Posted By: stonec
Reg E - Online scammers - 10/10/19 06:31 PM
We have a client whose dispute regards being scammed online for a computer service. The company contacted him stating that something was wrong with his computer or offering some sort of special service. Our client accepted the service and willingly provided his debit card number; some sort of service (we are not sure what) was performed on his machine and software may have been installed on the device.
Afterward, he determined it may be a scam, had his card hot carded and proceeded with a dispute. He had taken his computer to Staples and they claimed that his device was compromised and informed him that they had undone whatever service the providers had performed. He disputed as product/service not as advertised (not under our definition of unauthorized transaction).
We have recently been advised that we should process the dispute as though it was an unauthorized transaction as the debit card number was accessed by the merchant by means of fraud. Is this correct? It seems that it would not be unauthorized since the client did willingly provide payment and a service was performed/product installed.
Furthermore, if we are to submit a chargeback case claiming the transaction is unauthorized, it seems very likely that the merchant in this case will simply provide some sort of evidence that they were given payment credentials, authorized to receive payment and provided service in return. Wouldn't it make more sense to submit a chargeback claim for product or service was not as described if we can receive some sort of statement from Staples regarding what was done to the client's machine and how they fixed it?
We are unsure how to move forward with this dispute. Do we deny the claim, believing that it fits the definition of an authorized transaction? Do we honor the claim and write it up to loss outright or do we want to honor the claim and also try to process a chargeback?
Afterward, he determined it may be a scam, had his card hot carded and proceeded with a dispute. He had taken his computer to Staples and they claimed that his device was compromised and informed him that they had undone whatever service the providers had performed. He disputed as product/service not as advertised (not under our definition of unauthorized transaction).
We have recently been advised that we should process the dispute as though it was an unauthorized transaction as the debit card number was accessed by the merchant by means of fraud. Is this correct? It seems that it would not be unauthorized since the client did willingly provide payment and a service was performed/product installed.
Furthermore, if we are to submit a chargeback case claiming the transaction is unauthorized, it seems very likely that the merchant in this case will simply provide some sort of evidence that they were given payment credentials, authorized to receive payment and provided service in return. Wouldn't it make more sense to submit a chargeback claim for product or service was not as described if we can receive some sort of statement from Staples regarding what was done to the client's machine and how they fixed it?
We are unsure how to move forward with this dispute. Do we deny the claim, believing that it fits the definition of an authorized transaction? Do we honor the claim and write it up to loss outright or do we want to honor the claim and also try to process a chargeback?