[Silhouette]

Anything that will cut the number of false positives is a welcome development. We lose far more to mysteriously failing charges than we've ever lost to fraud...

Can the new system now distinguish between the initial charge to start a subscription and subsequent ones? A recurring cause of those false positives is someone moving house after they've subscribed and not telling us, and thus failing a mandatory address verification when their next charge goes through. The concept of pre-approved and automatically-blocked lists seems like it might help with that problem, but it would be better still if we could just define the rules more flexibly in the first place so the address-related checks are done the first time but if they've passed previously then we're not too concerned if they start failing later.

[eeke]

PM on Radar here. There are a couple of ways to handle this. You could, as you said, add a customer to your allow list as soon as they pass the initial charge (and AVS) check. You can also use the new `is_recurring` rule attribute [0] which identifies whether the payment is a subscription charge or not (though there’s some additional work to distinguish the first charge, and how you use it depends on the nuances of your integration). I’d be happy to discuss your specific use case in more detail. Feel free to email me directly ([e-mail]).

[0] https://stripe.com/docs/radar/rules/reference