal entirely” exists, and it is not small.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agree on Stripe support. They're excellent. I don't think Stripe did the right thing here. They can do better to protect their own customers.
stripe serves both sides of the transactions they process, seller and buyer. if buyers were to perceive stripe as being dificult , they might churn. i certainly do this on paypal pages.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
if customer fraudulently claims to their bank that they haven’t received the product, the bank files a chargeback and 3DS does not protect the merchant against it.
most banks refuse chargebacks from 3ds transactions
The point many people have made here is fair. That this is not just about whether Stripe can reverse a specific dispute after the fact; it’s about whether clear evidence of chargeback abuse can help protect the next business. We can do more there.
There is a real balance to strike overall that we are working towards. We do not want a world where a report from one business automatically blocks a buyer across all businesses on Stripe. Legitimate disputes happen, consumer accounts get compromised, and false positives from over-blocking can hurt real buyers.
But there is a gap between “automatically ban this person everywhere” and “thanks for the screenshots” and we want to build solutions here.
We've seen friendly fraud grow significantly, and it's pushed us to evolve Radar from transaction fraud protection into a broader product that protects a business from fraud and abuse across various points in the customer lifecycle, like account signup, trial start, etc. There's a ton more we can do but here's a few things we're working on to help:
- Tracking serial chargeback abusers. We're working on identifying serial abusers of the dispute process across Stripe's network, and surfacing that to businesses before the transaction happens, as well as leverage it in our decisioning.
- Scoring the risk holistically. While we'll keep building fraud and abuse solutions that help at individual points of the customer lifecycle (trial, payment, refund, etc), we're starting to score customer accounts themselves for aggregate abuse risk, leveraging Stripe network data. We're actively working on product-izing this now.
- Helping you win disputes when friendly fraud happens. Friendly fraud can be really hard to capture. We want to prevent as much as possible, but we also want to make it as easy as possible to fight back against friendly fraud when it does happen. Our Smart Disputes product already incorporates friendly fraud insights into the evidence we compile, and we’re seeing early success. We're building more defenses as well as working to enrich merchant-submitted evidence.
Many of our best ideas come directly from our users. If anyone wants to share feedback on Radar, feel free to email me at jacobmeltzer at stripe dot com.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, Stripe did. It is a common misconception that chargebacks are decided by the customer's bank. Actually, there is a multiple cycle back-and-forth process after which they are finally decided by _the network_. I have worked in card issuing for years and I have seen various submissions by merchants I know that use Stripe where I _know_ that they have an absolute winning case under the network rules that Stripe refus…
That’s news to me. Stripe always presents it as if they’re simply a conduit and it’s all in the issuing bank’s hands. Do you have any links/info for learning more about it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Certain 3DS setups would shift fraud liability to the payment network itself. That is the only payment network solution to an entity that will happily sign off on clearly false chargebacks. Then they would themselves be fighting the institution agreeing to sign off on bad chargebacks.
Even when the consumer claims that they didn’t receive the product?
The protection against that is the legal system unfortunately.