posted on October 27, 2001 11:14:00 PM new
Definately! The credit card company's will "investigate" fraud/etc to determine who's fault it actually is. When i got my first merchant account, i was told if i did *EVERYTHING* possible to prevent fraud (ship to confirmed cc address/etc) that most likely i wouldn't be held responsible and the bank will sometimes take the loss (again not a normal thing i'm sure ...) A normal merchant account doesn't protect you from fraud, but then again neither does paypal since they always find a way out of their own TOS.
DAMON : Comments on previous statements? Could paypal ever design a system to let the seller communicate more with the processor. Example from this case ..buyer said they were happy w/ purchase and seller has stated emails (possibly feedback backing that also) ..would you think that the buyer is just trying to pull something then months later?
posted on October 27, 2001 11:53:17 PM new
Correct, MrP. They "don't get involved". They "don't investigate", and they "don't pass judgement".
It's very mechanical, nothing is subjective, no way a lie might be believed. Everything is procedure. Anyone who drops the ball loses. If no one drops the ball, buyer wins. The "involvement", to the extent that it exists by one's merchant banker, is to participate in handing the ball back to buyer to see if buyer might drop it.
posted on October 28, 2001 12:53:29 AM new
roofguy,
It depends on the processor, my new merchant account is directly with the processor, one less middle man compared to my first merchant account (which was through a bank)... The person i'm dealing with at my new account, said they actually determine the outcome of chargebacks, whether it be fraud, non shipment, or even quality disputes. I'm protected to a point by having all sales final on the actual receipt page the buyer enters their information, and i'm always requiring people to enter the security number on the back, hopefully to help prevent fraud ...I wish paypal would be more open to helping the seller prove their case against the buyer/etc. I see the points being made...but paypal still doesn't act fairly in some regards to chargebacks, they seem to always finda way out of their own TOS.
posted on October 28, 2001 08:42:40 AM new
In some senses you're correct, cc. But understand a bit about the forces involved. Generally, there are two banks involved in any credit card dispute. Merchant's, and buyer's. On merchant's end, sometimes threre do exist more layers after that.
Buyer's bank is controlled by federal law with respect to their relationship with the customer. Merchant's bank has no such restrictions. Both are contractually under the control of VISA/MC, who, to the extent that anyone does, represent the interest of merchants. VISA/MC for example are the source of the rule which says that a buyer cannot pursue a quality of merchandise dispute without returning (or attempting to return) the merchandise in the condition it was received.
BThe final decision is made by buyer's bank, not the merchant's. Theoretically, the merchant's bank could decide in favor of the merchant, and absorb the chargeback itself, but this is so unlikely as to be correctly described as not happening.
Buyer's banks do in fact vary in how strictly they enforce VISA/MC procedure, and sometimes merchant banks can call them on the lack of such enforcement, putting the ball back in buyer's court. For example, a quality of merchandise dispute where the merchandise has not been returned.
Asking for consideration of evidence that buyer originally was pleased does not play in the procedure, and is thus irrelevant. The procedure allows for buyer to return disappointing merchandise for a refund, it's that clear cut.
All chargebacks can be appealed to VISA/MC, although very few are overturned, and nearly all of those overturned involve breaches of procedure rather than evidence that buyer is pursuing the chargeback insincerely.
Fraud is nearly always black and white, and there's not much a merchant banker is going to be able to help with. If the charge was not authorized, you lose regardless of what documentation you might provide short of a signed, imprinted charge slip, impractical in online sales.
Providers of merchant accounts have traditionally misstated the actual mechanisms to new customers. Merchants don't like to be told that they are basically powerless, that might deter them from playing the game at all. Good luck cc, I'm no friend of crooks, and I truly wish you well, but I predict that your optimistic view will mature after you've done a few thousand internet transactions.
[ edited by roofguy on Oct 28, 2001 08:52 AM ]
[ edited by roofguy on Oct 28, 2001 08:54 AM ]
posted on October 28, 2001 10:06:06 AM newProviders of merchant accounts have traditionally misstated the actual mechanisms to new customers. Merchants don't like to be told that they are basically powerless, that might deter them from playing the game at all.
I guess this would mean that it is probably safe to conclude that the PayPal rep who posts here could also be likely to "misstate the actual mechanisms", don't you think?
I'm no friend of crooks, and I truly wish you well, but I predict that your optimistic view will mature after you've done a few thousand internet transactions.
