Live data from Hacker News

My Recent Experience With Square

jasongullickson.posterous.com

31–40 of 96 posts

Re: My Recent Experience With Square

#33
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure why you think it is a good idea to let random outside parties dip into his business's working capital? Ooops sorry about withdrawing $10,000 instead of $100. What's a decimal place among friends? Hope you can still make that tax payment and payroll while we futzy around on our end.

The alternative isn't "not dipping in working capital", the alternative is "freezing all received funds for a month, all the time". Chargebacks happen; and you shouldn't expect that you will get paid for 100% of your sales. Deal with it or don't accept credit cards - the rules of the credit card game favor the cardholder a lot, that's why customers want to use their cards.

The policy is clear, and based on other comments here probably mandated by the payment networks, but that doesn’t mean it’s reasonable.

It’s perfectly reasonable to expect merchants to be prepared for chargebacks and have a buffer for that. It would be reasonable to have a few days’ notice to pay the money, or be able to designate a different account for them to debit the amount from, or submit a credit card that Square can draw from as security.

But if you are expected to have a month’s sales in the Square-linked bank account all the time, how is that different from simply “freezing all received funds for a month, all the time”?

Re: My Recent Experience With Square

#34
I have to land squarely on Square's side on this one. As far as I can tell, Square has handled this matter exactly as I would expect and hope. They communicated professionally and clearly with Jason. Jason responded with empty threats and demands, and clearly does not understand or respect his responsibilities in his business relationship. Getting money quickly from a merchant account is a privilege, not a right. That privilege is afforded in exchange for honoring the chargeback process, which for good reason initially favors the consumer by provisionally reversing the transaction. When a chargeback occurs - as clearly stated in Square's initial email - "The respective financial institution notifies Square and debits the funds from Square."

Chargebacks are not fun, but they are a fact of life. When a consumer challenges are credit card charge, the consumer is entitled by law and contract to have their case heard, and in the meantime the middlemen must make sure they won't be left holding the empty moneybag.

It is entirely reasonable for the Square to make sure funds are available to pay the consumer debt should the consumer prevail - Square will be out that money regardless of whether Jason pays up.

To be frank, based on his attitude, Jason seems like the sort of guy who would refuse to pay up if the dispute had been decided against him and he disagreed with the determination. This is exactly the reason Square was and always will be justified in freezing the amount associated with any chargebacks. There is a process for handling chargebacks that you submit your self to in exchange for the convenience of getting money quickly from the credit card system. That money is only yours if the consumer does not challenge the charge - usually they don't, but you are responsible to pay if they do, and you are responsible for funding your account to cover whatever level of chargebacks your business sustains.

It is entirely reasonable for: 1) Square to freeze funds associated with chargeback attempts. At this point, Square is out those funds. 2) Square to withdraw funds from a link account if the Square account is empty. It's the responsibility of the merchant to keep funds available to handle chargebacks, as I'm sure is clearly stated in their agreement. If the merchant has kept all funds out of reach of Square, by withdrawing all their money from the account and keeping the associated bank account empty, the merchant is indicating that they do not intend on fulfilling their end of the bargain on having a merchant account - namely honoring chargebacks and the determination process for chargeback disputes. If this withdraw results in NSF fees, particularly for a chargeback of such a small amount, that is the merchant's fault for not funding their account. Furthermore, NSF fees are easily avoidable by depositing funds the same day - why Jason did an electronic transfer is beyond me.

Based on Jason's ignorance of his own responsibilities, his refusal to keep money available to handle chargebacks, his empty and immature threats to "go to the press" among other things, and his general disregard for his role in the business relationship, I would expect Square probably wants to terminate his account, but will decide against that as it would be more bad PR than it's worth. They would be justified, however, holding funds for a longer period of time, since it's clear he refuses to keep funds available to handle chargebacks and to honor the largely fair chargeback process.

The only counter point I can think of is that, for a certain chargeback/total charge ratio, it does seem Square could take the risk and absorb any funds deficit. That is not traditionally how things work though, and since Square is doing their best to get merchants paid as quickly as possible, it only seems fair that merchants would do their best to ensure Square they intend to honor their end of the bargain. If Square did take on this risk for small chargeback amounts for merchants in good standing (say < 3% of total charges,) this would delay someone like Jason's understanding of the chargeback process until a real problem occurred - like a large number of customers demanding refunds. That might ultimately hurt Square more than it helps, both financially and in PR.

Re: My Recent Experience With Square

#35
post #3

I'm not sure why this guy had trouble understanding that he needed money in his account as collateral against the charge back. "Yeah, he'll probably send us the money if the charge back is upheld" is not a sustainable policy.

Had Square told him in their FIRST email, things would have been fine. The problem wasn't so much that they took his money (he immediately transferred money into the account) the problem was that Square was accusatory and slow to respond.

Re: My Recent Experience With Square

#36
post #19

I read over this and all I can think is that OP didn't do what he should've. Their process of pulling in funds when you have a negative balance is automated. (check) He said he'd fund it from another source, but as far as I read (got really bored about halfway through) He didn't. So the automated process pulled in money from his linked account, as expected. This money was crucial because square has to be able to refu…

No, he told them he would fund it from elsewhere and they didn't respond to that at all. They told him that the issue could be considered closed. Then, later they tried to withdraw money again (after saying the issue was closed).

Square took days to respond, then complained to him that emailing them more would get him marked as spam.

Re: My Recent Experience With Square

#38
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

* Chargeback's can't be resolved faster; * They can't (and shouldn't) give him this money - as it's quite likely that this money will never be paid, the dispute rules favor the cardholder quite much.

So the best response is to not respond to him for a few days at a time, and when you do, assume the customer is acting in bad faith while you fill in some form letters?

They clearly stated that "no further actions are required" from his part.

Re: My Recent Experience With Square

#39

I think Square could have tried to be more understanding of this use case. He did clearly explain that the linked account didn't keep a balance and that he was willing to pay the negative balance in his Square account with other sources. I don't see this as shockingly poor customer service, but Square should have just disabled the automatic debiting on his account as he was a long time trust worthy customer.

Square was out the funds immediately. Jason could have avoided fees by funding his account the same day, or by simply keeping some reasonable amount in the account for potential chargebacks.

Square should not be required to keep a person on call to handle special cases like this or to ask merchants nicely for funds for every chargeback to an unfunded Square account. Automated ECH transfer from a linked account is fair and efficient, and once it is initiated can't be stopped.

Re: My Recent Experience With Square

#40
Here's what should have happened.

Square: There's a chargeback for 180 dollars. You can dispute it.

OP: I want to dispute it. Here's the information you need.

(no more than one day later) Square: Instead of just linking to our legal agreement we'll explain why we're taking money from your account. We have to withdraw the chargeback amount from your account because of regulations and stuff. There is more information at this legal link.

OP: I keep that account empty to prevent fraud. The transaction will fail or I'll end up being charged. Can I pay it from another account or can you wait?

(no more than one day later) Square: (if possible) Yes you can pay here (link to payment site). We will automatically try your account in a few days. You will here from us when we've decided on your dispute.

OP: Ok, here is my payment (or) funds will be in my bank account shortly.

(later on, after dispute is decided) Square:We ruled in your favor, the money is being debited back to your account. It will be available for withdrawal in a few business days.

Post reply on HN