Back to News
Advertisement
Advertisement

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

67% Positive

Analyzed from 5986 words in the discussion.

Trending Topics

#stripe#fraud#don#card#chargebacks#more#customer#chargeback#merchant#product

Discussion (225 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

shash71 day ago
I run a saas and we get this every now and then.

As a rule of thumb, when you get a chargeback you need to completely ban the customer from your db. This includes:

- card ban - email address ban - fingerprint their access and ban

This will save you a lot of hassle when they try to signup/buy your product again and cause you the same amount of grief.

epa1 day ago
Exploiters easily get around this. its a small group of people doing all of the abuse.
super256about 17 hours ago
Just force 3d secure, as it shifts the liability to the customer's bank. Most people don't mind opening their banking app on the phone for confirming the transaction if they really want the product for itseprice.
gingerlimeabout 11 hours ago
if customer fraudulently claims to their bank that they haven’t received the product, the bank files a chargeback and 3DS does not protect the merchant against it.
anticensorabout 4 hours ago
most banks refuse chargebacks from 3ds transactions
Cider99861 day ago
All 3 of those identifiers can be easily changed by advanced users. I'm curious what you mean by fingerprint their access. Is this like an on demand fingerprinting, I've only seen browser fingerprinting as a tracker for every user.
UqWBcuFx6NV4rabout 23 hours ago
if i had a dollar for every time a developer “perfect is the enemy of good”’d me
imp0cat1 day ago
Nice try, chargebacker! ;)
Cider99861 day ago
I try to pay with Monero, so I can't chargeback :)
shawnz1 day ago
You'd better be promptly responsive to legitimate customer support inquiries if you are going to have a policy like that
joshstrangeabout 21 hours ago
This comment struck a nerve with me and perhaps you didn't mean it in this way but:

Yes, many of us are incredibly responsive to customer support inquiries (I have a <1hr response time unless you send in a ticket when I'm sleeping) and it doesn't matter. Fraudsters gonna fraud. This isn't a case of "they asked for a refund, we refused, they issued a chargeback", it's a case of a scammer being a POS.

I've dealt with my fair share of chargebacks and in every case I've seen it's someone being a jerk and never a legit case.

The fact that Stripe won't help you, the banks don't care about all the evidence you have, and you end up out the money for the product _and_ you get hit with a chargeback fee on top of it is madness. I could literally have video of the person holding up their ID saying "I XXXXX agree to pay YYYY" and banks would still side with a the scummy scammers.

I have, quite literally, never had someone reach out via support and then file a chargeback later. They do it without reaching out, probably because they are a trash person and they have no interest in getting anything fixed and are just scammers.

shawnzabout 12 hours ago
Yeah, I know chargebacks are a frequent vector for abuse and of course I don't mean to imply that customers doing chargebacks ought to always implicitly be given the benefit of the doubt.

Given that you are responsive to inquiries, it makes sense that you'd rarely if ever have a legitimate chargeback -- because there's no reason for a customer to resort to chargebacks if the vendor is willing to work with them to resolve legitimate issues.

But I know of many examples of people needing to resort to chargebacks due to ineffectual customer support, and then having their accounts banned and being cut off from other unrelated services from the same vendor as a result. I don't think that's an appropriate response and vendors should be careful not to let that happen if they instate such a policy.

wahnfrieden1 day ago
Use DeviceCheck if iOS app too. Uber does this to ban across accounts
lxgr1 day ago
Great, another thing to worry about when buying a used phone: Did any of the previous owners get banned by any of the apps I intend to use on it?
joshstrangeabout 21 hours ago
That's an interesting idea. The sad thing is, the money lost through chargebacks is minimal for me in the grand scheme of things but it makes me irate enough to potentially spend the development time (that will never have a positive ROI) on adding in something like this just to stick it to the scammers.
wahnfriedenabout 18 hours ago
It is at least very simple to implement. It's a simple API. Useful capability for banning abusive users too if you have social elements or other abuse vectors besides payment.
Cider99861 day ago
I imagine most fraudsters wouldn't be using iOS. I'm curious if the android app fingerprinting solutions go cross user profile.
ACCount371 day ago
As far as I know, DRM systems like Widewine have IDs that cross user profile lines.
varenc1 day ago
> They told me they don’t use evidence of chargeback abuse from one merchant to create cross-merchant fraud signals, or to take action against the customer’s card, email, or other details for other merchants.

I'm surprised they were able to get Stripe to actually state all of this clearly. It's nice that Stripe actually communicates details like this. But you can see the logic behind why many other big companies would just respond with an opaque message like "thank you for your report, it will be handled in the appropriate manner". Because saying the truth gets people more upset.

gingerlime1 day ago
No. I would have been far more upset about a vague response. I was still upset that they don't do anything about it.

