But this isn't the product I want. I don't want to ever fight chargebacks. Because my policy is to never take money from people who don't want to give it to me. I want to automatically refund every chargeback attempt without it affecting my ability to charge credit cards. One of my businesses targets consumers, who have this amazing ability to "forget to cancel" or to have "cancelled 3 months ago, but for some reason…
There's chargeback services who pay banks to tell them first so you get a chance to respond before it hits your merchant account.
This will let you refund and pay less fees at the merchant account level. I've used https://chargeback.com/
I’m the PM on Chargeback Protection. Startups told us they don’t want to deal with the hassle and unpredictability of chargebacks; that’s why we built this. Happy to answer any questions you have.
As an end user, how can I tell the modal dialog is actually my bank?
It looks trivial for the vendor to man in the middle attack.
I’d take my business elsewhere if presented with a UI from some random e-commerce site asking for extra personal information.
I think many people have been conditioned to assume that replying to automated messages goes straight to /dev/null. Have you considered putting a link to a page that provides a quick cancellation workflow?
Here's one of those invoice mails in its entirety. Sent from (and reply-to) info@twiddla.com. See if you can figure out how to go about cancelling your subscription or getting a refund: Your Twiddla Bill for April 4, 2019 to May 4, 2019 Hey, we wanted to let you know that on May 4, 2019 we charged your credit card $14.00 for your monthly Twiddla Pro subscription. You can find additional information regarding your bil…
I have no desire to yell at you, simply to cancel the account and request a refund. While sending an email is okay, it would be better if there was a link directly to a page to do so, just like unsubscribing from an email list. Regardless, I would recommend changing the wording from "yell" because that sounds hostile, and most people don't want the conflict.
Not an expert in this area, would'nt that flow against the general laws of insurance?
It'd still be enabled prior to the original charge being made. The details in the link suggest that some charges would be exempted anyway (eg ones that don't use the new Checkout, ones over a certain threshold). So it's a question of whether or not a given individual charge is insured, not a question of whether your Stripe account as a whole is insured.
Insurance products are typically designed to make money for the provider. I'm sure they are doing a lot to lower risk.
How does that work? When I'm notified of a dispute, the first thing I do is go in and refund the charge. I still have to watch the whole dispute resolution process play out and have it be ruled against me. How would I go about stopping it before it starts, as you seem to imply is possible? Edit to add: Does it even make a difference if I go in and refund the disputed payments? It sounds like I get dinged either way a…
Card issuers are often able to detect that a transaction is fraudulent before it is disputed, and when this happens, they will send us a notification. These notifications are commonly called TC40s (Visa) or SAFE reports (MasterCard). On average ~60% of early fraud warnings end up being disputed, and most disputes have an early fraud warning (though there’s a wide range depending on your business). If you refund these…
You are proposing he should also proactively refund the other ~40% of valid purchases to avoid the ~60% that end up in disputes? Did I get that right? If yes, that doesn't sound like a viable idea.
Card issuers are often able to detect that a transaction is fraudulent before it is disputed, and when this happens, they will send us a notification. Is there a mechanism like that but in the reverse direction? i.e. if a seller detects someone testing stolen cards, and wants to alert the card issuer all those cards are stolen?
Shouldn't the issuer be able to figure this out on their own when they see the attempted charges coming in? It seems like the resources of the issuer would be better spent improving their own detection rather than dealing with third-party reports.
Retailers might enjoy better information (account history, items in basket and suchlike), might have already borne the cost of manually checking the order, or might have better incentives (as it's them who loses money if an order was placed with a stolen card)
After all, if the issuer had been able to figure it out, the payments would have failed preauthorisation.
But this isn't the product I want. I don't want to ever fight chargebacks. Because my policy is to never take money from people who don't want to give it to me. I want to automatically refund every chargeback attempt without it affecting my ability to charge credit cards. One of my businesses targets consumers, who have this amazing ability to "forget to cancel" or to have "cancelled 3 months ago, but for some reason…
Longshot, but you don't happen to be th3j35t3r, do you? The name and description on ExpatSoftware seems so fitting :)
Does this mean Stripe will change its allowed merchants? We sell digital telecom products and Stripe does not accept our business. This would be a product we could use, but can't if they are still rigid about their accepted business.
Is stripe actually the one blocking you? Card brands regulate which MCCs are allowed to be signed on by acquirers. It could be Visa, Amex or Mastercard.
0.4% is an extremely steep price for a company like mine doing over $2.5m in annual turnover (saas) which has a very low fraud rate. I actually think currently we pay less than that by doing nothing (meaning letting Paypal handle it, and losing every case). However I'd gladly pay a few thousands per year for it, or be able to pay it on selected transactions (only US for instance).
> However I'd gladly pay a few thousands per year for it 0.4% on $2.5m is $10k a year. I realize "ten" is a bit more than "a few", but is Stripe's price point materially that far off from where you want it to be? Said another way, I imagine that there are at least a few problems smaller than chargeback protection at your company that you throw $10k or more at just to make that problem go away... right? If so, this ma…
What he's saying is that currently doing nothing costs him less than what paying 0.4% to 'insure' transactions would, so why bother with insurance?
Ultimately established companies know how much chargebacks cost them and thus whether this product is worth it (= costs less).