I don't mind the false positive. It's just that people should be compensated for it, especially if the rate is low. It's just good business sense. If the bank can eat up actual fraud charges, why should it not eat false positives?
For online transactions, least in my business, it's not the banks that eat the fraud charges it's the business. If someone uses your card to purchases services, and then later there is a charge back due to you reporting fraud, my business would lose the money that was paid from the card and would be fined $25 dollars. So for example say someone signed up for a VoIP service, made a bunch of calls through that service that were charged. You later check your credit card, see some fraudulent charges and then do a charge back. Well the bank/credit card company gets the money from the VoIP service and fines them.
It would probably be abused all the time and the claims would be for larger amounts than the difference between two similar plane tickets. There would be people claiming they had to buy a car for $2,000 more just because they missed some kind of window where the price was cheaper (even though that doesn't make sense). I don't think any bank would open themselves up to that kind of liability. Even if they would, I think they'd cap it to a low amount that was close to the cost of eating chargebacks.
Comments
I don't mind the false positive. It's just that people should be compensated for it, especially if the rate is low. It's just good business sense. If the bank can eat up actual fraud charges, why should it not eat false positives?
For online transactions, least in my business, it's not the banks that eat the fraud charges it's the business. If someone uses your card to purchases services, and then later there is a charge back due to you reporting fraud, my business would lose the money that was paid from the card and would be fined $25 dollars. So for example say someone signed up for a VoIP service, made a bunch of calls through that service that were charged. You later check your credit card, see some fraudulent charges and then do a charge back. Well the bank/credit card company gets the money from the VoIP service and fines them.
It would probably be abused all the time and the claims would be for larger amounts than the difference between two similar plane tickets. There would be people claiming they had to buy a car for $2,000 more just because they missed some kind of window where the price was cheaper (even though that doesn't make sense). I don't think any bank would open themselves up to that kind of liability. Even if they would, I think they'd cap it to a low amount that was close to the cost of eating chargebacks.
It was an actual charge for a specific route (e.g. SFO - JFK). I couldn't later claim that it was for SFO - YYZ.