(it took a bit of back-n-forth to get a clear answer, but I did get a clear one. Their support is still excellent from my experience and communicate well)

nathanmills1 day ago
No, vagueness gets me much more upset, but there's just nothing to write about in those cases.
mamurphy1 day ago
>No, vagueness gets me much more upset, but there's just nothing to write about in those cases.

I think this hits on the spirit behind GP's point. Clarity, leading to an article like the one posted, gets more people upset. The equation (Upset/People x People) results in a larger number -- people, as a whole, are more upset.

>But you can see the logic behind why many other big companies would just respond with an opaque message like "thank you for your report, it will be handled in the appropriate manner". Because saying the truth gets people more upset.

If a company is vague, there's nothing to write about, one person (maybe) gets more upset than they would have facing clarity.

But if the company is clear, there is something to write about, and an article like the one posted makes people, overall, more upset.

nathanmills1 day ago
I don't see many people upset at Stripe over this, I certainly am not.
BobaFloutistabout 18 hours ago
Then it's probably worth being aware that you're an outlier, because companies sure aren't being vague for the hell of it.
nathanmillsabout 17 hours ago
They're doing it because of a preceived result, not an actual result.
UqWBcuFx6NV4rabout 23 hours ago
No. This is what you’re saying because you want to plead your case to find out as much as you can. Saying less works. Everyone knows this, because it’s true. You just don’t like it.
nathanmillsabout 17 hours ago
Sounds like your projecting a bit.
nostromo1 day ago
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.

gingerlime1 day ago
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.

zuzululu1 day ago
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.

gingerlime1 day ago
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.

albedoa1 day ago
> 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.

specialistabout 21 hours ago
If not Stripe (in this case), then who's serving that role?
verve_rat1 day ago
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.

erincandescentabout 23 hours ago
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.

gingerlimeabout 11 hours ago
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?
cwillu1 day ago
> 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.”

tardedmeme1 day ago
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.
cwilluabout 11 hours ago
The gap between “block on first signal” and “ignore the signal entirely” exists, and it is not small.
ripberge1 day ago
I dealt with millions of dollars in chargebacks with Stripe. We sold tickets, they're easy to re-sell and our customers were tourists visiting shows from all over the world.

Stripe Radar was not a good product. It would score large numbers of very suspect transactions at a risk level of 1 or 2 (out of 100). I don't have an ML background, but something about their methodology was just flawed. It behaved as if there was a wire loose in it. Unfortunately, I don't think they're very incentivized to care.

stego-tech1 day ago
At this point I’m fairly convinced Stripe is Paypal 2.0, at least in spirit:

* Turns a blind eye to misdeeds on its platform

* Locks out adult creators/vendors after taking their money

* Is ubiquitous, but not well liked

I love that Stripe changed the game of fintech and made it accessible to more parties in a programmatic way, but I find myself repeating “avoid Stripe” to a lot of folks asking me for advice on dealing with payment nowadays for those reasons.

gyomu1 day ago
That’s just the nature of these industries.

1) Incumbent is slow, clunky, unpleasant to deal with due to years of accumulated constraints to deal with

2) Newcomer can differentiate themselves by being nimble and pleasant to work with, taking market share

3) Over time newcomer has to deal with increasing amount of scrutiny, fraud, overhead, CYA type practices, etc

4) Newcomer is now incumbent, goto 1)

mattmaroon1 day ago
Who do you recommend as an alternative?
Cider99861 day ago
Nowpayments is good for an easy crypto payment gateway.

No affiliation, I've just seen them used–it would be better if you self-hosted a BTCPay server.

stego-tech1 day ago
I don’t have one at the moment, at least for my circles (artisans, craftspeople, adult creators in general). Much of it has fallen back on PayPal for folks without an LLC to hide behind, or Square if they’re incorporated as a business. The trick has been discretion and operating in a gray area: “novelty goods”, “graphic design work”, and “outerwear” as item descriptors or db entries, obscuring the actual content without actually lying or deceiving the payment processor.

Most paypros, most of the time, won’t look too hard unless there’s a problem or you’re tripping some internal security measure (like raking in a lot of cash in weird amounts). Of late they’ve been more intrusive due to some weird eTeen puritans, but that’s quieting down again as they remember they like making money, and throwing legal content off their platforms can very quickly cause an exodus of customers looking to avoid having their funds seized.

rsanek1 day ago
That's pretty clearly deceiving. Would expect to run into problems with that kind of approach regardless of the specific payment processor -- everyone has T&C that you must follow.
bberenberg1 day ago
I got hit with a fraudulent chargeback (claim was the purchase was unauthorized and the person showed up in person to a class) and it was doubly bad because they paid via Link which means that Stripe actively verified them via 2FA.

