[Laaas]

> Dispute fees (also known as chargebacks) will increase from €15 to €20. Due to costs for managing dispute evidence submissions (regardless of outcome), we'll no longer refund this fee if the customer's bank resolves the dispute in your favor.

> If you or your users have an account located in an EEA country that has not adopted the Euro, here are the fixed fees of €20 in local currencies: Bulgaria: ЛВ40; Czech Republic: 550Kč; Denmark: 200kr; Hungary: 7,000Ft; Liechtenstein: 20CHF, Poland: 90zł; Romania: 100LEU, Sweden: 200kr.

200 DKK is almost 27 EUR. This seems a bit expensive considering that you don't get refunded if you're in the right anymore.

[tyingq]

That merchants hold almost 100% of the liability for fraud even if they do everything "right" to vet a transaction is crazy to me. The other parties (issuing bank, payment processor, payment network) are in a much better position to combat and detect fraud, since they see ALL the transactions. But the incentive to do better is low, since the merchant not only holds the bag, but sends them a penalty fee.

[ivan_gammel]

Disputes are not always fraud on customer side and it’s really not the job of the bank to figure out who is wrong. Imagine two wallets disputing the fate of a coin on a bazaar - does it really make sense? E.g. if content of the package is stolen at warehouse or something else happens, where you think you sent the product and customer got nothing, customer may dispute your point of view and request chargeback. There’s no easy universal answer here, so it’s better to look at it in a constructive way and factor the risks into the price. Of course, bank or payment processor can offer an insurance product in this case and include this risk in price of transaction instead of collecting the fees. But this is just a game with financial models and putting labels.

[tyingq]

>Disputes are not always fraud on customer side

Agreed, though the other 3 parties know a lot more about the customer, past disputes, and so on.

Also, the argument applies for any kind of chargeback. Again, the other three parties combined see all transactions and have lots of context. And, if they required things like ip address, shipping address (they only ask for billing), they could really improve fraud detection. But they don't...there is an incentive problem.

[ivan_gammel]

This is convenient for merchants to offload fraud prevention to banks by sharing more data, but then this should be a service for which you pay and a section in your privacy policy, so that your customers know which data is shared with the bank and why (I‘d say that would be too much data). Fraud levels are different for different merchants, so bundling this service with core product would be unnecessary tax for those businesses which rarely deal with fraud.

[throwaway67743]

It makes taking cards via Stripe completely untenable as anyone can dispute a legit charge and you're still out of pocket - imagine being charged 20 EUR for a 3 eur order even if the customer actually ordered it and just felt like being a dick

[ivan_gammel]

You just refund 3€ order and move on. This is the reason why marketplaces implement sophisticated solutions for returns — sometimes it is cheaper to let a few customers to get their product for free than to spend ton of money on returns, refunds and legal disputes. You can always reflect this risk in your prices.

[remus]

> You just refund 3€ order and move on.

That's fine if the customer actually asks for a refund in the first place. All the chargebacks I've handled through work (admittedly only in single digits), the customer just started a chargeback with no prior communications.

It's a pretty frustrating process as we've got no issues giving refunds in most cases.

[throwaway67743]

My comment was specifically where the customer is being a dick, ie; not asking for a refund, or being refunded and then disputing it anyway (in which case you're now 20+3+fees down which is even worse)

[gnicholas]

They're claiming that it costs them 20 euros to manage evidence that the merchant uploads? What does this process entail, other than forwarding that evidence on to the customer's bank?

I find the dispute fees to be high already, since a customer can initiate a dispute with near-zero effort, but then I have to run around and gather evidence showing that their claim (for which they have to provide zero evidence) is not true. If someone has a subscription with me and it's renewed for several years, and then they decide they don't want it anymore (but don't tell us), they can initiate a "fraud" claim with their bank, which means that I have to prove it wasn't someone else who used their card — with their email address — to set up the account years ago.

I have usually been able to email the customer, ask if/when they asked to terminate their account, and submit that as evidence that no request was made prior to the fraud allegation.

But there should be a higher standard for the initial claim (some evidence should be required, which would at least ensure that claims are correctly categorized as "third party fraud" versus "I forgot this was a subscription").