For example I've sold many thousands of copies of my digital courses online. Never had any type of problem.
Today I got a taste of my first Stripe dispute.
The customer signed up, bought the course, watched some of the course, never contacted me, disputed the charge for unknown reasons, Stripe notified me for evidence, I sent evidence of everything they asked for, weeks later I lost the dispute with no feedback from anyone, on top of everything I was charged an extra $15.00 by Stripe as a "dispute fee".
In other words, I got completely screwed with no chance to do anything and the banks and Stripe made a profit off an arbitrary dispute charge.
To make matters even worse, after talking to support, I asked Stripe to send me a screenshot of the images I provided them as evidence and it seems Stripe manipulated the images I uploaded as proof by shrinking them to be completely unreadable. So basically I'm penalized because Stripe tampered with my evidence.
The system is completely broken.
Is it much easier for merchants to scam? Definitely! But it also allows merchants to trust that funds will never disappear with no recourse.
There is always a fine balance between securing systems and providing the comfort that clients are interested in having. If Visa/Mastercard/et al decide to be more stringent in their security process, it is very likely that another actor will come in and provide that convenience, forcing everyone else to follow suit if there is enough market pressure.
I find it odd that CC companies don't provide a way for clients to customize their security profile (E.g. $500 charge-up without signature if cronix so desires), maybe it is easier for the business to create an overall risk management profile for all clients instead of a customize-able one?
Regardless, at some point, their fees can become unbearable to clients, forcing them to find other options. It would be interesting to see us move from a cashless society back to cash
>Being able to use a RFID/NFC reader in close proximity to someones wallet (like in their back pocket, standing ahead of you in line) and being able to charge their card without even touching it is not a very good thing lol.
It's not, but it's also extremely uncommon. The cards people have aren't typically RFID, and NFC has a much narrower range.
Does fraud constitute enough of a problem to account for the magnitude of interchange fees? I'm genuinely curious in light of the sibling comments indicating that the merchants are picking up the tab for fraud while also paying hefty fees for normal transactions.
My theory is that they will do both, raise fees and eventually get better security, so this is how Visa will double their profits.
I can't find the other demo/video where they were just walking up to people and making charges in realtime by rfid scans.
One of the first thing I do on chip cards is cut the antennae trace on the chip. I don't need or want that convenience. Swiping the mag strip on the card isn't that hard for me, and never was.
They recently (last year?) raised limits (at least Visa) for the amount you (or someone) can spend without requiring a signature. It doesn't make me feel good that if my card is stolen someone can charge up to $1k on it without a signature. I don't know when the last time a merchant asked me to see my identification to see if it matched the name on my card.
This will just raise the price of all goods since merchants figure the cc fees into the prices of all products, whether you're paying with cash or card.
Meh, it's easier to just raise fees than fix the real problems directly affecting their bottom line: Fraud.