Comment by ddtaylor
1 day ago
Story time!
I actually cancelled my ChatGPT subscription in late 2024 and documented the process, kind of as a social media thing because it had gotten so bad and I realized nobody in my family was using it anymore. I asked my wife if she was getting any use out of it and she told me she had been using Gemini and Grok for months because "GPT is very lazy now".
After a while another charge came in for the subscription, but I had the receipts: we had cancelled before the next billing cycle. I decided to try and reach out to OpenAI to resolve this, but they only let you chat with GPT itself for this, which it failed at and told me they weren't in the wrong and none of the information matched what actually happened.
I took this and used it to submit a chargeback request with Privacy.com, which I use for all of my online purchases. Normally I don't have to worry about this because I set a limit or cancel the cards I issue manually, but I had an OpenAI API account using the same card and I had been a bit lazy in using the same card for technically two different services.
Well, Privacy.com won that dispute and I got that money back. It's worth mentioning this is actually different than most banks will do now days. For the most part when you try to get a bank to do a chargeback they just roll it into their insurance and refund you the customer as a cost of doing business, but the actual scammer or shady merchant got to keep their stolen money, whereas I can be certain OpenAI didn't keep my money.
Your last statement is false. A shady merchant never gets to keep the stolen money. The card issuer/bank refunds you immediately because of consumer protection laws. But that charge is immediately charged to the processor. The processor then gets the merchant involved in a dispute process. If the merchant loses the processor charges the merchant. One way they do it is to immediately deduct it from their current processed transactions. If the merchant is no longer processing, they will usually go try to claw it back from their bank account if they have no held reserves, and if they can't get it, they send the merchant to collection. At the end the merchant must eat the cost or the processor. So in your case, the bank didn't eat the cost. OpenAI certainly ate the cost and the chargeback fees.
You are incorrect.
Chase uses a "provisional credit" system, but for small amounts, this credit often becomes permanent almost instantly.
Wells Fargo utilizes an automated system called the Wells Fargo Dispute Manager which is also similar.
Technically, it is Self-Insurance. Banks set aside a portion of their interchange revenue (the fees they charge merchants for every swipe) into a "Provision for Credit Losses." They use this pool of money to "buy" customer satisfaction for small errors rather than paying an employee $30/hour to investigate a $12 dispute.
And yet I’ve dealt with $15 (and I believe less) chargebacks on more than on occasion. Chargebacks that Stripe charges me $15 even if I win the dispute.
The banks don’t seem to care one bit about and evidence you do provide anyway, I just imagine their dispute system is just “sleep(10 days); return DENIED;”
> Your last statement is false. A shady merchant never gets to keep the stolen money.
Or any merchant for that matter. Chargebacks (from bad actors) are one of the most annoying things when you sell online when you’re a honest legit business. Stripe even charges you a penalty fee on top of that.
This makes me feel good. My gym was one of those places that lured you in with a low monthly price then heavily upsell you on personal trainers. The trainers were fine, but they were fairly inexperienced (usually college kids who took a course and then wanted a summer job or something). And once they found something better they'd leave. Nothing against the trainers, but I prefer to have consistency with my coaches.
Anyway, when I canceled my membership, I realized a few months later they were still charging me for training sessions. I chatted with the manager and apparently I had to cancel those separately. They refused to refund me for the sessions I never took. But they had a kind offer of being able to get training without paying for membership.
Well, I wasn't buying it, so I went on Chase and initiated chargebacks for every session charged after I canceled.
I dunno what happened on their end, but I got my money back. The business is still around, so I guess I didn't hurt them that much, but it's good to know that I probably was at least a hindrance.
Your credibility is shot when you claim that banks will just give you money. They absolutely do not. In fact, Discover has admitted to me in writing, that they always rule in favor of the Merchant if that Merchant responds to the dispute -- regardless of what their response says.
I've dealt with multiple chargebacks over the years and have only ever lost once -- when the Manager at Lowes' showed a check they wrote me [after I opened the dispute].
They absolutely do not just do anything and "write it off". Please be human and don't just rattle of high-confidence, baseless claims, especially as a giant billboard to Privacy.com
> Discover has admitted to me in writing, that they always rule in favor of the Merchant if that Merchant responds to the dispute -- regardless of what their response says
What, always? Like, literally 100% of the time if the merchant responds at all, they automatically win?
That's very hard to believe. I don't know Discover but I do know Visa and that's not how their system works at all.
I use Amex as much as possible because it’s basically never a fight. If I dispute, I get my money back. Granted, I don’t abuse the power so maybe I’ve earned some trust over the decades.
Wells Fargo, Chase, Capitol One, many others practice this provisional credit system, which functions very similar to an insurance.
Go read your banks terms and you'll find the provision. Do you want me to read your banks terms for you and point them out?
> Well, Privacy.com won that dispute and I got that money back.
Well, it seems like ChatGPT’s automated litigation resolution with Privacy.com got lazy. I wonder how a company with an AI can lose in a dispute instead of smokescreening the opponent with legitimate arguments and legalese.
It helps when you have a video posted on social media the day you cancelled and a video of talking to a clueless AI customer retention system that seems to not agree or understand how time works.
Also, chargeback dispute is limited to 3 rounds of back and fourth by Visa and MasterCard both. They don't get to endlessly come back etc.