| 7:32 am on Jul 14, 2004 (gmt 0)|
What really makes me mad is when credit card companies finds way to stick me, the merchant, for their lack of responsibility! I have lost over $8,000 this year to AVS-YYY and shipped to the Bill To: address, only afterwards to be told it was my fault for not getting the correct signature! The cards were issued to fraudulent people! Every card had been cancelled due to fraud!
[edited by: rogerd at 12:21 am (utc) on July 15, 2004]
[edit reason] minor reference removed [/edit]
| 8:24 am on Jul 14, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Pretty soon we're going to be complaining about paypal being TOO popular.
| 3:55 pm on Jul 14, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|What really makes me mad is when credit card companies finds way to stick me, the merchant, for their lack of responsibility! I have lost over $8,000 this year to AVS-YYY and shipped to the Bill To: address, only afterwards to be told it was my fault for not getting the correct signature! Like the jews were responsible for the holocaust! The cards were issued to fraudulent people! Every card had been cancelled due to fraud! |
It is YOUR responsibility to validate YOUR orders. If you, as a merchant, want to keep your money, you need to read up on the readily available information on credit card fraud. The merchant processor is only responsible for processing the transaction, not giving any type of judgment on whether or not it is fraudulent. Unless you are using fraud scoring software, where they only give a score, but still are not liable for the interpretation of the results.
While processors do have thier faults, it is an ignorant merchant that blames the "transaction mechanism" when they accept a fraudulent transaction. HAD YOU READ, you would know that an address YYY is still no type of guarantee that the transaction is legitimate. And since you have lost so much $ to fraud, you REALLY should have done the research. And if you do not, you will continue to lose more money.
There is no defense against a fraudulent transaction. NONE. Now there are other transactions that a customer tries to say is unauthorized, when the customer did place and receive the order but is being sneaky, and you can fight those (even without a signature). But you can't defend a true fraudulent transaction. And once you are known to be a merchant that is easy to get over on, you might become a target for even MORE fraudulent transactions.
I'll say it again the proccessors have thier faults but it is the merchant's responsibility to become educated on fraudulent transactions.
| 5:53 pm on Jul 14, 2004 (gmt 0)|
> that an address YYY is still no type of
> guarantee that the transaction is legitimate.
What's nice about Paypal is that you are charged the same processing rate whether you ship to a "Confirmed" or "Unconfirmed" address. This is Paypal's front-end implementation of AVS, I think.
| 10:13 pm on Jul 14, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Did I deny responsibility? No the credit card company issued credit to a thief because the purchase went to the credit card holder at the address on the credit card. Only the person was not aware the credit card was issued in their name by the thief. The "credit card holder" was paid to accept and turnover whatever was delivered to them.
What good was a signature but a credit card con against the merchant? They already knew how the fraud worked and just applied an educated mind's morality of finding ways to assign guilt to others but never acceptting their own responsibility!
They, the credit card company, failed to protect the credit industry by weakly investigating and authorizing the issuance of the credit card!
The signature was a legal con to ignore their poor workmanship!
| 10:22 pm on Jul 14, 2004 (gmt 0)|
The signature is not a con, but it's not even worth going back and forth about it because it's obvious that you want to stay in a place of not knowing instead of doing the research.
You initially posted that you lost over $8,000 shipping when address was YYY, are you now trying to say they are ALL identity theft?
| 11:09 pm on Jul 14, 2004 (gmt 0)|
There were two more I actually should have not sent making a total of 12 orders aand two recovered. I stopped 33 in the same 8 week period.
Only one product per order, most shipped second or third day. Never the same product, but all quality digital cameras. Never to the same address or city, never the same card, never the same email address *but* from 2 email domain names. That was the only clue of fraud 18 orders from 2 Sikn Internet domains, one in the US, one in Egypt.
The day I uncovered the fraud I issued credits for all 10 orders to stop the chargeback fees. At that point I only knew I had been frauded, not how. The next day I got a new order and called until I got the issuing company fraud department. They tried to contact the customer and discovered the telephone numbers had been disconnected.
Actually one order was rejected by the receiver and another I have been informed recovered when the home owner became afraid something was wrong.
The scam was work from home accepting packages. Recruited out of newpaper want ads.
| 11:19 pm on Jul 14, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Can you tie this in with the new fee structure Paypal is implementing?
| 11:57 pm on Jul 14, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Why I was not upset with PayPal even with the fee structure changes. I welcome cash transactions as credit card companies have shown me they are taking advantage of the "no signature" loophole.
The few transactions with PayPal have all gone smoothly.
| 12:05 am on Jul 15, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|they are taking advantage of the "no signature" loophole.[ |
There is no such thing as a "no signature loophole"
It is different fighting a transaction where the cardholder is trying to get over by claiming they didn't receive the product and flat out fraud.
There is no defense to a fraudulent transaction whether it is via credit card, paypal, money order, stolen or fraudulent check-- you will NOT get to keep the money.
| 12:41 am on Jul 15, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Drop the subject this is the wrong thread.
My point is I feel PayPal is more honorable then credit card companies. At least they offer more protection to merchants then what I have seen from credit card companies!
| 4:59 am on Jul 21, 2004 (gmt 0)|
"Pretty soon we're going to be complaining about paypal being TOO popular."
In a way, I believe that PayPal has figured out that they can flex their muscles and effectively increase their rates without too much concern becase they have acquired more popularity than all the competition combined!
No doubt they have earned their popularity to some extent. But if the seller community doesn't at least make an effort to examine the advantages of the competition, because they are complacent with the popularity of PayPal, the benefit of competition will be forfeited.
I have identified and profiled at least 36 competitors to PayPal and many of them could be a good alternative to PayPal depending on your business line and volume.
| 7:40 am on Jul 21, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Yeah rock on.
One of the problems with WebmasterWorld is they don't advocate the support and development of competition enough.
In theory, their should be more work on this website to encourage and support competition of Webmaster vendors.
| This 43 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 43 ( 1  ) |