[mrsteveman1]

As much as I like to hate on Paypal because they deserve it for a variety of reasons, I'm considering lately that for financial services startups like this, it's possible they CAN'T do certain things differently, though perhaps customer service could make up for it and may not have in this case.

This phrase caught my eye in the story "Per the network regulations, the debit process is automated and will continue to attempt to hold the funds associated with the dispute until it is resolved.".

Network regulations like the contracts they have with banks? Credit card processors? A relatively small startup may or may not be in a position to negotiate their own terms on such things, they're dealing with established players they have to do business with unlike a lot of other startups in other fields. Perhaps Squares own terms have been influenced or dictated to them in part by their own financial partners.

On the other hand, this persons own bank was able to reverse the automated charge and the fees associated with it, which itself should give at least some measure of comfort in the system as it exists, even if it's frustrating to watch it all happen without much direct control.

It should probably be obvious that having a buffer of funds to handle things like this is a good idea for any business, particularly if the terms of service for the payment processor note that things like this may happen.

[pm24601]

Absolutely square could do things better. How about for starters picking up the goddamn phone and making a call to talk to the customer in person?

It really shocks me that people are willing to entrust their business's finances with a company they cannot contact immediately.

I do exactly what the OP poster did - have a account that receives the funds and is immediately swept to an entirely different institution. I would not have even funded the account when square tried to pull from it. I do not make my main business account directly accessible via visa card, or direct transfers. Two different financial institutions are involved.

I especially am troubled by the assumption that because the OP is following this very good idea that square assumes that he is not viable.

[Czarnian]

Except it's not a very good idea. It's actually a very poor business practice.

Dude's got no one else but himself to blame. If he's taking credit card transactions, he should be holding a reserve in the relevant account for exactly this sort of situation. His lack of foresight is the root cause of the entire mess. As the saying goes, "Lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part."

[delinquentme]

Hate to break it to you but a pissy customer whos mad over $175 bucks only thinks hes a priority when it comes to square.

Seriously how much cash are they transacting ... and hes flipping out over ( as pointed out earlier ) $180 profit for square?

yeahh....

[smackfu]

If Square only cares about the big customers, why would small customers use them?

[delinquentme]

welcome to automation. Its designed to work for the big guys. So there you go free motivation. If you want to be able to complain and stomp around like old ways of doing business you've got to get big.

Otherwise you use the service that is provided.

[TylerE]

Low fees. High quality customer support. Pick one. You can't have it both ways.

[pm24601]

@delinquentme - sure. Except how many people will look longer at square's competitors now?

I certainly am now reluctant to use them.

[pm24601]

Tyler, that kind of lets all sort of bad behavior off the hook doesn't it?

I rather like the high quality, low cost support I get from https://www.techcu.com/ myself.