Why do we even see credit card chargebacks?

[friskya]

Why does eBay even ask us for information about credit card chargebacks? They have (or should have, anyway) all of the information to answer them without asking us to jump through hoops (for the low-low fee of $20) to send them info.

"Unrecognized transaction"? eBay has the order number, the date ordered, the item ordered, the address it was supposed to be sent to, the name, address, phone and email of the purchaser. And they have it for a longer length of time than they display it to us!

"Credit not received"? Again, eBay has the info regarding when the refund was processed or why it wasn't, which account it was sent to, whether it was accepted by that card issuer, or returned to eBay. All of which should be a function of Adyen and (mis)Managed Payments. 

"Never received purchase"? The name, address, delivery date and address should be available to eBay by way of Pitney Bowes. Pirate Ship seems to have no problems getting that info from PB and eBay sells many more labels, so I can't imagine they would be denied access to the same.

"Unauthorized transaction"? If the card issuer originally authorized the transaction and eBay, in good faith, took their authorization code as proof that the card was good (e.g. not stolen or lost), how does it suddenly become eBays responsibility and more importantly, why would they shuffle responsibility that off onto us? If I ship based on eBays assurances that the card company has guaranteed that card is good, why is it suddenly my responsibility if it turns out not to be later?

I'm sure there are other circumstances that I've not had the chance to think about, but these seem to be the ones most frequently mentioned.

[farmalljr]

Because eBay says so, that's why. Until it's presented to a judge, this is the way it will work until it's challenged in front of someone with more authority then we sellers have. 

Short of that, the only "resolution" is to stop using this platform and find another that makes the condition of use, more favorable to you. 

[katzrul15]

Because they consider it your sale transaction, not theirs.

And the uproar if they did not - Sellers would claim they could have been impactful, if only they had been active in the process.

[friskya]

---

@katzrul15 wrote:

Because they consider it your sale transaction, not theirs.

And the uproar if they did not - Sellers would claim they could have been impactful, if only they had been active in the process.

---

If they want to manage my payments, I think they need to manage the chargebacks as well. Most of us were doing just fine when the payment processor was PayPal™ and we all made the decision to accept the change to the  (mis)Managed Payments program in order to continue selling, but it's still my belief that, as our "facilitator", they are in a better position to answer these than we are. Instead of just telling us we have to provide the proof, they should be providing what they've got, telling us that they've done it and what they've sent on our behalf, and asking us if there is additional information we would like to submit.

Just my humble opinion.

[bbravo65]

@farmalljr 

...remember, sellers can not seek for legal advise as they all are tighten by eBay's TOS at the beginning of signing up to be a member...

@katzrul15 

...I have said couple times...when these charge back and transaction dispute happen, eBay will say "not my circus, not my monkey", not eBay's problem but sellers...but all the conflicts from this matter is already described from the OP, @friskya...

...the clever part from eBay is their TOS that fully eliminate any potential for a class-action-suit against this...wonder if there is any legal loophole...???

[jda06121]

Paypal left, time to get over that.

Chargebacks were no different under Paypal.

[vintagecraze50]

Upload the tracking into the case and you should be done. We hope. 

[north40sales]

---

@friskya wrote:

---

@katzrul15 wrote:

Because they consider it your sale transaction, not theirs.

And the uproar if they did not - Sellers would claim they could have been impactful, if only they had been active in the process.

---

If they want to manage my payments, I think they need to manage the chargebacks as well. Most of us were doing just fine when the payment processor was PayPal™ and we all made the decision to accept the change to the  (mis)Managed Payments program in order to continue selling, but it's still my belief that, as our "facilitator", they are in a better position to answer these than we are. Instead of just telling us we have to provide the proof, they should be providing what they've got, telling us that they've done it and what they've sent on our behalf, and asking us if there is additional information we would like to submit.

Just my humble opinion.

