[HN Gopher] Stripe adds yet another additional $15 dispute fee, ...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Stripe adds yet another additional $15 dispute fee, unless you use
       their AI
        
       Author : archon810
       Score  : 57 points
       Date   : 2025-03-19 19:50 UTC (3 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (twitter.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (twitter.com)
        
       | archon810 wrote:
       | In addition to the existing $15 fee every time someone files a
       | dispute, @stripe will now start charging an _additional_ $15 fee
       | for countering the dispute, which you only get back if you win.
       | 
       | Banks constantly claw back legitimate transactions no matter what
       | evidence you show them, so now they'll take $30 instead of $151.
       | 
       | This is highway robbery.
       | 
       | 1 - unless you use Stripe's Smart Disputes AI, which isn't out
       | yet
       | 
       | Full text of their email from today in the tweet. Or here if you
       | prefer Nitter
       | https://lightbrd.com/ArtemR/status/1902446906640605657
        
       | olivtassinari wrote:
       | To mind that Mastercard and Visa arbitration fees for merchants
       | is $500.
       | 
       | Adyen has great docs about how disputes are handled on those two
       | networks: https://docs.adyen.com/risk-management/chargeback-
       | guidelines... and https://docs.adyen.com/risk-
       | management/chargeback-guidelines....
        
         | tothrowaway wrote:
         | Almost no chargeback will ever go to arbitration though. So
         | it's not like this new fee is the reason behind the change.
         | Patrick Collison is (probably) just exploiting his position in
         | the market to squeeze more money out of merchants.
         | 
         | I sure wish there was more competition in the payment
         | marketplace. During the early Stripe years, I thought Patrick
         | would be above this nonsense (even without competitive
         | pressure). Not so!
        
           | anonzzzies wrote:
           | No one ever is really. People just do whatever they can get
           | away with.
        
       | p0w3n3d wrote:
       | That's the dystopian future I've been scared of. LLMs (Large
       | Language Models i.e. generators of most probable text) will be
       | used to DECIDE if a person gets the money back or not.
       | 
       | People in command (managers) showing the lack of understanding of
       | what an LLM is and misusing it in the worst way (another is to
       | write to people why their insurance claims have been rejected)
        
         | intelVISA wrote:
         | They don't lack understanding: un unaccountable magic box that
         | can be 'accidentally' tuned to favor current business goals is
         | a manager's dream.
        
           | DwnVoteHoneyPot wrote:
           | or else pay another $15 (another manager's dream).
        
       | joshstrange wrote:
       | This is bullshit. Period.
       | 
       | Stripe already made this suck with their $15 fee you get hit with
       | for every chargeback.
       | 
       | Let me say that louder for the people in the back:
       | 
       | If a customer buys your product for $10, they use your product,
       | then they issue a chargeback then Stripe will clawback $25. You
       | are out 250% of your product cost without doing anything else.
       | 
       | Before this change you could dispute it and potentially get back
       | your $10 (minus fees) but you just lost that $15 no matter what.
       | 
       | After this change you have to pay an additional $15 just to
       | dispute it and only if you win do you get that back (but you are
       | still "out" that initial $15). So you have to decide if you want
       | to fight for your $10 by risking another $15.
       | 
       | Also, the dispute process is a complete farce. There is zero
       | visibility and you can provide perfect documentation and they
       | will still deny it.
       | 
       | There is a special place in hell for people that file fraudulent
       | chargebacks.
       | 
       | I say all of this as someone who is favor of customer protections
       | but chargebacks are so far tilted in the customer's favor that
       | small businesses can get screwed easily.
       | 
       | * Pulls out soapbox *
       | 
       | And this is why I'm pro-regulation, pro-customer-protection but
       | there /has/ to be a way to advantage the "small businesses" that
       | every politician pays lip service to. Regulations are written
       | blood most all of the time and are needed but treating "mom and
       | pop"-sized businesses the same as massive corporations with
       | armies of lawyers (that often let them avoid the regulation or
       | blunt it) is insanity.
        
         | pedalpete wrote:
         | The Colison (?) brothers say they're all for supporting small
         | businesses, but as you've shown, this looks like mere lip
         | service.
        
         | supertrope wrote:
         | The main way merchants push back on chargebacks is to not
         | accept Amex. That brand of credit card attracts customers who
         | chargeback more often.
         | 
         | Mandatory accounts that gatekeep on-going access also
         | discourage chargebacks. If you will lose access to an important
         | brand of taxi service or your $1000 digital content collection
         | you will think twice before charging back even if you are a
         | legitimate fraud victim.
        
       | Mo3 wrote:
       | Man this sucks, just as I spent months integrating it into the
       | payment pipeline of my side business app. Maybe I just shouldn't
       | accept cards, or only through PayPal or something.
        
       | nimish wrote:
       | Computer says no at scale! A VC's dream!
       | 
       | Butlerian jihad when?
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2025-03-19 23:01 UTC)