Coming from one of their staunchest supporters, PayPal users might want to take heed.
posted on October 28, 2001 12:48:38 PM new
Both roofguy and damon will always defend paypal regardless of what happens.The proof is that paypals record of doing business is at the least hap hazard. I had several chargebacks that paypal initated simply on a whim and it was not until i got together with the customer that they finally gave me my money.If you notice no matter what you say paypal is never wrong. Well that will stop shortly. My suggestion is get together and seek legal consul. It's too expensiveto do it alone even though I personally have.
posted on October 28, 2001 01:40:29 PM new
Roofguy,
The thing is, i've done about 5-1000 transactions on the internet already, with very few issues of chargebacks. Your right, some banks/etc will tell the customer(merchant) whatever they want to here .. THat's probably what my first merchant account did, since it was a bank itself, not the actual processor they go through, i'm cutting out one step in this process. You are right, the customer MUST return the merchandise, but if they agreed to terms of a final sale, visa/mastercard DO look at this, i've used that in a past chargeback showing an item was sold as-is and the chargeback wasn't reversed to me and the customer never got a refund(i heard from them a little later saying they still wanted to work something out, it old them no for obvious reasons). Fraud happens, plain and simple, just one of those things, still can be prevented if your causious about who you sell to or where you are selling to. I know you will defend paypal at all cost, atleast you speak your mind, damon just quotes the TOS everytime he reply's, unforunately most of us have already read it so unless he has something useful to say (personal opinion? helpful opinion?) it doesn't seem to matter (auctionwatch, no disrespect to him ofcourse). My friend has just given up, paypal doesn't have their money/etc so it's no big deal, they can just keep the restricted out. More comments are always welcome!
posted on October 28, 2001 02:15:25 PM new
cybercomputing-
damon just quotes the TOS everytime he reply's, unforunately most of us have already read it
In defense of damon, the TOS is constantly changing, which requires a continuous re-posting.
As an example, damon recently posted (October 11, 2001):
PayPal will never make electronic transfers from your bank account without your explicit permission... All transactions, be they to or from your bank account, require the user requesting the transaction.
Here it is, a little over two weeks later, and that claim is no longer true. If you check PayPal's current TOU, you will find this:
When you receive a payment through the Service, unless you follow the steps necessary to qualify for our Seller Protection Policy described in Part VII of this User Agreement, you are not protected against a subsequent reversal of the transaction. In the event that the sender's transaction is reversed for any reason and you do not qualify for the Seller Protection Policy for that transaction, you will owe PayPal for the amount of the reversed transaction plus any fees imposed on PayPal as a result of the reversal. Examples of such a reversal include, but are not limited to, a credit card charge-back by the sender of the payment, and a reversal of the transaction because the sender of the payment was using a stolen credit card or unauthorized bank account. PayPal will seek to recover the funds from you by debiting your PayPal balance and, if there are not sufficient funds in your PayPal balance, PayPal reserves the right to collect your debt to PayPal by any other legal means. If you open a Premier or Business Account after October 11, 2001, you authorize PayPal to debit your bank account linked to that PayPal account for the amount that you owe PayPal on transactions which were not covered by the Seller Protection Policy and which were not recoverable from your PayPal balance.
Now, it looks like transactions no longer require explicit permission from the PayPal customer regarding a particular transaction. Signing up for a business account means that you are "requesting" that PayPal take money from your account whenever PayPal feels it to be necessary.
"Never" turns out to be not nearly as long a period of time as one might have supposed- a lot like "Always".
posted on October 28, 2001 03:27:00 PM newI guess this would mean that it is probably safe to conclude that the PayPal rep who posts here could also be likely to "misstate the actual mechanisms", don't you think?
MrP, as you know, PayPal does not offer merchant accounts.
We here about quality of merchandise chargebacks, because they're the only ones which make it through to be discussed. Fraudulent use of credit cards is simply not an issue for those PayPal sellers who follow the rules. Not so for merchant account holders doing internet business.
posted on October 28, 2001 03:40:05 PM new
Of course, your response doesn't address the comment you quoted, but when one doesn't have a logical reply, changing the topic is always a good diversion.
posted on October 28, 2001 03:44:00 PM newThe thing is, i've done about 5-1000 transactions on the internet already, with very few issues of chargebacks.
Agreed, it is doable. It works well for people who sell things who appeal only to those who can afford them (collectables), and who are in a position to turn down business from anyone who seems the least bit untrustworthy.
cc, I don't doubt your experiences. I do doubt your analysis of what options were exercised by buyer in your case. And I'll point out: VISA/MC don't look at anything at all unless there is an appeal. The only one looking at things will be buyer's credit card company. If you had a disappointed buyer, and you refused to cooperate, your buyer dropped the ball when you put it back into his court. Now perhaps your buyer dropped the ball because he really had agreed to some condition, and when that was pointed out, he lost his will to continue the dispute. Often enough, buyer's credit card company will drop the chargeback in such cases and wait for the buyer to revive it. However, if buyer revives it, buyer will always eventually prevail. As a merchant, there is no way you can cause that bank any legal difficulties. As a cardholder with a dispute, there are several avenues of legal appeal which are expensive to defend, if nothing else.
