Comment by Loughla
2 months ago
What about fighting charges? In the US, if I flag a charge on my credit card it's immediately cancelled and they deal with it.
How does that work?
2 months ago
What about fighting charges? In the US, if I flag a charge on my credit card it's immediately cancelled and they deal with it.
How does that work?
They way it works I don't receive a charge like you do with visa, the merchant presents a code, you scan it when your bank app and then the bank app asks if you want to send # of money to [merchant name], if you don't want to pay it then you don't approve the transfer in your app on your phone.
However after the fact there's less options, I've never gone through
Bundling consumer protection with the payment system was always a bad idea. Payments need to be instantaneous and free.
The returns/refunds can be handled offline by a mutually agreed facilitator that does not have a monopoly on the payment system. You can also have a legal mandate that all internet purchase, for example, should employ such a service, that charges a market fee and is then liable for making fair decisions.
It is not a bad idea. This is how it is supposed to be. My bank offers this even with Mastercard. I have to approve transactions when paying online. It's instant, I finish checkout, and then I receive the push notification asking me to confirm the transaction. I don't know if I would ever use CC in a country where banks don't allow this.
3 replies →
Consumer protection can still be separate in this case. That's not a problem at all. The only reason it is not prevalent in these countries yet is because they in general have lax consumer protection laws. But this can easily change. The unified payment interface does nothing to exclude it.
That's not really what I asked.
What happens if a fraudulent charge happens?
If payments are always approved by the payer with their PIN / FaceID, then the idea of a fraudulent charge is just undefined.
Like you hand cash to someone. The transaction is done at the moment money changes hand. You don't get to call someone to snatch the money back to you against the payee's will.
For online purchase, for example, buyer pays the marketplace (e.g. taobao.com) to temporarily hold the money -> seller ships the goods -> buyer confirms goods are received -> marketplace pays seller. If there is a question, you take it to the marketplace to sort things out according to marketplace & seller policy. Either way, the payment provider doesn't concern itself with any of this - it only routes money according to payer's request.
In the Netherlands, possibly more of Europe, you can do a chargeback ("storneren") on automated deductions, which can be used in the case of conflicts, e.g. a company withdrawing money from your account even though you cancelled a subscription.
It does not work as seamlessly as CC w.r.t chargebacks.
What a lot of folks do is they pay for most purchases with UPI but try and ensure there is some kind of "undo" button somewhere for large purchases. If I am making a purchase on a shady website, or making a large purchase, I will pay using CC so that I can chargeback and the CC company will deal with it. However, even if I am buying a laptop or whatever on Amazon, I know that amazon will deal with returns and stuff properly, so I would just UPI it. There is also the matter of credit card offers and points and what not. If there is a good discount then CC is used.
Not well is my guess. You best treat it as a cash equivalent, because it's a push method.
What happens when it's so easy and people start abusing this system?
May be related: Discover refused a charge back from when Walmart sold me invisibly unusable food in a sealed container and was creating bureaucratic hoops to return it. They told me that they blanket deny all charge backs for food.