Can someone explain to me why Stripe (or a competitor) doesn't offer a setting "refuse transactions for cards that have filed > x chargebacks with <acquirer> merchants this year"?

gingerlime1 day ago
Yeah, though this rule sounds a bit tricky. Like what if someone legitimately had their card abused.

The thing that gets me is that Stripe boasts about their machine learning radar rules etc etc, but somehow can't feed it actually valuable data.

Stripe support saw the emails from the customer boasting about defrauding me, they completely agreed that this is a clear case of friendly-fraud, but did nothing with this info.

bberenberg1 day ago
Stripe can’t do anything per the way CCs work. Asking for that to change is a big ask. Asking my vendor to help me not do business with people who are likely to scam me is a smaller one.
gingerlime1 day ago
100% agree. They cannot reverse the dispute. I already lost the money. I understand.

But Stripe is exactly in a position to at least use the evidence I provided (in this case, the evidence included the customer clearly admitting to friendly fraud), and feed it into their fraud-prevention system in some way. This way, lots of signals can help protect merchants from friendly fraudsters. So yes, I see it as a pretty small and legit ask from Stripe.

SpicyLemonZest1 day ago
I don't know this is the reason, but if I were asked to build such a system, I'd be pretty worried that it constitutes a consumer report under the terms of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Certainly I wouldn't want the inevitable news drama about it. "I'm just a poor innocent grandma, I'm a trusting person when it comes to Facebook ads, and Stripe punished me for getting scammed by banning me from half the stores on the Internet!"

AnthonyMouse1 day ago
If your card is actually stolen then you should have the card number changed to prevent additional fraud and then the disputes would be against the old card number rather than the new one, right?
SpicyLemonZest1 day ago
If your card is stolen you should, but not necessarily if you fall for a Facebook ad that ships you a pile of rocks or a paper photo of the product you thought you bought.
cperciva1 day ago
claim was the purchase was unauthorized and the person showed up in person to a class

Certainly a person showed up in person to a class, but how do you know it was the person whose credit card was used?

bberenberg1 day ago
It matched their LinkedIn photo.
mriet1 day ago
Their business model is to allow as many possible "valid" transactions, not to serve their "clients". They're a PSP...
danpalmer1 day ago
This is just fraud.

"Friendly fraud" is accidental or with the correct intentions – such as the customer not recognising the charge and charging back.

lxgr1 day ago
Genuinely not recognizing a charge is not fraud, as that to me requires intent (or at least gross negligence, e.g., something like "I'll just dispute everything I don't remember, and not make a particularly good effort to remember anything at all").

"Just fraud" is already taken for "criminal c uses unwitting cardholder a's card at unwitting merchant b", so what's your objection against "fiendly fraud"?

bradley131 day ago
This is the point. You could file criminal charges. You could win in civil court.
gingerlime1 day ago
Yes, and Stripe could do much better to prevent it. And doesn't.
akerl_1 day ago
What would you like them to do?

Even in the post you're wishy washy about what you want. They offer a product that does enhanced fraud detection but you don't like that. You correctly call out that there's major risks with taking a merchant's report and using it to flag a user's future transactions.

fweimer1 day ago
The article mentions Stripe's product in this space: https://stripe.com/en-us/radar

There are similar offerings from other companies. I don't know if bundling this with payment processing is common.

danpalmer1 day ago
They could, but this isn't discussed in the blog post. The post is about literal fraud, which has a very different recourse for the merchant.
GuardCalf1 day ago
Solid post. The key takeaway for me was Stripe admitting they won't use post-dispute evidence of friendly fraud to build cross-merchant signals in Radar. That, plus the customer literally bragging about it after winning the chargeback, shows how lopsided the system is against indie sellers. Thanks for sharing.
majora2007about 22 hours ago
One thing that is so painful with Stripe is the Disputes because no matter how much evidence I show, even emails with the user claiming they did it because of X, Y, Z. ToS not upheld, etc, the customer always wins.

For me, I do a cheap subscription (4$/mon, first month 2$) and one dispute costs me like 20-30$. So that one person wipes a ton of profit from me. I always try to refund them (but you can't refund a customer with a dispute in effect).

Stripe is great to get going, but has a lot of painful points.

pasabout 19 hours ago
Does Stripe have any published stats on the ratios? Did any merchant ever won such a Stripe dispute?
gingerlimeabout 11 hours ago
I’d be curious too. Previous experience at a SaaS was that we never won disputes and it was too time consuming on top, so we just ate the dispute fees and refund.

