[Nursie]

>. I like how the reason for "chargebacks" is often touted as "consumer protection" when the real reason it to line the pockets of the credit card duopoly and ensure the merchant always gets screwed.

No, it's consumer protection.

Without chargeback being available many people wouldn't shop online, ever. I might not go that far but I would certainly only ever shop at stores whose names I already know. There's no way in hell I'd send money to some unknown vendor that may never fulfil my order without the ability to get the money back.

[wongarsu]

I have different observations. In Germany most people don't own a credit card, yet online shopping is alive and well. From my observation, when people don't fully trust a store they even prefer wire transfers (which are common, easy, and free, but offer no way to get your money back).

People simply trust the law to protect them. Doing a chargeback already implies that one of both sides is committing fraud. If an online shop is committing fraud we trust the police to get our money back.

[Nursie]

Chargebacks are quicker and easier than trying to drag a vendor through the courts, especially when your only relationship to the vendor is online, the vendor may be in another country and they may have just packed up and disappeared, or for whatever reason it is they just don't have the money.

Further, under UK law, the credit card issuer is a party to the debt and acts as a guarantor - they're on the hook if the merchant does somehow manage to get away with the cash.

>> Doing a chargeback already implies that one of both sides is committing fraud.

Yes, and we have thousands of years of 'Caveat Emptor' shenanigans to point out just how necessary consumer protections are in this space.

>> If an online shop is committing fraud we trust the police to get our money back.

Then you must be prepared to wait a long time and frequently be disappointed.