posted on July 17, 2001 01:07:35 PM new
>>Billpoint and paypal do not allow or disallow chargebacks...they have no say in the matter. <<
But when I charge a credit card directly, I get to see the cardholder's name and address and can make an informed decision. BP and PP expects us to trust them but then expect us to take a loss when THEY screw up. According to several reports and The Auction Guild, BP has even allowed charges where the customer's name and address did not match the one on the credit card. And they let the same person do this multiple times. How incompetent can a payment service be? With BP the seller has no way to fight it and with PP it often happens that the seller is not informed until after the charge back has taken place. If fraud is claimed, they will happily charge back the seller but refuse to provide the name and address of the person who ripped them off. Maybe I'm naive, but once it has been proven that someone is a crook, why protect them?
>>Shipping the merchandise to a confirmed address does not guarantee that the CC company will deny a chargeback request from the CC customer. <<
It does if the customer tries to claim that a crook used the CC without permission (as was attempted against me twice). It's hard to claim a crook used your card to order merchandise sent to your house.
>>Billpoint is NOT committing fraud when they charge the seller for a chargeback even if the seller sent the item to the confirmed address.<<
They are if THEY allowed the customer to open an account with the wrong name. They are if THEY let the same customer do this multiple times. It is called accessory before and after the fact.
>>Neither billpoint or paypal guarantee that a confirmed address means that the card is not being fraudulently used. <<
But Paypal makes grand promises of "seller protection" - a promise they seem to break at will.
>>Paypal has made a business decision to not pass on certain chargebacks IF the seller has jumped through ALL the hoops paypal has set up <<
and if the seller empties his bank account and posts nasty messages here and contacts the BBB and makes a big enough racket to embarrass them into doing what they promised.
>>If paypal were to determine that this policy is to costly to them then you can bet the TOS would be changed so that the seller would be responsible for the chargeback. <<
But that would lead to people not using it, so it's easy to make promises and then break them.
>>Right now paypal sees the seller protection plan as being in their best interests<<
As long as they put in enough weasel words so they don't have to actually provide it. Check out the paypal thread on OTWA. Paypal is now saying (and Damon doesn't seem to dispute it) that if a customer claims "quality of merchandise" there is no seller protection even if all the rules were followed. Some of the underground boards are already spreading the message that using PP means you get the stuff for free.
>>Accepting credit cards holds risks for the merchant. The credit card company sides with the CC customer (your buyer), even in cases as spurious as the husband who denied the wife had permission to use the card and requested chargebacks months after the merchandise had been sold. Billpoint didn't "allow" those chargebacks because billpoint wasn't the final determinator of the legitimacy of those chargebacks...the CC company was...billpoint had no say in the decision to allow the chargebacks.<<
I had this identical situation with Fleet Bank and they denied the charge back. So did Monrovia Bank. I spoke to the CC department at Chase and Citibank and both said they would have denied this. The only reason it went through is because BP didn't bother to fight it. Also, this same husband and wife con team did this many times. BP should have closed the account after the first time.
>>We, as business owners have to decide if the risks of accepting credit card purchases are worthwhile..but lets stop blaming billpoint and/or paypal for the chargebacks as they don't control whether a chargeback is approved or denied.<<
Then why doesn't PP just say "use our service at your own risk" instead of pretending it's safe? Why don't we see all these same horror stories with other payment services? Why do most of the Internet fraud stories involve PP, a few involve BP and
the rest involve direct credit card payments and some Paydirect. I have to see a single charge back story about Moneyzap, C2it, emoneymail, propay, etc? And before you try to answer that PP has more users, even if all the others are only 1%, note this: We have seen hundreds of PP horror stories. C2it is an AW partner. Surely by now there would have been at least one person defrauded.
-----------------------------------
>>yisgood Billpoint's "verification" is a joke. They have allowed folks to open accounts when the name and address used did not match the card.
