← Back to context

Comment by ribosometronome

2 days ago

And then you're forever barred from using the service.

I once did a chargeback of almost $5k to PayPal when someone scammed me (and PayPal sided with scammer). I still have my account, though I don't use it for anything I'd actually need protection on now.

On the other hand I did get banned from an online local selling site (rhymes with Canary) for charging back a small purchase where the wrong thing was delivered and their system for reporting it was broken and they refused to refund. I even tried having a roommate create an account (same address) and they banned that when they made a purchase.

Why would you want to continue using a service that is ripping you off? If you're at the point where your only recourse is to charge back, that's kind of a bridge burning moment.

  • > Why would you want to continue using a service that is ripping you off?

    For the same reason that I'm going to continue using Uber despite them ripping other people off, as described in this very thread. People systematically overweight their own negative experiences and underweight those of others; I believe that every single negative story about Lyft and Uber I've read in this thread is likely to be true. In other words, they do sometimes rip people off. On the other hand, am I likely enough to be ripped off the next time I use Uber that it doesn't make sense to use it? (And do what instead, walk?) No. It's unfortunate, and I support social solutions to the problem like better regulation of businesses, but if I personally dropped every company I think sometimes rips people off, I would do business with no one ever.

    • I have many times walked home when I didn’t trust the bus timetable or the taxi equivalent. Always expected to get mugged but it hasn’t happened yet. I guess people often think someone walking is someone to not be messed with. Very place dependent obviously

      1 reply →

  • You get barred from a whole suite of services. Anything Google/Alphabet owns or may acquire in the future. People often don't have a choice here.

  • Let's retain a sense of proportion here; it was $3.

    • IMO it's attitudes like this that allow companies to continue ripping us all off for small amounts here and small amounts there. They know it's a small amount and most people won't push back, so they keep getting away with it. I suppose the only thing that stops me from hitting the nuclear button every time this happens is that there are a limited number of companies offering many categories of services, and I'd eventually have to charge back each of them and lose access to an entire industry composed entirely of shitty companies.

      It would be much better if companies were inclined to amicably settle small dollar disputes rather than the default which seems to be to stonewall, and then ban when the customer uses the only tool they have to push back.

      1 reply →

Ironically, taking them to small claims court is likely more effective if you want to send a message without getting banned. It will get more attention, consume more valuable resources on their side (and yours of course), and likely not get you banned unlike the chargeback process where you'd just get auto-mindlessly sorted into the "fraud" bucket.

Apple screwed me once so I did a chargeback

My account was soft banned - everything I own

It should be illegal to allow services to ban you for a chargeback

Those don’t happen just willy nilly - it means your credit card reviewed your dispute and you won

  • > Those don’t happen just willy nilly - it means your credit card reviewed your dispute and you won

    Here's how that review works at the online seller of downloadable software accompanied by an online service that I do some work for.

    1. A customer asks for a chargeback.

    2. Their card company notifies us and asks for proof the charge is legitimate (e.g. made by the customer and what they ordered was delivered). For proof the charge was made by the customer the card company wants us to fax them a copy of the receipt that the customer signed, which of course does not exist. We also can't really prove delivery--I've yet to see a credit card company that will accept download logs showing that someone later downloaded the software from the same IP address that the order was placed from. Since we can't really dispute the chargeback it is approved.

    Even when it should be obvious from the credit card company's own records that the charge is legit they want to see that signed receipt. E.g., if the customer bought a monthly subscription 2 years ago and we've been successfully charging them every month since then, and now they suddenly ask for a chargeback on their most recent charge claiming they don't recognize the charge and have never heard of is or bought any service from us the credit card company doesn't consider all those past undisputed charges as relevant.

    That's not quite willy nilly but it is leaning that way for things that are entirely online.

  • They should obviously not be able to do that, I hope you now will stop relying on such services that put you utterly at their mercy. I hope you also tell everyone you know to not fall in the same trap

    • Yeah bro but what are you supposed to do? We live in a moment in time where you can’t take a step without stepping in shit

      I don’t want to turn streaming content into a personal hobby and spend time/money trying to set up home streaming services just like I don’t want to buy physical media

      Ditto for phone/apps - the play store is just as bad and I have no interest in running a jailbroken iPhone as that comes with its own set of headaches