The charge backs notices came from the same company where we paid the authorize.net fees, not from the bank that had our merchant account. We also sent all documents back to them to dispute the chargebacks. I assume they were associated with Authorize.net, as they set up the account with them. They may have merely paid Authorize.net their fees each month after collecting them from us.
We attempted to switch merchant account banks while with Authorize.net and were told we could not do so. We pay Cybercash directly for transaction fees. I frankly don't know how they are set up. We did switch merchant banks when we switched to Cybercash and we have successfully defended against chargebacks with the new bank. We provided documentation to prove the individual used the hosting services and have only had to pay one of the last four attempted chargebacks. Whether the client backed down or not I do not have any way of knowing. All I know is that we submitted the documentation for IP address for the order and the code number on the back of the customer card along with proof that the hosting service was used and we did not pay the chargeback nor the chargeback fees. Using Authorize.net, and checking our old merchant account provider, we were not successful in defending any chargebacks, as they always responded that we must have the customer signature. We don't have a problem with domain name registrations on chargebacks, as we used a registrar now that returns the domain name to us in the event of a chargeback. When the client realizes they are losing the domain name, they "remember" their mistake and that they did order the domain name. We have only had two clients that went through with the chargeback and give up the domain name registration since we switched registrars. And we took possession of the two domain names. One we have resold on eBay, the other we still have. We use OpenSRS to service the clients that we have with OpenSRS, not for new registrations. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert L Mathews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2001 1:31 PM Subject: Re: What to do if credit card fails - domain already registered... > 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 >