---

 eBay has the relationship with the buyer.   The buyer transmits their payment information to eBay, not the seller.  

eBay has the relationship with the Payment Processor Adyen.  eBay is the Merchant Account of record and they send the buyers CC information to Adyen for authorization and payment.  Adyen has zero interaction with the seller.  

eBay has the control of the funds.   Adyen processes the payment and transfers the money to their client eBay who then pays their sellers for the merchandise.

eBay's relationship with their sellers is more akin to a drop-shipper where eBay pays the seller for merchandise that eBay does not own, but sells on their platform...

...until there is a problem like a chargeback....then eBay is merely a venue provider and the seller needs to handle all that credit card stuff.  

[katzrul15]

---

@friskya wrote:

---

@katzrul15 wrote:

Because they consider it your sale transaction, not theirs.

And the uproar if they did not - Sellers would claim they could have been impactful, if only they had been active in the process.

---

If they want to manage my payments, I think they need to manage the chargebacks as well. Most of us were doing just fine when the payment processor was PayPal™ and we all made the decision to accept the change to the  (mis)Managed Payments program in order to continue selling, but it's still my belief that, as our "facilitator", they are in a better position to answer these than we are. Instead of just telling us we have to provide the proof, they should be providing what they've got, telling us that they've done it and what they've sent on our behalf, and asking us if there is additional information we would like to submit.

Just my humble opinion.

---

Don't disagree - was just answering the question posed.  Not a fan of how we are treated as Sellers with these or the disparity that occurs with the processing.  You are led to believe as a Seller you can be impactful.  "You", as in the Seller - cannot be.  E-Bay "could" be, but chooses to not.  

[buzzapparel]

No different? I had $4600+ in chargebacks my final year with PayPal and won each one. I’ve had two chargebacks with MP and lost both. 

[popblox]

I've actually put a great deal of thought into this, only because I think it’s the most asinine process I’ve ever been forced to participate in (with eBay anyway). I think I know the answer. 

Imagine for a moment you’re eBay and you have to figure out the most cost effective way to handle, say, a $100 chargeback. If the seller is covered by ‘seller protection’ (another issue entirely, I know) and uploads this repetitive and readily accessible information within the given time frame, then you end up having to let the seller keep their $100 and you also have to refund the buyer $100. You’re out $100.

But what if the seller doesn’t respond to this case they could easily win? What if they’re new, or sick, unfamiliar with the process, or just plain inattentive? We’ve seen enough posts on this board to know this happens. Whatever the reason, if they don’t respond, you take $100 from the seller and refund the buyer. You’re out nothing.

[gracieallen01]

@friskya 

"Why does eBay even ask us for information about credit card chargebacks? They have (or should have, anyway) all of the information to answer them without asking us to jump through hoops (for the low-low fee of $20) to send them info."

Perhaps because, a) it would cost money to have someone with a brain pull and read the reports, that is, if b) it isn't going to cost money go get the programming needed for preparing and producing such reports.

(personal opinion - your mileage may vary)

[katzrul15]

I think you are on to something with that line of thinking.

There is (to me anyway) a HUGE difference between "responding" to a chargeback and "defending" your Seller over a chargeback.

I do not believe (could be wrong), e-Bay does anything to "defend" the chargeback or push back, etc.  It is relayed to you as a Seller that it is not defensible.  Except on other platforms, it is and we know Paypal did work to "defend" them.  ymmv

[popblox]

---

@katzrul15 wrote:

I think you are on to something with that line of thinking.

There is (to me anyway) a HUGE difference between "responding" to a chargeback and "defending" your Seller over a chargeback.

I do not believe (could be wrong), e-Bay does anything to "defend" the chargeback or push back, etc.  It is relayed to you as a Seller that it is not defensible.  Except on other platforms, it is and we know Paypal did work to "defend" them.  ymmv

---

Exactly. There's nothing more to the process, other than the process itself. There's absolutely no evidence to suggest anyone from eBay actually 'interacts' with these banks and/or 'works on chargebacks' and/or defends the sellers, as you said.

By all reasonable accounts, it's 100% automated. The payment dispute process pulls the tracking number from the original order, which suggests the algorithm could just as easily submit the tracking number, without the seller having to do anything at all. 

[donsdetour]

well you get the option to refund em or get charged the extra 20 for such as ebay having to.... Just saying...