Care to share your source on that?<<
How many do you need? This is in addition to lots of posts on ebay and email I have received.
posted on July 17, 2001 01:41:13 PM new
Amy wrote: Chargebacks are determined by the credit card company and the merchant (billpoint and paypal) MUST accept the credit card company's decision.
Right, but it doesn't seem that sellers are given the opportunity to respond to the chargeback inquiry...
posted on July 17, 2001 02:17:58 PM new
Well done Yisgood!
Billpoint & PayPal couldn't give a rat's azz about "doing the right thing". As long as they're making a pizz pot full of money, they could careless about whether sellers are being protected from charge backs.
posted on July 17, 2001 02:54:29 PM new
Yisgood, those links you provided don't prove your point. BillPoint does require the address to match the billing address when you apply for an account. The seller doesn't see that address per say but only the shipping address, very big difference between what is and what you are claiming.
If I ask to see proof the sky is falling and you show me a bump on your head I'll remain unconvinced.
This is in addition to lots of posts on ebay
Provide a link to a single post on eBay where that is mentioned and a BillPoint rep acknowledges such a bug, just one. BillPoint does have some bugs but the reps have acknowledged them when they have been brought up.
posted on July 17, 2001 03:05:19 PM new
Yisgood...in order for a buyer to use the billpoint system he DOES NOT have to sign up for an account...there is NO registration requirement, so how can billpoint allow someone to "open an account with the wrong name".
You have no idea whether those who have used fradulent cards had registered with billpoint or not.
Billpoint does not "allow" the charge...they present it to the CC company and the CC company either approves the charge or not.
The buyer must give billpoint the billing address of the credit card and that has to match what is on file with the CC. Nothing in the TOS of Billpoint says they check shipping address against billing address...so if a merchant (us) wants to make sure they are shipping to the billing address then maybe they shouldn't use billpoint. But that does not add up to fraud on billpoint's part.
"has even allowed charges where the customer's name and address did not match the one on the credit card"
Do you work at billpoint? Unless you do, I doubt that you can KNOW this for a fact. Billpoint does not give the credit card info to the sellers so there is no way we can know for sure that what you are stating is fact or supposition. And the source of your information (tagnotes) has no more inside info than you do.
You are right, if you have a traditional merchant account you do get to see the customer's name and address in order to make a decision...so if this is important to you (or another seller) then a traditional merchant account would serve you (or another seller) better.
I stated Shipping the merchandise to a confirmed address does not guarantee that the CC company will deny a chargeback request from the CC customer.
And you replied [b]It does if the customer tries to claim that a crook used the CC without permission (as was attempted
against me twice). It's hard to claim a crook used your card to order merchandise sent to your house.[/b]
Your response does not invalidate what I said. If a confirmed shipping address guaranteed a denial of a charge back there would NEVER be a chargeback when a confirmed shipping address was used, which we all know is not true...a chargeback CAN STILL OCCUR even with a confirmed shipping address. The confirmed shipping address reduces the risk but DOES NOT eliminate it.
The rest of your arguments in response to my posts have missed the point of those statements. I was pointing out that paypal's buyer protection was for paypal's benefit not ours and they can change it at will. I was pointing out there are risks involved with accepting credit cards through a third party CC service and WE have to decide our level of comfort with that risk.
These services provide a desired product that many online sellers want, and most times they are trouble free. But the user has to be aware of the risks and pitfalls involved when using these services. Using a traditional merchant account for mail order sales (which we are) also carries higher risks than a brick and morter business is subject to when accepting CCs. Accepting credit cards period involves risks as the credit card companies lean more to the buyer than the merchant...because a chargeback doesn't hurt the CC company as they just take the money back from the merchant.
My post had to do with people using the term that billpoint and paypal "allowed" chargebacks...which is a mistatement of the actuality of the situation.