I always thought things are easier with a physical product where you have a 3rd party like DHL that proves delivery was made. But at least in my tiny sample space, that’s not enough to win the dispute.

sbierwagen1 day ago
Stripe obviously records data around friendly fraud, (At minimum they implement Visa Compelling Evidence 3.0 https://support.stripe.com/questions/how-does-stripe-support... ) and since you did not include screenshots of the messages sent by Stripe support I suspect they were saying something carefully noncommittal and legally compliant to get you to go away, which then got spun into an outraged blog post.
gingerlime1 day ago
Happy to share their responses verbatim. It was a rather long back-n-forth. Here's a snippet from the latest email, which I think makes it clear that they do not use the evidence I provided:

    I can assure you that I will take note of your feedback and pass it to our team. Your point about post-transaction abuse detection is valid - while Stripe has robust network-level fraud detection, there does appear to be a gap in utilizing merchant-provided evidence of confirmed fraud to protect the broader merchant ecosystem. This type of feedback from merchants who have direct evidence is valuable for improving these systems.
minimaltom1 day ago
Theres no gotchas in the quoted text, but curious if you got the impression from your emails that any of it was.. AI generated?

The camber, affirmation, word choice, triplet phrase... leaves me wondering. But without a smoking gun its hard to know if a model call was fired.

gingerlime1 day ago
Yes most of the communication felt rather LLM assisted or generated. Though to be fair Stripe from my experience always had emphatic support and well written responses. In a way they probably set the gold standard that AI support now mimics.
Dylan168071 day ago
> I suspect they were saying something carefully noncommittal and legally compliant to get you to go away

If their total dismissal of the problem is itself deception, that's not a particularly big improvement!

SpicyLemonZest1 day ago
The problem is that, as patio11 once described in detail (https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/optimal-amount-of-fra...), there are genuine tradeoffs here that people get outraged by the mention of. How many legitimate sales should Stripe block in order to more effectively fight this kind of fraud? Merchants don't want to hear it, and consumers don't either. So financial companies invariably conclude that it's better to raise the question only in careful, indirect ways which could not be misinterpreted as a statement that fraud is good or OK or acceptable.
Dylan168071 day ago
That's a reasonable argument for general money processing, but it's far weaker when you sell an anti-fraud product and try to get every transaction to give you a cut to use it.

And if they had even a little skin in the game they would care about such low-hanging fruit. You don't want a guy that's insulated from the consequences to be in charge of the [anti-]fraud dial.

benoau1 day ago
That link says the customer's undisputed transactions 4 - 12 months ago with you may establish their disputed transaction was actually legitimate, but the article is about someone who only made disputed purchases within a week or two.
8cvor6j844qw_d61 day ago
> Stripe obviously records data around friendly fraud

My only nit with Stipe is they don't allow me to delete card details for an ongoing subscription I don't plan to renew and already set it not to renew on the service billing page.

bfkwlfkjf1 day ago
What's your point? Do you think it matters what stripe said? What is something that they could've said that wouldn't have justified the outraged blog post?
SpicyLemonZest1 day ago
The author thinks it matters what Stripe said, since they chose to use it as the title for their blog post. To the extent that it was just meant to be a lament that it's hard to be a small online merchant in an era of strong consumer protections, sure, I sympathize. But they seem to think it's a problem with Stripe that could be fixed if Stripe behaved better.
gingerlime1 day ago
Author here. What makes you think Stripe cannot do better here?
fencepost1 day ago
I assume that this is basically just not worth pursuing for small-scale orders (e.g. $15ish for Ciglue), but for larger ones what are the reasonable approaches for scenarios that don't involve stolen card fraud?

Notably disputing a credit card charge is completely independent of whether someone owes the debt, the credit card is simply a convenient way for that payment to be handled. What's the point where other collection methods make sense? As an example, if you're consulting for someone and they pay you $x,xxx via card then charge it back, at least in most of the US I believe it's legal for you to do your own collection efforts and contact them repeatedly (this changes if you sell the debt and it's a third party attempting collections).

dghlsakjg1 day ago
Correct, the debt is still valid.

You can try to collect through persistence, or take them to court, get a judgment, and then a court ordered collection. It all depends on the value of your time.

I’ve heard rumors that some merchant agreements with processors may include arbitration clauses for recovering chargebacks, but I’ve never seen it personally.

Advertisement
NDlurker1 day ago
So I can crack open a Backwoods, stick my weed in there, and then glue back together with Ciglue? That's pretty cool.
gingerlime1 day ago
Thank you. Haha, yes. My product is focused on cigar repair, but I know some weed smokers that use cigar glue (mine or other brands) for blunts.
iririririr1 day ago
i went the other way, and already repaired more than one dropped cig with a good sheet of pure cellulose wrapping paper. I cannot imagine someone buying a glue for that. but I'm not german.
gingerlime1 day ago
It’s sold in 20+ countries around the world, not just Germany.

