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

It's not the $7, but the principle

antti.vilpponen.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–10 of 67 posts

Re: It's not the $7, but the principle

#3

Post by gommm »

bartl wrote: post #2

This might be subject to a chargeback. After all, they "sold", and charged, you something without your consent, didn't they?

I'm not sure how it is in Finland but here in France it's very difficult to do a chargeback... I tried once for something that was never delivered and my bank blew me off. It's nowhere as easy as in the US.

It's not even that that I lost the chargeback, it's that they didn't even let me initiate it.

Re: It's not the $7, but the principle

#4

Post by dylz »

gommm wrote: post #3
bartl wrote: post #2

This might be subject to a chargeback. After all, they "sold", and charged, you something without your consent, didn't they?

I'm not sure how it is in Finland but here in France it's very difficult to do a chargeback... I tried once for something that was never delivered and my bank blew me off. It's nowhere as easy as in the US. It's not even that that I lost the chargeback, it's that they didn't even let me initiate it.

I use AmEx in the US and I have never lost a chargeback once. But then again, I don't abuse it..

Re: It's not the $7, but the principle

#8

Post by UnoriginalGuy »

PeterisP wrote: post #6
cabirum wrote: post #5

It's not like they intentionally "tricked you" into buying something, it was just a bug in a web form. Bugs happen.

But you're responsible for your bugs, so it's their job to offer easy refunds in that case.

Indeed, but the article doesn't say they refused a refund. The bug seems deeper than just their front end, their back-end is showing the "wrong" (actually right) subscription selected, but their payment provider clearly charged for the wrong one.

So I guess they now need to consolidate their payments received (likely via a payment provider) with their own system to see if this or any other orders are inconsistent.

They should refund the OP, and I suspect we'll see them do just that. But they also need to both fix their front end but also add automated systems to consolidate payments with orders to see if they match.

Re: It's not the $7, but the principle

#9

Post by mikkom »

cabirum wrote: post #5

It's not like they intentionally "tricked you" into buying something, it was just a bug in a web form. Bugs happen.

There is also a branch of optimization aimed to produce "bugs" like this. I wouldn't be too surprised if they knew about this and just don't want to fix it as it produces orders.

http://searchengineland.com/evil-conversion-when-optimizatio...

Re: It's not the $7, but the principle

#10

Post by MayankGoyal »

gommm wrote: post #3
bartl wrote: post #2

This might be subject to a chargeback. After all, they "sold", and charged, you something without your consent, didn't they?

I'm not sure how it is in Finland but here in France it's very difficult to do a chargeback... I tried once for something that was never delivered and my bank blew me off. It's nowhere as easy as in the US. It's not even that that I lost the chargeback, it's that they didn't even let me initiate it.

You'll need to jump through some hoops for that. Here in India, the bank's credit card department head didn't even know about chargebacks, and didn't believe me even after I showed him the Visa Regulations on Visa's website. I had to call customer care over 10 times and talk to the supervisors nearly every time before I found a person who was able to send me the chargeback form. Hell, the bank's local branch didn't believe me even after seeing the chargeback form.

After I got the chargeback form though, dealing with the Chargeback Department was a breeze.

Post reply on HN