If we don't like how easy it is for a buyer to do a chargeback and how readily the CC companies approve those chargebacks, then we need to do something about the CC companies themselves. Whining about billpoint and paypal is useless as they aren't the real problem here.
posted on July 17, 2001 03:41:38 PM new
Loggia...when billpoint advises a seller that a chargeback request has been initiated by the buyer with his/her CC company billpoint tells the seller to give his side of the story...including all information such as return policy if applicable, proof of delivery if applicable. Billpoint then presents the seller's side of the dispute to the credit card company.
Do they fight hard for the seller? I don't know. But the seller's position IS presented to the CC company.
posted on July 17, 2001 07:56:05 PM new
Okay. Then I am not clear on these BillPoint complaints.
Seems like if BillPoint is passing on the info to the myriad banks and/or respective vendors that do chargeback investigations, there shouldn't be any pattern... if there is one...
If I have DC proof of delivery & positive FB from the buyer & they pull this kind of a fradulent stunt, would it not qualify as mail fraud? Could I not take it to the Postal Inspectors?
posted on July 17, 2001 08:15:17 PM new
Tom: Anytime there is a charge back the merchant has the right to pursue it through legal channels. The problem is that it usually costs a lot more than he can recover. I have received two separate emails from folks who got fraudulent billpoint charge backs who were in a unique position to do something about it. One was a lawyer and the other was someone who worked in collections. This involves two separate buyers. According to their email, they were able to prove that the cardholder was in cahoots with the person who opened the BP account. In both cases, the same person made numerous purchases on ebay over a period of months using BP. The buyers often left positive feedback on ebay about the purchases. Not all of the purchases were charged back. They are using this pattern to prove that:
1) BP had ample time to realize that there was fraud going on and continued to allow it to happen
2) the cardholders had plenty of time to prevent this. Once they claim their card is being used fraudulently, why did they not stop it and get a new one? Why did they continue to allow this to go on for months?
3) Why did they only stop *some* of the charges all made by the same purchaser?
These two sellers are planning a lawsuit against both the buyer, the cardholder and BP. They have also told me that BP has already called them to try and work it out. The BP folks were "shocked" to hear how easy it was for these sellers to prove that BP was negligent.
In short, it takes very little to insure that when a credit card is charged, the name of the cardholder should match the name of the person making the purchase. BP did not even do this tiny step. Anyone who thinks this is excusable can continue using BP but they might as well ship when a buyer says "the check is in the mail."
posted on July 17, 2001 09:12:04 PM newyisgoodAccording to their email, they were able to prove that the cardholder was in cahoots with the person who opened the BP account.
How?
I'm scratching my head wondering how they identified the card holder much less proved they were in 'cahoots.'
Since BillPoint doesn't give the card holder's name, billing address, or card number, but only what is entered in the shipping instructions what method did these people use to obtain the identity of the card holder? Dial a psychic? I'd be very surprised to find that BillPoint supplied that information to them without a court order. So how did they find the card holder's identity?
posted on July 17, 2001 09:25:12 PM new
Yisgood...from my experience with credit cards being used fraudulently, once you report the fraudulent use of your card to the credit card company (which would occur as soon as the card holder requested a charge back because of fraud), the credit card company immediately closes that account number and issues the card holder a new account number. The card holder doesn't have a choice.
So in the case of your point #2, something doesn't add up in the account you have been given.
You say these two individuals are "are using this pattern to prove" and then you list three points. Point three doesn't require proof, it could be the "pattern" your emailers are using to prove there was collusion, but in and of itself it does not require proof.
The example that was given earlier of the husband disputing the wife's charges is not a case that can be used to prove billpoint's culpability in any fraud.
In that case, the wife made the charges and it wasn't till months later that the chargebacks were made. At the time the charges were being made there was no way of knowing there would be chargebacks down the road. Even if billpoint killed that buyer's account as soon as the chargebacks began the sellers still would not have been protected from the scam...the purchases had already been made and recieved.