If you’re talking about premium cigars, using paper is possible but kinda ugly. The glue is similar to what rollers use when rolling cigars in the factory. It works well and fits well with the cigar smoking experience.

You don’t have to buy (my) glue. You can make your own and I even share recipes on the website. Ciglue however offers convenience with the dispenser and integrated brush and glue.

(wasn’t expecting to get into details about my product on HN but love how diverse the community is)

ValentineC1 day ago
There aren't any screenshots of conversations with Stripe support in the blog post, but I'm guessing one other reason is that support agents are incentivised to close tickets or end conversations as quickly as possible.
startages1 day ago
I help a lot of client with their ecommerce websites (mostly WooCommerce), attacks became so common recently, could be AI, but I found the best way to deal with this is to trace the patterns in access log and block the same patterns of checkout submission, this have worked really well for me. There are a lot of card testing attacks that Stripe doesn't care to handle as well as a lot of other fraud techniques, but there is always a pattern, especially automated ones. There is country, IP range, certain behavior (eg; no js, or direct api calls..etc). I really think it's easy to deal with this if you're willing to look deeper than a dashboard.
gingerlime1 day ago
none of the technical measures you mentioned could work with “friendly fraud”. It was a real human with a real card with a real address with details all matching, then disputing a payment they themselves made for a product they received.
ro_sharp1 day ago
All of these may result in you bringing in less $ overall, so it really depends on how much each fraud case costs you, but you could (off the top of my head): - Enable always checking CVV - Require 3DS - Ban a card after N disputes - Ban an email/other identifier after N disputes - Ban certain payment methods, banks etc - Add a visible or invisible captcha to fight automated abuse/card testing

I suspect Stripe walks a fine line where they want to help you prevent fraud, but they also want to avoid vendors complaining to them that their customers can’t pay.

Context: I worked on a payments team for a short while.

gingerlime1 day ago
None of the technical measures you mentioned are relevant with “friendly fraud”. And that’s exactly the problem that Stripe doesn’t solve. And doesn’t want to help merchants fight against.
mrguyoramaabout 17 hours ago
Certain 3DS setups would shift fraud liability to the payment network itself. That is the only payment network solution to an entity that will happily sign off on clearly false chargebacks. Then they would themselves be fighting the institution agreeing to sign off on bad chargebacks.
gingerlimeabout 11 hours ago
Even when the consumer claims that they didn’t receive the product?
zuzululu1 day ago
My suggestion is to just ban specific regions or countries and you can cut 80% of this fraud.

I'm not going to name those countries outright but you should never ever be launching globally until you have these safeguards in place.

Once you are known to be vulnerable to a certain scheme, it quickly becomes known in that region/country.

Again and again I'm reminded why high trust societies remain high trust and why low trust societies rarely transform into high trust society.

shash71 day ago
I've got 13 chargebacks over the last 4 years for my biz. Out of these, 10 came from US based cards. The other 3 came from Australia(my country).

Be careful when taking verbatim advice from internet strangers.

vbezhenar1 day ago
I live in Kazakhstan (I assume that's one country nobody heard of and would disable in their dashboard) and my bank doesn't even have any UI for chargebacks, nor I ever heard about anyone doing chargebacks. They even explicitly warn me sometimes that I assume all responsibility for that payment. I guess I can go through some process, it's VISA after all, but it's definitely not something I can do easily.
thrownthatway1 day ago
Everyone’s heard of Kazakhstan, if not for the architecture, at least because of Borat.
omnimus1 day ago
Yeah it's not a thing available to customers outside of western countries. Even in eastern europe countries a chargeback means making a lengthy complaint with the bank and if they decide to trust you then they make chargeback.

So nobody really knows about it.

When i started selling digital download content. Some people will buy, download and instantly charge back.

sam_lowry_1 day ago
The OP of the thread meant US, obviously.
plantain1 day ago
+1 almost all from the US.

The strongest signal is whether they use an eBank/app that has a one-click button to report transactions as fraudulent. The Apple card(?) seems especially prevalent.

m4631 day ago
I had a friend with the apple card, and there were fraudulent charges on her card before she even used it.

I think that caused her to over-scrutinize things.

But (years) later I saw her using apple pay. She had charges she didn't recognize and would immediately flag them. Thing is, I couldn't help but think they might have been real charges with weirdly named companies on the transaction.

fweimer1 day ago
U.S. chargeback rules are different. In other countries, you cannot repudiate credit card transactions that you authorized (and this applies to Mastercard/Visa, too). You need to do something else if you end up in a dispute with the merchant.
hdra1 day ago
not to mention, thats pretty bad advice for these chargeback frauds. not gonna deny some regions have higher risk of frauds, but these are mostly high-volume automated schemes.

in the case of these "friendly fraud" schemes, they are much more likely to come from more developed regions with strong consumer protection laws like the NA.

if anything in many of those "high risk" regions, chargeback are much less common because fewer consumer protection law e.g. banks would automatically reject chargebacks for transactions with 3DS OTP.

