News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Stripe raises $600M at nearly $36B valuation by gingerlime on Thursday April 16, 2020 @03:10PM (#22892447)
Living in Germany and my company is based here. We tried SEPA but it’s a PITA to charge customers with it. Especially B2C which we are. Customers can arbitrarily chargeback even after several days. Not only that, they can ask for a refund, get the refund and then charge back. So we end up paying them! And there’s no way to prevent it. At least that’s the way it was a few years ago when stripe sepa was still beta.

The interesting thing however, we A/B tested with and without SEPA and basically saw no difference. Only German people used it, but when it wasn’t available they managed to find a credit card or use PayPal.

I’d love it if banks were making instant payments simple and verifiable, but SEPA feels like something from the 70s to me.

Re:Stripe raises $600M at nearly $36B valuation by Cu3PO42 on Thursday April 16, 2020 @03:30PM (#22892621)
Minor terminology nitpicking: SEPA is just "Single Euro Payments Area", you're speaking about SEPA direct debit specifically.

These concerns still apply to direct debits, unfortunately. The reason being that there's barely any authorization for direct debits, you just need the bank account number and name. Isn't the situation somewhat similar to CC transactions without 3D Secure/whatever it's called? I seems to recall reading in my bank's terms that I can chargeback transactions for something crazy like a year. You always need a "mandate" to debit an account and if you get that properly signed by the customer, you should be able to get the bank to reverse the reversal, but I can appreciate the bureaucratic overhead.

I was only offering it as a potential solution if getting people to sign up is genuinely difficult.

The thing with PayPal is: they offer direct debit to customers and I'm assuming that's how most people who would've otherwise used direct debit directly with you ended up paying. It is my understanding that PayPal is also aware of the risks associated with this and offers merchants the option not to accept payments through it. I can't seem to find an article just now, but I remember instances where PayPal told me something along the lines of "this merchant does not accept payments via direct debit, please use a credit card instead". I can only assume this is because they at least partially pass on the risk.

Re:Stripe raises $600M at nearly $36B valuation by lxgr on Friday April 17, 2020 @11:21AM (#22899775)
> You always need a "mandate" to debit an account and if you get that properly signed by the customer, you should be able to get the bank to reverse the reversal

That's unfortunately not true. There is no recourse to direct debit returns; there is no dispute resolution process or anything like that. The presence or absence of a mandate only impacts the timeframe for returns to be files, as far as I understand.

Re:Stripe raises $600M at nearly $36B valuation by codethief on Thursday April 16, 2020 @03:49PM (#22892790)
> Customers can arbitrarily chargeback even after several days.

You are aware that this is possible with credit cards as well, right?

Re:Stripe raises $600M at nearly $36B valuation by plantain on Thursday April 16, 2020 @04:38PM (#22893293)
Credit card chargebacks have an appeals / dispute resolution process. SEPA does not.
Re:Stripe raises $600M at nearly $36B valuation by namibj on Friday April 17, 2020 @11:10AM (#22899666)
The process for SEPA is called "sue them"/"press fraud charges".
Re:Stripe raises $600M at nearly $36B valuation by gingerlime on Friday April 17, 2020 @03:38PM (#22902257)
Against who? An email and an IBAN number? For our B2C with relatively small charges it definitely wasn’t worth it. Even CC chargebacks we don’t bother to dispute because the process is painful and virtually impossible to win (banks side with their own customers typically)
Re:Stripe raises $600M at nearly $36B valuation by namibj on Sunday April 19, 2020 @06:51PM (#22919461)
The latter, mostly. And I was more referring to the existence of the dispute resolution process, not the viability for random low-value transactions.