Talk:Chargeback

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Questionable Undos[edit]

Please discuss proposed edits here, and keep in mind Wiki Conflict of interest rules.

The following contribution accurately and succinctly describes the flow of all monies involved in a chargeback. If you propose to remove it, do so only with legitimate evidence, and only if you're not employed/involved in the banking/credit industry.

Honest customers foot the bill for all fraud. Merchants understand the percentage of fraud that takes place, and increase their prices to cover this cost.

Banks and credit card companies profit from fraud. They retain their fees and commissions from the fraud itself, they levy fees for each chargeback, they make commissions (twice) if currency conversions are involved, they "hold" merchant remittance for 30 to 90 days to cover possible fraud (and profit from short term investment of this), and they usually increase the commissions they charge on all transactions to any business they consider "risky", and any who suffer unusually large numbers of chargebacks. Finally, banks also profit from the increased prices merchants charge to cover fraud. In many cases, banks make 300% more profit from a fraud, than they do from a legitimate transaction.

203.206.137.129 (talk) 14:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

The article also implies that -merchants- are the ones who are hurt all of the time, which is a biased, uncited opinion. This really needs to be resolved 128.138.135.61 00:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)JK[reply]

The merchant bears all of the brunt of a chargeback. If the merchant is unable to repay the chargeback (out of business, account closed) the acquiring bank must pay back the chargeback. This should be added to the article. John Conde 23:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spam & Junk[edit]

This article is full of junk and what's with the 1 spam link? There are so many valued resources on the internet with this topic and yet a lack of education. Joe 16:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spam keeps popping up from merchant-account-services.org ? Anyway to block this spam?
That article is one of the best I have read regarding chargebacks. How is that website spam anyways? There is absolutely no advertising anywhere on it, and is it one of the most objective resources about merchant services on the internet. I would love to see a better resource that is not some affiliate or spam adsense website! --Jestep 14:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That website is a very good resource. I would hardly consider it spam. If you don't think that link belongs then it can be discussed further.

The link is spam and offers no measurable value beyond what should already be listed on Wiki. It's your only contribution and furthermore there would be no reason to push it unless the site belongs to you. Wiki is an open expression of ideas and viewpoints, not spam links for your own personal gain. If you feel you have some meaningful value to add to this or any article than post it but stop spamming Wiki with your own personal links. Joe 14:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not their website. Please try to be sensible in how you approach this. You vandalized the article in your attempt to combat spam. You also falsely accused someone of being a spammer. It's great that you want to contribute but please try to do so in an intelligent manner. stymiee 20:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you think it's not their site? Why not just add the content to Wiki? Fact is, had it not been their site, once it was removed, they would have left it at that but instead, they went to register for an account, added the link back up and provided nothing else. What is one to think? Do you want spam to be the down fall of Wiki? Keep it clean. Joe 16:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1) I know who owns the site. It's not them. 2) They did the right thing to sign up to make changes. It's better then someone anonymous doing it. 3) They didn't just "add the link". They went so far as to comment in this talk page. I'd hardly say they are here just to spam Wikipedia.
You know who owns the site? Ok . . . . I guess it makes sense why you are coming to their defense. Wiki is not a place for people with agendas which you clearly have. Joe 17:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop the personal attacks. I am sure they are just as frowned upon as spam. stymiee 23:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as the spam goes no one wants that. But making blanket assumptions about users and the content they add doesn't help wikipedia either. That's why talk pages exist. Not to flame other members but to discuss the article. So far two people have expressed concern about that link being removed/that site being called spam. An intelligent discussion about that link would be worthwhile and the rational way to approach it.stymiee 20:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, that should be the focus. My problems with the link. 1) The page uses terms such as "Ultimate guide" which isn't within the Wiki style to make such comments. 2) The site is in no way an authority in the matter. 3) The site offers no clear contact info, again, questioning the legitimacy of the site and finally, if the site owner felt that the site had any value, they should have been here defending it, not continuing to spam wiki after it was deleted.
Once again, they aren't the site owner. And who says the site owner is the one who put it back? Please stop making assumptions. You're not helping anything.
That site was neither mine, nor did I put it there in the first place. As far as the site itself goes, just because there isn't contact information on the website does not remove it's legitimacy. Onto the topic of the link itself, it was a very good resource. Wikipedia is not meant to be a how-to guide, which is why that article was completely appropriate for being a link on Wikipedia. The title may have been a little over the top, but that doesn't make the link inappropriate. I didn't put the link there, so I'm not in any position to defend the title. Why am I pushing this link, to answer the question above... Because it is a very good resource, one of the only of it's kind out there. It is accurate, informative, objective, and clearly the owner is not making any significant gain from the website, as there is no advertising of any kind on it, in fact I cant even find a link to a business with the exception of the free web directory that exists on the same site. --Jestep 20:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chargeback definition is incomplete[edit]

Chargeback is also used to describe a Data Center or IT Department charging other departments and/or users for computer time/loads.

examples

http://whitepapers.techrepublic.com.com/whitepaper.aspx?docid=104886

http://www.virtual-strategy.com/en/roundtable-002

http://www.dmreview.com/article_sub.cfm?articleId=1048525

How does this addition get added?

there is another source that I find useful information for charge backs on financial industry I edited the page based on what learned here:

https://internationalpaymentsolutions.ca/2020/04/11/what-does-chargeback-on-credit-card-mean/

Partial answer[edit]

This is a very good point. I was actually looking for "showback", couldn't find it, then looked for "chargeback" and was surprised to see no reference to the IT sense. I therefore just created a page called IT Chargeback and Showback and added a line at the top of the Chargeback page to link interested readers to it.