The buyer's right to request a chargeback from their credit card is not dependant on having a billpoint account...so even if their account had been canceled they could still have made the chargebacks and as long as their CC company approved it there wasn't a darn thing billpoint could do about it.
posted on July 17, 2001 09:34:09 PM new
Uaru...I'm with you...something doesn't add up here.
To me, all of this sounds like "urban tales"...kind of like the "choking doberman" story...or the Disney stickers laced with LDS that my children's school used to warn us about every two years...or the one about the gang member's initiation where the gang members drove down the street with their lights off and when a kind motorist would flash their lights to tell them their lights were out the gang members would shoot the "kind driver" (supposedly warnings about this was posted on the police station's bulletin board).
All of this makes great stories and scares many people...but its all hogwash!
posted on July 17, 2001 09:54:37 PM newamyAll of this makes great stories and scares many people...
I think that's the whole point.
Yisgood's statement "They have allowed folks to open accounts when the name and address used did not match the card" struck me as a bit ridiculous. I think people should try and send funds and put the wrong billing address for the card they are using and see what happens. I'll bet the farm on that statement being false.
I'm not BillPoint's biggest supporter but I'm not going to fabricate stories or pass on laughable rumors as fact.
posted on July 17, 2001 10:33:53 PM new
I know with Paypal you can open an account with a shipping address different from the CC billing address.
Many businesses have goods sent one place and the bill sent to another. However, I don't think you can be "verified" buyer unless the shipping and billing address are the same.
posted on July 18, 2001 06:08:04 AM new
Just five minutes ago I signed up for a billpoint account using a fake name and a credit card that was cancelled months ago. I tried a fake address but that didnt work. However the fake name and expired card worked just fine. I used a dead bank account to complete the process. I only did this to prove it could be done. If I was in a crooked frame of mind, I would ask all you BP cheerleaders if there was anything I could buy from you using BP.
Since I had my own merchant account, I know that it takes all of a minute to verify this information and costs all of ten cents. So BP is saving their dime at your expense.
Amazingly enough, I couldnt do the same thing to open an ebay account. I guess when it comes to THEIR money, they're all little more careful.
(Edited to say that the credit card I used was cancelled - not expired. The last time I tried to use that number by mistake the charge did not go through.)
posted on July 18, 2001 08:22:18 AM new
I was able to have a different address on my paypal account (just to see if it could be done) and it showed this address as a confirmed address to the seller.
I was able to set up a billpoint account using a slightly different address and a totally different name (just to see if it could be done).
Funny thing is, when I give correct information I am often denied. I always have to misspell something to get the account and have been able to change to whatever I wanted later.
posted on July 18, 2001 08:35:19 AM new
Yisgood...and the first time you try to pay for an auction with that "account" the charge will be denied, just as it was when the "last time (you) tried to use that card the charge didn't go through"
Nobody is denying that credit card fraud doesn't occur with paypal or billpoint, because it does, just like it occurs in the real world. Chargebacks occur at paypal and billpoint just as it occurs in the real world. Neither of these two things are unique to using either services, they were a reality of accepting credit cards before internet commerce came on the scene.
You are being blinded by your dislike for either service.
posted on July 18, 2001 01:08:15 PM new
The systems the credit card companies use to confirm billing address have very little respect from merchants for their dependability. It's considered somewhat of a joke.
I imagine that's why PayPal, for example, uses CyberSource when people add credit cards, for additional security (I have no problem with that on its face, but PayPal doesn't tell customers they use this when a customers gets the message "try a different card." The customer then has no way to verify that CyberSource's data is correct or not )
posted on July 18, 2001 03:33:14 PM new
Yisgood: Just five minutes ago I signed up for a billpoint account using a fake name and a credit card that was cancelled months ago.
C'mon, Yisgood. You can't make a career out of bashing online payment services, because you will be reduced to using such nonsense as your examples.
A LOT of places will accept a cancelled card in good faith, but they find out as soon as you try to actually use the thing. It's just not news, detecting such "cracks".
)