This may work nicely for a subscription business where you have 2 weeks to identify problematic orders. But what about everyone else? Should we silently fail on orders where a customer accidentally mistyped their CC#? Imagine all the extra work involved when you could have had them fix it on the spot.

You can report "failed checksum" or "not a valid account" to people, although you should rate limit - the problem is data that is valid but stolen.

Mistyped card numbers can be identified client-side (CC numbers have a checksum digit). If the number is valid, but the transaction is declined, then fail silently (and possibly send a failure email after manual review of the transaction)

It could also be declined because of mistyped expiry date or address or name. Or simply declined because the customer is over their credit limit. In all of these cases, timely feedback is useful for genuine customers.

Which is why it says in the article that these countermeasures almost always come at a cost to customers as well. It is a trade off.

In some instances it is worth it to make the experience marginally worse for customers because the savings by preventing a percentage of fraud are so large.

Nonetheless, this doesn't contradict the "failing silently" for chargebacks. It's not fraud if they enter the data poorly or there's no credit left so the charge is never made.

> Yeah I was just talking to an employee of a CC fraud prevention company and that was my thought: they proudly talk about how they can identify fraud and refuse the transaction, when my question was, why not just look like you're approving the order and then follow it right to the fraudster?

You can get disposable physical addresses as well.

It is part of why some companies flag a mailing address I use as a fraudulent order. I primarily use it to avoid handing out my RL address on domains that don't allow whois protection.