Cider99861 day ago
Yeah, they will likely be spoofing their location anyway with residential IPs to let their payments go through easier and maintain identity separation.
zuzululu1 day ago
13 over 4 years is tiny sample compared to what I've seen on international scale.

Great advice which is why data is what I'm relying on vs anecdotes.

squigz1 day ago
With all due respect, both of these stories seem just as anecdotal as the other.
verelo1 day ago
Yeah, all my chargebacks are Americans. Realtors are the worst.
paulddraper1 day ago
How big is your business and where does it sell?

One chargeback a quarter is a lot, depending.

esseph1 day ago
Just because the card is US-based doesn't mean the user is.
joxdosba1 day ago
If the cardholder is doing chargebacks on an US-based card, they cardholder is probably US-based.

Not very easy to do with prepaid cards AFAIU.

zuzululu1 day ago
or American.
gingerlime1 day ago
This case was Canada.

The US and I imagine Canada are known for the ease of chargebacks.

My experience in Europe is that it's a very tough process to even initiate (as a consumer)

orwin1 day ago
My only experience as a European is that I called the support number on my card, they fixed the in 5 minutes, cancelled my card, sent me a new one and set me up with a temporary one.
gingerlime1 day ago
if it was stolen then I guess it’s fairly standard. Disputing specific transactions is much harder though. They ask for evidence you contacted the seller etc and make the process difficult from my very limited experience on the “other end” of the transaction.
modo_mario1 day ago
I'm no longer convinced those high trust societies will remain so. Every high trust society has been pushed to opened it's doors wide and the changes have been stark.
Cider99861 day ago
Accept crypto for those countries, it doesn't have chargebacks and helps those vulnerable to the financial system.
epestr1 day ago
I went down a bit of a search looking for counter evidence that crypto is likely less available to them, and it turns out both perspectives are true depending on the scale you look at. At the micro-level, survey data from emerging markets[0] confirms that crypto offers immunity against institutional failure and inflationary currency.

But this QJE article[1] argues there's a ceiling to how far things scale. Concluding that the cost to keep a decentralized network secure scales with its total economic value. So while there is immediate value to it's user, it might not scale well, and can't replace a country's financial system anyway because securing it at a sovereign scale would just be more expensive.

[0]: https://www.mdpi.com/1911-8074/17/10/467 [1]: https://academic.oup.com/qje/article/140/1/1/7824430

zuzululu1 day ago
I dont follow. If regular finance to a country is that much distanced from global financial oversight and treaties where crypto (with awful spreads) becomes the norm that doesnt necessarily mean they are victims of international financial order but that regular financially modeling simply cannot manage their unique risk characteristics
Cider99861 day ago
Damn, I made a great reply and it never sent–that sucks.

I was more nuanced and specific, but I don't want to do it all again.

1. The fees are not awful idk what you mean, I pay between 0.1% and 1% fees on Monero transactions.

2. If the modelling can't manage their risk characteristics, they are by definition a victim of the financial system. I was more talking about people who have been debanked, though.

I have a Russian friend who can't pay for things online in fiat because of sanctions and the risk to his life from being on the free internet. So, he uses Monero and Tor and takes his OPSEC seriously. He is a victim of trad-fi, and Monero allows him to take his freedom back.

denkmoon1 day ago
Have you ever actually used crypto to buy something? The transaction fees are exorbitant and prohibitive, and it's slow as balls.
Cider99861 day ago
Yes, all the time. I usually pay a 1 cent fee and the transaction goes through in seconds. Not sure what you're talking about.

I can send you some if you want to try it out, just drop an address(for a wallet I recommend cakewallet, but any popular open source wallet works).

I'm talking about Monero specifically, but your reply makes no sense because there are cryptos that have 0 transaction fee and instant confirmaiton. But they are less secure and private so I don't use them, I only use Monero.

DaSHacka1 day ago
That depends on the currency you use. I've only ever used Monero and the transfer fees are fractions of a cent.
shimman1 day ago
Man people are still using the "it's a currency" grift when discussing crypto, did the El Salvador failure really teach you nothing?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin_in_El_Salvador

OneDeuxTriSeiGo1 day ago
That's less because it was Bitcoin and more because the entire effort was a slapdash affair pushed by Bukele in an effort for him and his buddies to profit off the cryptocurrency boom rather than being an inherent knock on cryptocurrency itself.