PayPal would no doubt like for its sellers to be better able to play this game. Maybe in the future they will. The problem PayPal faces is that most sellers will expect someone to act as a judge, to look at the evidence, and decide what is fair. That's just not going to happen, because it would be incredibly expensive, it wouldn't be binding on buyers anyway, and no one wants to pay for it.
posted on October 28, 2001 04:09:55 PM new
Roofguy,
In the times i have gotten a chargeback against me, i have always been asked to give all information pertaining to the actual charge to my processor and they will go from there, everytime, i include the auction itself (ebay copy) and the terms the buyer agreed to. I'm not sure what exactly happened with the buyers after that point, because no money was ever taken out and i received a letter from my processor saying everything was taken care of and it is NOT being reversed, i'm sure it's different with all processors/etc. It's basically a game of cat and mouse when someone files a chargeback, a few processors will add the person to a "bad processing" list and won't let them charge their card through ANY merchant using the processor, i thought that was a neat idea, will make people think about fililng a chargeback and trying to work things out before they do it, knowing they may not be able to use their card at other stores/sites. This turned out to be a pretty big discussion, to bad their is only a handful adding to it...comments ofcourse welcome ...
posted on October 28, 2001 04:26:28 PM new
I'm with you cc, on that crap buyer list.
To a lesser extent, credit card companies do it for us. They hate chargebacks almost as much as sellers do, because your basic $50 quality of merchandise chargeback costs the merchant $50-$60 but it costs the buyer's bank more than that in labor to get it sorted out. This is where judgement IS applied, and seller's documentation ARE examined. The buyer's credit card company may well do the chargeback, but they also aren't dummies, they can see what's going on, and a buyer who is abusing the system is going to get dumped real fast.
So, of course, will PayPal dump such buyers. One guesses that their mothers also gave them the boot after they ripped off the family heirlooms and sold them.
posted on October 28, 2001 05:01:51 PM new
Roofguy!
Wow ..we agree on something =) Anyone who requests tons of chargebacks should be dumped anyway, especially when they are "lower" dollar ammounts, $50 is the minimum i think for chargebacks. I beleive the processor i'm using does do the "ban" list for people who do chargebacks and i'll make sure to state it in my auctions/etc that chargebacks could result in losing privledges for charging with bigger/other companies. Paypal only suspends buyers when they do a chargeback through their credit card rather than paypal, which is good to a point. =)
posted on November 1, 2001 09:23:12 PM new
Let me get this streight. I now have to worry that months later a bidder can decide they don't like an item and do a chargeback. If the person just says they don't like the item anymore can they get there money back? Even if they still have the item. I will cancel my account right now if that is true. Is there no time limit for charge backs?
Also why can this guy not defend himself. Pay Pal will take money out of my account without my ability to defend myself. That is beyoud wrong. I can not have an account where I can not defend myself.
Paypaldamon I need answeres to these questions. I undestand that Pay Pal has a policy but it seems that if they can take money out of our account we should at least get our side of the story told to the charge back bank.
posted on November 1, 2001 10:36:06 PM new
I can probably answer it for you also ... The limit is usually 6 months, paypal won't take your money if someone says "they don't like it" but that doesn't stop that person from filing a chargeback through their card company, after that happens (if it goes through) then paypal will take the money from you, no questions asks...And you have NO SAY (NONE) in it, you either pay or lose your paypal account. Damon? Comments?
posted on November 2, 2001 11:21:25 AM new
Hi cybercomputing,
You are correct. A buyer could file a Buyer Complaint through us (merch.quality) that could be rejected. A buyer could then file a complaint with the credit card company, which is an issue we have no control over. The issuance is done by the credit card company---we can attempt to fight them, but the credit card company has final say in issuance.
posted on November 2, 2001 12:10:39 PM new
Nice you see you respond on this =) Question to you then ...mostly in regards to what's been said before, you just said you could "fight" it .. Why don't you let the seller have that chance, to provide anything/everything that may save their case from actually having the chargeback against them. You ask for shipping information/etc normally but you don't ask for other things that may prove that the buyer got what they wanted (perhaps they left feedback saying it was a great item) ..but yet they still file a chargeback? Just a thought ...your thoughts on it? Can/will this be a possibility in the future?
