[411111111111111]

I'm not affiliated with stripe nor have I've ever used their services for payments. I did work for another payment providers before however.

> It's not just this complaint or similar ones, though. What recourse does a merchant have if you freeze funds and don't provide a reason or don't immediately put them in touch with a human?

The reason seems to have been provided, which is fraud suspicion. Stripe can't be expected to unfreeze the suspect money until this suspicion is cleared, which might take anything from hours to months, depending on the case. What kind of recourse do you think the payment providers can provide in this scenario?

[noduerme]

The issue as I understand it with Stripe is that Stripe takes on the chargeback and fraud risk on behalf of the merchant, but as a result will seize funds preemptively to any flag that might potentially be raised by their partner banks. In other words they are incentivized to look for fraud where there is none.

Then they send an automated email saying they suspect fraud, without details.

The recourse they should provide is a way for the merchant to clear their name of a specific accusation, by both providing details of the transaction(s) in doubt and allowing the merchant to show whatever documentation is necessary. But they don't want to go through that because again, there is no actual fraud call in some of these cases from a bank, they're just automatically flagged as a potential risk for Stripe. So they just put the merchant on endless hold and steal their money.

[pas]

why does it take months though?

in these situations the payment provider absolutely has the upper hand, and they abuse it in the name of safety. the same way Amazon treats their merchants like shit, because there is an endless queue of fools to try to "start a business"

it's the same security theater that is done at airports. there are always suspicious things. false positive rate be damned.

if there's a suspicion, that the card used may have been "stolen" then freeze it, call the end user. it takes a few days at most, right? banks do this all the time, usually these are cleared in minutes.

if the bank cannot reach the user, ask the merchant to ask the user to call the bank.

these are clear and trivial steps to do. yet instead there's "investigation" by the useless middleman.

[411111111111111]

the duration was heavily dependent on outside factors for the payment provider I've worked for.

Usually, the police had been notified if it was a very long time, which the customer can't be told as they could be involved in the crime. It really depends on the case so there is very little value our discussion here can provide.

Also, Banks have kept accounts frozen for months too if their holders are suspected of fraud.

[pas]

The customer can be involved. At this point why not just shoot everyone? The payment processor can be involved too! The police are on in it, obviously.

I mean, we're almost beyond the civil asset forfeiture guilty-until-proven-innocent level.

It's plain and simple corporate bullying. Because they can. Yes, I know it's a hard problem. Yes, if it were easy there were endless cheap knockoff payment processors. Yes, criminals are constantly outsmarting the good guys. Yes, I know it's in the ToS, etc. Yes, I know we don't live in a just world.

These still not make it right. It's yet again a fucking tax on the small shops.

[gnopgnip]

Does it take months when there is no fraud?

[Fatnino]

> I did work for another payment provider

Username checks out.