Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> standard for chargebacks isn't "Whether I believe I was lied to"

6% of chargebacks are due to dissatisfaction [1].

> Are we talking actual frauds (eg. kickstarters)

I’m talking about Mozilla.

> Sounds like Amex just caved and refunded you out of their own funds

Not how chargebacks work. And Amex isn’t taking a six-figure hit for anyone.

> nothing in the merchant agreement that suggests "given it’s a donation, there is an almost zero chance that Mozilla will win"

If you’re a porn site, casino or non-profit you’re almost never winning a chargeback dispute. (Merchants only win about a fifth of the time in general.)

[1] https://www.clearlypayments.com/blog/chargeback-statistics-i...




>6% of chargebacks are due to dissatisfaction [1].

Note that "dissatisfaction" isn't an actual chargeback reason code[1]. The closest that exist are "Not as Described or Defective Merchandise/Services" and "Misrepresentation", none of which imply it's up to the consumer to decide. Unfortunately since chargebacks are basically arbitration, there isn't really a history of case law to determine what actually counts. I could barely find any information on what the statue (equivalent) is supposed to be.

[1] https://docs.adyen.com/risk-management/understanding-dispute...


> closest that exist are "Not as Described or Defective Merchandise/Services" and "Misrepresentation", none of which imply it's up to the consumer to decide

Issuing bank decides. Consumer advises.

> could barely find any information on what the statue (equivalent) is

There is very little statute governing chargebacks. It’s almost all contractual. Very different from paying with cash, cheque or wire.


> Issuing bank decides.

No; see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43237555 for details.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: