HELP WITH CHARGEBACK!

[thesalvageguys]

So i sold an engine last october, then the customer opened a return in december after he took the whole engine apart and decided he didnt want it anymore, ebay obviously sided in my favour because of A) time and B) it was now in pieces. Then 5 months later the buyer surfaced again wanting his money back and started a chargeback which was decided in his favour, upon calling ebay they said i would be covered under ebay seller protection and would get an email once it was all finalized, that email never came so i followed up and now they are telling me its to bad im not getting anything because "its to expensive" How is this possible, i did EVERYTHING i was supposed to do the first time the case was opened, not once did the buyer even ask to return the engine, they simply wanted "compensation" and then they upgraded that to a full refund.

[vintagecraze50]

---

@baydealz wrote:

GET IN LINE.  This is the new ebay model.  They have ZERO recourse for fraudulent chargebacks (though they say 'we provide bank with all your info and fight on your behalf') - that's Tagalog for 'I'm reading this script in front of me'...THERE IS NO SELLER PROTECTION, WAKE UP PEOPLE. 

I ran a real small business and we got those chargebacks, they are a pain to fight, but we did and won every one of them - ebay can't be bothered, they have nothing to lose so everything is automated. 

They need to be investigated.  Message me if directly if you'd like. 

---

It’s pretty much the same for the CC companies. They have no manpower invested in running that show fairly.

[vintagecraze50]

---

@vintagecraze50 wrote:

---

@baydealz wrote:

GET IN LINE.  This is the new ebay model.  They have ZERO recourse for fraudulent chargebacks (though they say 'we provide bank with all your info and fight on your behalf') - that's Tagalog for 'I'm reading this script in front of me'...THERE IS NO SELLER PROTECTION, WAKE UP PEOPLE. 

I ran a real small business and we got those chargebacks, they are a pain to fight, but we did and won every one of them - ebay can't be bothered, they have nothing to lose so everything is automated. 

They need to be investigated.  Message me if directly if you'd like. 

---

It’s pretty much the same for the CC companies. They have no manpower invested in running that show fairly.

---

One of our frequent posters here pointed out that the CC companies get X million chargebacks per year and 6 chargeback specialists to run the show, I am exaggerating but that’s the deal.

[vintagecraze50]

---

@mam98031 wrote:

---

@vintagecraze50 wrote:

---

@baydealz wrote:

Meanwhile, let's start getting local Congressional reps involved.  Their act created this.  I guess they expected banks to be more discerning. 

---

I am just flabbergasted that merchants are not fighting back on this stuff big time with the government. And we are talking BIG MERCHANTS not just puny little you and me on here. AND EBAY! ONE OF THE BIGGEST MERCHANTS.

---

It isn't money out of Ebay's pocket and likely not their fight.  But it would be nice if we could get them onboard to do this.  Ebay isn't the Merchant, the sellers are.

---

Technically ebay is the merchant. We are like the supply chain. Yes we loose the most compared to what ebay generates in total income, BUT they lose the sale as well. One question, they loose the FVF every time this happens or what? Cannot remember.

[vintagecraze50]

---

@mam98031 wrote:

---

@baydealz wrote:

Meanwhile, let's start getting local Congressional reps involved.  Their act created this.  I guess they expected banks to be more discerning. 

---

Alright.  Lets all get educated on the subject first, me included.

https://www.chargebackgurus.com/blog/chargeback-laws

https://chargebacks911.com/chargeback-laws/

There are other links in these articles with helpful info.  Enjoy your homework!  😀

---

And in all of this legal stuff generally it is required for the consumer to request that the MERCHANT respond first to the problem with the customer. But, there is NO brakes on the consumer going straight to the card issuer instead of first to the merchant.

[dbfolks166mt]

@mam98031 wrote:

@baydealz wrote:

Meanwhile, let's start getting local Congressional reps involved.  Their act created this.  I guess they expected banks to be more discerning. 

Alright.  Lets all get educated on the subject first, me included.

https://www.chargebackgurus.com/blog/chargeback-laws

https://chargebacks911.com/chargeback-laws/

There are other links in these articles with helpful info.  Enjoy your homework!  

And in all of this legal stuff generally it is required for the consumer to request that the MERCHANT respond first to the problem with the customer. But, there is NO brakes on the consumer going straight to the card issuer instead of first to the merchant.

     You would be correct there are things eBay "could" do but probably won't since it would require resources to do so and that eats into the bottom line. The "no brakes" problem stems from the ambiguity of the Federal Laws that are over 50 years old and pre-dated the ecommerce explosion. 

     In the absence of clear legal language both merchants and banks establish their own policies and processes that will stand until those are challenged in court. So eBay as the merchant has a loose policy with regards to the interaction between the four parties, the seller, the buyer, eBay and the bank the banks also have their own policies that cover their policies between the bank and the merchant and the bank and the customer account holder. Following is the Master Card merchant chargeback guide as of April 2024. All 789 pages of it. Master Card also has a number of other policies and guides pertaining to chargebacks for those who are looking for additional ight reading. 

     Other cardholder and banks also have their own guidelines and policies. 

https://www.mastercard.us/content/dam/public/mastercardcom/na/global-site/documents/chargeback-guide... 

[dbfolks166mt]

Technically ebay is the merchant. We are like the supply chain. Yes we loose the most compared to what ebay generates in total income, BUT they lose the sale as well. One question, they loose the FVF every time this happens or what? Cannot remember.

     It all depends on the outcome of the chargeback. Generally if the seller has disputed the chargeback regardless of the type the buyer is fully refunded and the seller is still hit with the FVF's along with a $20 processing fee from the CC company and/or bank. There are exceptions where eBay as the merchant may loose the chargeback but bears the cost of the loss internally because the seller is protected by policy or a program such as EIS. 

[albertabrightalberta]

This is one that ebay seller protection should protect the seller. (The seller won the original NAD claim per the OP so I'm assuming that the c.c. dispute was also for NAD.)

From the policy -- I believe the applicable part is my red highlights: 

When a buyer opens a payment dispute because the item doesn't match the listing

When a buyer opens a payment dispute because the item they received doesn't match the listing, sellers will be asked to provide evidence to challenge the payment dispute, such as photographs showing the item's condition prior to shipment.

When determining whether to protect a seller, eBay will look for one of the following:

• The seller issued a full refund to the buyer through eBay
• The seller issued a refund to the buyer through eBay, but deducted an amount from the refund because the item was returned used or damaged (in accordance with our guidelines)
• An eBay Money Back Guarantee case of the same type for the same transaction that was already resolved with:
  • eBay determining that the seller met their obligations to the buyer, or
  • eBay issuing a full refund to the buyer

If eBay determines that the transaction is eligible for protections:

• We will not seek reimbursement from the seller for the disputed amount, even if the payment institution decides that the buyer is owed a refund; and
• We will waive or refund the seller's dispute fee

https://www.ebay.com/help/policies/selling-policies/payment-dispute-seller-protections?id=5293

[mam98031]

---

@vintagecraze50 wrote:

---

@baydealz wrote:

It's modern shoplifting.  At least Target and others are attempting to block.  Ebay no only allows, but INSTIGATED IT through their growing ridiculous anti-seller policies.  They are clearly a CA company. 

---

No not at all. They have to accept credit cards. It’s not their fault. Do you really think this company wants to loose 10 grand of a sale every other day. NOPE.

---

If Ebay weren't going to accept credit card payments, we would all be in trouble as most buyers would go POOF.  While they don't have to accept CCs, if they don't, guaranteed most buyers would be going elsewhere.

[mam98031]

One of our frequent posters here pointed out that the CC companies get X million chargebacks per year and 6 chargeback specialists to run the show, I am exaggerating but that’s the deal.

That doesn't sound like info Ebay would release to the public.

[mam98031]

Technically ebay is the merchant. We are like the supply chain. Yes we loose the most compared to what ebay generates in total income, BUT they lose the sale as well. One question, they loose the FVF every time this happens or what? Cannot remember.

Like ANY money processor Ebay has to be the MOR [merchant of record], otherwise they can't negotiate or process payments.  But we still remain the SOR [seller of record].

Ebay doesn't always lose the FVF.  If the seller loses the Chargeback, the seller's FVFs are NOT refunded.

[mam98031]

And in all of this legal stuff generally it is required for the consumer to request that the MERCHANT respond first to the problem with the customer. But, there is NO brakes on the consumer going straight to the card issuer instead of first to the merchant.

Sellers do not ever have access to the CCC.  That is private financial info of a buyer.  You can't get that info.

[mam98031]

You can't sue the CCC because they are operating within the law right now.  Ebay has ZERO control over the CCCs, nor does PayPal, Amazon or any other Money Processor.  

Thanks for the link.  It is a very long read, so it will take me a few days to get through that.  But thank you.

[baydealz]

I gave you a helpful thumbs up for citing the credit law and need to change legislation.  I will be contacting my congressman.  But I completely disagree with your suggestion that eBay’s hands are tied or that I should have fought harder.  I have all the proof, provided and clarified all the proof and was repeatedly told that eBay would provide the proof and cc should drop it.  This is clearly untrue - we know they’ve AUTOMATED EVERYTHING, why would they bother to support seller when it’s not their money?  

I ran a real business and would get those (for services rendered with invoices provided!) and it was cumbersome to fight but we did and won every one of them.  

You are correct that the credit act that started this is to blame since it’s a remnant of an attempted (and needed) protection, but eBay had the ability and duty to respond.  They accept the benefits of being the middleman they need to accept the costs.   

[broto_64]

Most attorneys will give you a quick and free consultation, however in most cases a civil lawsuit has no real teeth... Even when you win the defendant isn't really forced to pay, now ... Mind you the civil lawsuit involves court costs, those have to be paid upfront, by the claimant.

So lets assume the claimant prevails, so then when (perhaps the correct term is "if" but I say when) so when the defendant doesn't pay the court's state the claimant can pursue further avenues, every one of which also costs a fee which the claimant also has to pay.

Of course the courts and everyone else will tell you "but you can tack those fees onto the original amount owed" yes of course you can, but the claimant still has to pay these fees upfront, and then...

What if the defendant still doesn't pay?

There are no teeth in a civil lawsuit.
Sharia law does not exist in the USA.

If you can prove criminal intent then it has teeth, because people will find all sorts of money when the threat of incarceration becomes real, but without criminal intent there's small hope the defendant would ever pay up in a civil litigation.

[broto_64]

Ebay and the credit card companies (aka banks) have totally and completely greased (aka automated) the entire process, these institutions sleep together. There is no seller protection and everything that anyone tells a seller in regards to any protection whatsoever is an outright lie. There is no "fight" in an automated process.

When a buyer opens a chargeback they only lose IF a case was already opened (and closed) through the merchant (aka ebay), it appears odd to me in this case the OP stated a return was in fact opened (and closed in the seller's favor)... So the question here is, was this an actual case or just a remorse return?

Because there's returning an item, and then there's INAD (which invokes the powerful MBG).
And I don't believe ebay would close an INAD case in the seller's favor, perhaps in extremely unusual circumstances they might but we're talking odds of winning the lottery here.

Upon reviewing some of the seller's more recent listings (because I can't access an item sold in December) I find the seller has a policy of "Seller does not accept returns" and now it is starting to make more sense, if a buyer had indeed opened a return of course ebay would close this in the seller's favor and the "a) and b)" reasons matter nothing because it's simply the fact the seller has a No Returns accepted policy (and that is why ebay closed the case in the seller's favor).

Let me repeat that:
The buyer opened a remorse return, and ebay closed this in the sellers favor simply because the seller's No Returns policy and not because "ebay obviously sided in my favour because of A) time and B) it was now in pieces."  Had the buyer opened an actual case for reason "Item Not As Described" (aka INAD) then ebay would have most likely forced the seller's hand in terms of a refund, but again that did not happen.

Case vs return, minor but important distinction, especially once we consider the seller's actual returns policy. Because a case invokes ebay's Money Back Guarantee (MBG) and that is ironclad buyer protection, had this transpired in actuality the buyer would've likely won in the first place... As well I believe the buyer likely could've still opened such a case, although the original return having been closed may have prevented that, I am not sure about the logistics here.

But the buyer did not open a case, the buyer attempted a remorse return (which failed) that is why they were then able to open (and win) a chargeback with their financial institution.

Of course ebay doesn't really "Fight" for the seller, that is complete hogwash but I do believe the returns policy and the original reason for return (and subsequent closure in the seller's favor) had everything to do with the ultimate outcome.

As for what to do now, that could be a difficult row to hoe and may never result in any sort of true win for the seller.