Talk:Chargeback fraud

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Not just Internet fraud[edit]

I'm in the industry- in my experience, this is not limited to Internet fraud only. I recommend that we make it a more general definition. BowChickaNeowNeow (talk) 15:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, unfortunately the article has no sources as it is. William Ortiz (talk) 22:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Source #2 is dead link.[edit]

Source #2 is a dead link. Removal suggested. --Kyanwan (talk) 07:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Source was moved and I have updated the link. --Kyanwan (talk) 07:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Article does not mention 3-D Secure[edit]

Article does not mention role of 3-D Secure (Mastercard Securecode/Verified by Visa) in defending against Friendly Fraud for website transactions, as an enhancement to Card Verification Codes. (Other card schemes are working on their own versions of 3D secure). 3-D Secure allows website to transfer liability to card issuer (who has an enhanced role in validating the transaction), as long as there is also proof of performance e. g. proof of delivery of physical goods. Also does not mention EMV Chip & PIN for card present transactions in place of signature --194.72.84.210 (talk) 15:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Case decision?[edit]

The second paragraph of the History section mentions a legal case but does not describe the outcome. A quick Google search doesn't turn up anything about that case. Would anyone with access to a law library care to update it? 2601:E:980:6C3:E4EF:D7BB:9D82:587 (talk) 15:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Gender differences[edit]

I don't think this section should be included, because the whole thing is sourced to a single reference, and it's hard to judge how reliable a source it is. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I also think this section should not be included. The first sentence of the section makes the claim that Chargeback fraud is more prevalent with woman than men, but then the following information in the article is a statement about chargebacks in general. I first thought it was just a confusing sentence, but in reading the referenced article I found the same ambiguity. The article only implies that woman commit more chargeback fraud than men but does not state that as a fact. Further, I google fished for the original source of the statistic given and I beleve I found it. The conclusion sentence states "The reasons for a much higher chargeback rate amongst female consumers is not clear, but the obvious implication is that products, brands and services that target female consumers are at much higher risk of chargeback fraud than products, brands and services that target male consumers."[1] Magic-Tech (talk) 08:36, 13 December 2016 (UTC)