[Aachen]

Thanks for providing the context

> paying with cash (which leaves you almost always without recourse if anything happens)

One remark about this though: you always have recourse in court. We often hear the USA is incredibly litigious, but it's not like we'd not (threaten to) bring action against a merchant not acting honestly

The main situation where I see chargebacks being useful is when you fell for a scam and the perpetrator cannot be located for enforcement. Which is a legitimate concern for sure, but there's more ways of dealing with that than giving everyone the option to chargeback anything on a whim with no repercussions for them

[nulbyte]

> One remark about this though: you always have recourse in court. We often hear the USA is incredibly litigious, but it's not like we'd not (threaten to) bring action against a merchant not acting honestly

It is, however, like we (in the US) wouldn't bring action in court. Ordinary consumers don't want to have to go to court to resolve a dispute with a merchant. Unless you have a substantial amount riding on the outcome, you're just going to lose, even if you win. It costs time and money to go to court. While you may legally have recourse with litigation, in practice, it doesn't usually work that way.

[Nextgrid]

Problem is that court action, even small-claims-court where lawyers don't need to be present (and may specifically be disallowed) is still significantly more effort than disputing a bank transaction.

Courts could be a useful substitute if the actual penalties were high enough that no merchant would dare even try a scam (then it doesn't matter if legal action is hard work, because the mere deterrent effect means you will never actually have to do it), but that's not the case.