Also of all the cryptocurrencies Bitcoin is a pretty poor choice since it could be pretty well argued that it has lost the original purpose and devolved into a raw "line go up" financial instrument.

koolba1 day ago
Crypto does have the distinct cash like advantage of not having chargebacks. I don’t know of any other digital payment system with that property.
Cider99861 day ago
That's the whole thing with Monero. It's actually used as a currency, not as a get rich quick scam. I believe 99% of crypto is a scam, but Monero is a real improvement for payments. The Monero community actually wants it to be adopted to spend it, it's not a price go up community.

Buy food with Monero on an ebay type platform called xmrbazaar.

(https://xmrbazaar.com/search-category/food/)

Donate to non-profits in Monero

(https://donatemonero.org)

GrapheneOS says it's the only crypto that they regularly get recurring small donations in.

jhancock1 day ago
I was told by someone in the industry that New Zealand leads the pack for travelling outside NZ and coming home to refute charges.
edflsafoiewq1 day ago
> I'm not going to name those countries outright

Why?

MBCook1 day ago
I would assume it’s not that relevant to the advice. And people will always argue about the countries if you list them.

X isn’t bad. You should include Y. You only added/omitted Z because of $stereotype/$racistView/$otherAllegation.

Probably just not worth the hassle.

amelius1 day ago
That's very lazy and unfriendly against people who are not fraudsters.
hosteur1 day ago
Why do you not want to name them?
bellowsgulch1 day ago
It makes the conversation turn into an electromagnet for racists.

You can’t ignore the stereotypes, but you can let people figure it out themselves. You don’t have to say it when it’s already obvious.

phoronixrly1 day ago
Your comment is extra funny as OP mentioned the customer was Canadian. Have you considered trying to avoid stereotypes?
HaZeust1 day ago
>"Again and again I'm reminded why high trust societies remain high trust and why low trust societies rarely transform into high trust society."

Outside of South Korea, from enormous help from Pax Americana, has it ever happened?

hdndjsbbs1 day ago
I had a customer do something similar with a thousand-dollar product. They had signed for delivery and provided no evidence, but banks always side with the customer.
Cider99861 day ago
I thought that banks were less likely to side with the customer compared with credit cards.
nradov1 day ago
Most credit cards are issued by banks.
kweksabout 21 hours ago
Stripe is a payment gateway, not an anti-fraud solution. I'd recommend using services such as wyllo or Signifyd for anti-fraud. They will pre-filter against network intelligence signals, and if they approve the transaction, will guarantee your funds, even if a chargeback is lost, and even if you lose.
plumeriaabout 13 hours ago
Is the usage-based pricing of Signifyd et al cheaper than using 3D secure? What about "micro" transactions?
Suppafly1 day ago
You know enough about the buyer to sue them or report them to the FBI.
tonyarkles1 day ago
Suing someone in the Philippines probably won’t be worth the effort for an $18 product. And the FBI probably will not care much about a $18 international fraud.
gingerlime1 day ago
Yeah. This case Canada. Not sure where to report but seems unlikely to do anything. Will happily report out of principle so any tips welcome.
pseudo01 day ago
You presumably have their shipping address, so you can look up their local police department and report it as general fraud. Eg. The Toronto police have an online reporting tool for fraud and scams: https://www.tps.ca/services/online-reporting/

If it happens to be a slow day, or the person is already on their shit list (eg. on probation) maybe something will come of it. Having the gloating emails definitely helps. Or maybe the report just goes into a file until this person does this for a more expensive item and then it gets pulled to prove a pattern of behavior.

RevEng1 day ago
A lawsuit will cost you at least thousands of dollars if you can even serve the person. The FBI doesn't care about even thousands of dollars of fraud; they are busy chasing million dollar crime rings. Try reporting to your local police and see what they say - they will advise you it is not even worth your time to write out a report because it won't be investigated. Heck, my mom was defrauded out of $10k by a persistent group of people running a fake crypto investing company, and when she reported to the government body specifically responsible for investigating those cases, the nice man said, "Thanks for letting us know." They don't have time to investigate and prosecute minor fraud.
phonon1 day ago
Use EMV 3DS 2.x authentication with liability shift protection?
mchusma1 day ago
I am pretty convinced that friendly fraud is about 90% of chargebacks. I have seen some genuine fraud, but dwarfed by friendly fraud over time across 3 companies.
Advertisement
reactordev1 day ago
A friend of mine has a "1 dispute and your banned rule"... sounds like it could help in this situation. He'll catch wind of someone disputing they didn't receive a product he makes, despite his OCD with packaging, and gets a chargeback. He sits down each week with all the chargebacks he's gotten and bans them from future sales. It's not often but when he does, he complains about it when I see him.
account42about 23 hours ago
Have you considered filing a police report? I'm not sure if small claims would be an option if you are a commercial seller.

