At 12/6/01 1:45 PM, ezgoing8 wrote: >Too many card issuers take the position that the charge can be disputed >anytime during the period charged and that the only acceptable proof is a >signed copy of the charge slip. > >Authorize.net would not fight the issue so we switched to Cybercash.
Just for the record, Authorize.Net isn't a merchant bank -- they're a gateway service that channels your charges to an "acquiring bank" you have a merchant account with. For example, I use Authorize.Net to channel my payments to Wells Fargo Merchant Services. Authorize.Net has nothing to do with chargebacks; that's up to your acquiring bank. For example, when I get a chargeback, it's from Wells Fargo, and has nothing to do with Authorize.Net at all. So it was not Authorize.Net that was "not fighting the issue", but your acquiring bank. Unless things have changed recently, CyberCash is just a payment gateway, too, so switching from Authorize.Net to CyberCash (while keeping the same acquiring bank) wouldn't affect how your chargebacks are handled. Unfortunately, even switching banks wouldn't help, anyway. VISA and MasterCard card association rules put the burden of proof on the merchant for "card not present" transactions, and the only proof considered valid is a signed receipt that matches the card signature or proof of delivery of physical goods. If someone says "I never made that transaction" or "I never received the promised services", and you don't have a signature that matches, that's all it takes. You cannot fight it at the chargeback level, although some people have reported success in filing lawsuits, going to collection agencies, or threatening the cardholder into dropping the dispute if it appears the actual cardholder is trying to rip you off. (People occasionally say they "fought a chargeback" for a card not present, no signature, services transaction, but what actually happened is that the customer voluntarily dropped the dispute when the merchant provided more documentation of the transaction.) If you're accepting VISA and MasterCard, you have agreed to these terms (in some extremely fine print that makes reference to the card association rules that they didn't show you, most likely). By coincidence, VISA this week announced a new program that may change this in the future: http://usa.visa.com/verified/ If it catches on, VISA is apparently considering changing the rules so that verified transactions are treated as card present transactions, shifting the burden away from the merchant. Not that I'd hold my breath, mind you.... -- Robert L Mathews, Tiger Technologies
