[nostromo]

The customer screwed you over, and then their bank did too. Stripe didn't. I'm not sure why Stripe is getting blamed in the title and the article.

Yeah, maybe Stripe could do more without Radar, but I imagine it could also be fraught if Stripe was in the business of blocking customers from their entire network based on one vendor's complaint. Obviously a lot could go wrong with such an approach.

[gingerlime]

Yes. But Stripe didn't do anything to prevent the next merchant from falling into the same trap. They had all the evidence, and ignored it.

That was the point I tried to make with my blog post. And yes, if it was too easy for merchants to block consumers, that won't be fair either. But surely there's a middle ground here.

Stripe very explicitly told me that they don't do anything with such reports. It's simply ignored.

[zuzululu]

Stripe did the right thing here. They cannot be arbitrators of every little edge cases that comes up. That's not their role.

Also I just wanna throw some praise at Stripe Support. They have an excellent team and go above and beyond to help.

[gingerlime]

Agree on Stripe support. They're excellent.

I don't think Stripe did the right thing here. They can do better to protect their own customers.

[0123456789ABCDE]

stripe serves both sides of the transactions they process, seller and buyer.

if buyers were to perceive stripe as being dificult, they might churn. i certainly do this on paypal pages.

[debian3]

If you keep doing chargeback, then churning is a good thing

[0123456789ABCDE]

i never placed a chargeback in my life — i have requested a few refunds over the years.

my paypal aversion stems from interacting with the service. ex: charges show in my CC but are not listed on paypal account

[albedoa]

> They cannot be arbitrators of every little edge cases

Is this an edge case? It looks like your standard chargeback fraud accompanied by a pile of evidence. What does a common case look like in contrast?

We should expect this to become even more rampant given the ease of clicking a chargeback button and the apparent lack of repercussions.

[specialist]

If not Stripe (in this case), then who's serving that role?

[verve_rat]

They (Stripe) don't have to be a arbitrator of every edge case, just use the information they have that merchants want to give them and surface a risk signal back to merchants, then it can be up to the merchant what level of risk they are happy with for each customer.

It doesn't seem like an unreasonable ask frankly.

[erincandescent]

No, Stripe did. It is a common misconception that chargebacks are decided by the customer's bank. Actually, there is a multiple cycle back-and-forth process after which they are finally decided by _the network_.

I have worked in card issuing for years and I have seen various submissions by merchants I know that use Stripe where I _know_ that they have an absolute winning case under the network rules that Stripe refuse to contest.

Stripe have decided that fighting most chargebacks is not worth the money, probably becasue they can just pass the costs onto the merchants and let them eat them and the merchants will not go elsewhere.

[gingerlime]

That’s news to me. Stripe always presents it as if they’re simply a conduit and it’s all in the issuing bank’s hands. Do you have any links/info for learning more about it?

[erincandescent]

You can find copies of the Mastercard and Visa chargeback manuals online if you do a search, some of them (mildly redacted) from the networks themselves.

[cwillu]

> it could also be fraught if Stripe was in the business of blocking customers from their entire network based on one vendor's complaint

“You probably don’t want a system where one annoyed merchant can get someone blocked across the whole Stripe payment system. But there’s a pretty big gap between “automatically block this person everywhere” and “thanks for the screenshots, please consider Radar”, and this is where it gets frustrating.”

[tardedmeme]

There is no gap between those things. Any fraud signal at all either causes people to get blocked, then it's a cross-merchant block, or it doesn't cause people to get blocked, then it's useless.

[cwillu]

The gap between “block on first signal” and “ignore the signal entirely” exists, and it is not small.

[tardedmeme]

The gap between "block transaction" and "don't block transaction" is nonexistent and that's the only thing that actually matters. What else are you, as a payment processor, gonna do besides block a transaction? Allow the transaction but send the user a sternly worded email?

[cwillu]

False dichotomy is false; good day.

[tardedmeme]

You repeatedly failed to describe any third option. Good day.