Anything that actually discourages that behavior directly is better than some slightly more negative reputation in an opaque fraud detection system.

ios-contractor1 day ago
To be fair, from stripe's point of view, how would they know that you and the alleged customer are not in on it for some reason they don't know?
AnthonyMouse1 day ago
"Friendly fraud" is when the cardholder is in on it. They or an accomplice they've given access to their credit card go to a merchant, order and receive an expensive item with the card and then file a chargeback claiming they didn't make the purchase so they can keep both the item and the money.
wildzzz1 day ago
What would be there to gain? The merchant loses money to the credit card processing fees, chargeback fees, and shipping cost along with the loss of the product, they gain nothing. Its a pretty expensive way to send a customer a free thing.
jellomjello1 day ago
? in on what?
l5870uoo9y1 day ago
I wonder how much revenue Stripe would loose if it cracked down on chargeback fraud and free trial abuse (cards defaulting) and similar? Even just a few percentage out of an annual revenue of $5.1 billion is substantial.
tptacek1 day ago
Isn't this a property (and longstanding value judgement) of the entire payment card ecosystem?
AnthonyMouse1 day ago
When a problem is industry-wide, people are naturally going to complain about the most prominent companies, but that's not necessarily even wrong. The most prominent companies are the ones in the strongest position to actually do something about it (e.g. develop better detection for friendly fraud or lobby for sensible regulatory changes), and have a stronger incentive to when they're the ones who keep getting blamed.
tonyarkles1 day ago
dentemple1 day ago
Then what are the better alternatives?
bombcar1 day ago
Nothing, it’s a 5% bobcat problem. The card processors can force the merchants to eat it and there’s nothing you can do save not accepting cards, which loses you the other 95% of the market.

https://xkcd.com/325/

Cider99861 day ago
Monero or honestly any crypto. There's no chargebacks and it can be more private.
wildzzz1 day ago
That's fine for some things but my grandma is not going to buy from an online store that only takes crypto. Crypto as a payment option works well for computer-related merchants or for privacy-focused merchants. Like it wouldn't be uncommon to rent a VPS with crypto but it would be strange for an online candy store to accept it.
Cider99861 day ago
> That's fine for some things but my grandma is not going to buy from an online store that only takes crypto.

Of course not, unless it becomes mainstream, crypto usage will always be by early adopters and technologists. I don't care if you accept cards as well, I just want to be able to pay privately with Monero.

You're right that for chargebacks specifically the only way to eliminate them would be 100% crypto, not the option of card and crypto together, which is significantly more likely. But there are other benefits for customers(privacy), which is why I use it.

lxgrabout 24 hours ago
"No chargebacks" means you'll have a very hard time attracting new customers, though, as bootstrapping trust is much harder that way.
vintermann1 day ago
In fact it can be so private you'll never know who the merchant who didn't send you the product is.
N_Lens1 day ago
Don't most crypto exchanges ban Monero?
Cider99861 day ago
Yes, unfortunately the banking system is hostile to privacy even though the vast majority of money laundering goes through fiat.
burnJS1 day ago
I lose disputes all the time, no matter the evidence. I'm not happy with Stripe. The only thing keeping me from looking at alternatives is the low volume of fraud committed against my SaaS.

Do better Stripe. Be better Stripe. Or eventually we will find someone better. Think. Don't enshittify. Your support has already become covered in it by doing the needful.

trimethylpurineabout 23 hours ago
If they committed fraud and you have evidence of the criminal activity, and their address, you could file a police report or a small claims case to inconvenience them back. The only thing protecting the criminal is that you don't care to press the issue any more than Stripe does.
xyst1 day ago
If they are using the same name, address. Why not just flag the "friendly fraud" before fulfilling it?
charcircuit1 day ago
>And the bank, naturally, sided with them.

How is it natural if DHL had proof of delivery.

gingerlime1 day ago
Yeah I didn’t really go into it, but I can imagine a bank prefers to take care of their own customer than about a small merchant. I’m definitely frustrated with the whole system. But I expected at least Stripe to try to protect its own customers (merchants).
vintermann1 day ago
I guess DHL had proof of delivery of a box.
Advertisement
bix61 day ago
Signifyd (company) solves this issue.
chasebank1 day ago
how so?
bix61 day ago
https://www.signifyd.com/fearless-conversions/

They have a comprehensive customer ID system and let you adjust desired risk levels for various forms of fraud.

Epic username btw lol

plumeriaabout 13 hours ago
How does it compare to Google Cloud Fraud Defense (previously ReCAPTCHA Enterprise)?
ProofHouseabout 21 hours ago
I was so annoyed with their onboarding for new accts I moved to Square on every project. Love it! Never going back
csomar1 day ago
tl;dr: stripe doesn't provide protection until you buy Radar (a separate product which should have been part of the stripe offering but uh...). So the incentive is to let stripe customers burn in charge backs so that they buy radar.