In principle, it would be better to rename this page to something like "Merchant Chargeback" and then create a new disambiguation page, called "Chargeback", which would direct the reader to either "Merchant Chargeback" or to IT Chargeback and Showback.

Claude (talk) 22:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question.[edit]

Hi, I've read the article, it's not clear to me, do the merchants pay chargeback fee, like they would pay if a check bounces on them to their bank? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.68.36.136 (talk) 06:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the merchant pays the fees. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.54.145.254 (talk) 23:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

references[edit]

Article does need references. I am correcting some false information, but really it should all be referenced. I also made a stupid comment in an edit summary here and nevermind what I said as it needs better references than what I suggested. William Ortiz (talk) 16:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Buyer's Remorse?[edit]

Is buyer's remorse really a valid reason for a charge back? This seems unlikely. Removed until someone can verify. --24.8.146.220 (talk) 19:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It absolutely is! :) It's a very common cause of chargebacks. Especially in online transactions. stymiee (talk) 04:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Major revision[edit]

I took some time to: 1) reorganize the material in the article, 2) generalize it such that it applies to ach, card, and other forms of payment, 3) eliminate unreferenced details, 4) eliminate unneeded detail (eg, list of reason codes), and 5) add context that addresses the origins, and the pros and cons of the chargeback system. The result was a rather major edit. Hopefully everyone will find it now reads with a greater degree of clarity. --Tim Barber (talk) 01:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Misrepresentation[edit]

I think the article provides a misrepresentation to the chargeback itself. It is not a reversal of funds as that does not occure every time. Please refer to http://www.chargebackcodes.com/Chargeback where by they simply put it as a challenge transaction. So much of the article does not provide a clear understand that a chargeback is not taking back the funds but an attempt to take back the funds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.249.200.34 (talk) 03:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, while I respect your desire and efforts to make the article more clear and readable, I perceive some bias in your rather "major" revision - for first instance, the inclusion of the word "forcibly" in the introduction, which I went to great lenghts to make as technically accurate and as truthfully illuminating as possible while maintaining a neutral POV. A "forcible" chargeback to a merchant's account is not accurate conceptually nor is it legal in actuality. Merchants agree to financially satisfy any and all chargebacks in their contract agreements when they elect to accept payment cards and other forms of electronic payments. You also removed my text in which I discussed the semantic derivation of the term. You inserted commentary about chargebacks being the "consumer's last line of defense against unscrupulous merchants," a biased and narrow statement that is also technically incorrect. An additional implicit value judgement exists in "the threat of forced reversal of funds." Why not say "the possibility that chargebacks can occur...?"

Aside from what amounts to (in my opinion) some rather negative changes at the beginning of the article, I must applaud some of your needed deletions and additions farther down the page. Thank you for consolidating and clarifying the list of reason codes, as well as adding the Merchant Recourse, Merchant Penalties, and Criticisms sections. Some good info there that I wish I had included. I do think, however, that some of the detail in the "Handling Chargebacks" section that you removed should be put back in the article. -- Davefish23 (talk) 20:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit[edit]

Livit⇑Eh?/What? 17:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paypal chargeback section[edit]

The reference to the paypal chargeback fees should be completely removed. A chargeback is specifically in reference to an issued credit or debit card. Paypal uses an internal dispute system, and while a person may request a chargeback with their issuer if they made a Paypal purchase with a credit card, it's not a chargeback within the paypal system. Maybe a see also to Paypal, but it's misleading. Jestep (talk) 16:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Globalise[edit]

I feel this article only represents the US and UK, while chargebacks are common in many countries (even if they're called otherwise). I've added the issue template. ctxppc (talk) 12:30, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, an international view may be useful. In some countries like Canada, it's very similar to US for Visa, Mastercard and American express credit cards (for debit cards like "Interac", it's a little more complicated although a volontary code provides some help). But for other countries, it may differ a lot, for example in France (and probably in a lot of European Union countries), chargeback equivalent is provided in case of Internet fraud, and more or less provided when the customer didn't know the exact amount at the time of authorizing a transaction (provided the transaction amount is different from what he could reasonnably expect), and also provided although rarely used in some cases of merchant bankptrucy. No chargeback in France if you don't receive what was expected ! In some countries of the world, even in case of fraud chargeback or equivalent does not seem a right, for example with Société Générale operating in Côte d'Ivoire through the name SGBCI, in case of fraud cardholder is fully responsible ("En cas de transaction Internet frauduleuse, la responsabilité de la banque ne sera pas engagée et le porteur de la carte devra en assumer seul les conséquences financières"). TramwaySuspendu (talk) 21:19, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK[edit]

Everything in the UK section of this article was completely wrong. I might replace it later but in the meantime there's no reason to leave it in place as it was so misleading that it was worse than not having anything, so I've deleted it. (If you can't wait for me and you want to restore the section yourself, then for god's sake research the subject first.) Richard75 (talk)|

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chargeback&oldid=1206624021"