Nearly 600,000 Trump supporters paid deposits for a gold smartphone that remains undelivered, sparking outrage and calls for investigation into Trump Mobile's practices.
600,000 people sent in $100 deposits for this thing—!😧 (Dumbass is laughing all the way to the bank. )
I don’t think chargebacks would have been a problem. As we saw they can just change the terms to whatever they want and that should be enough to win cases.
Plus I believe if a chargeback were to be raised properly it should take into consideration the promised time of delivery, not the usual 120 days after the day of payment.
If tens of thousands of people started requesting chargebacks for the same product at the same time from a new vendor, I don’t think Visa would be quick to side with the vendor.
What little I know about chargebacks comes from the banking side of things, and usually we see that each claim is investigated separately. Visa and Mastercard however might have some internal process for issues like this, wouldn’t be surprised tbh.
Thing is, I don’t think they would want to go against this particular merchant…
Well after whatever period of time, the option to even request a chargeback on your account portal goes away. Not sure how you’d even proceed at that point, but I imagine it involves an incredible amount of being on hold.
Afaik for normal purchases you have 120 days within which to initiate a chargeback.
But there’s exceptions to that, for example if what you paid for was something like say a subscription, then the 120 days can extend to the timeframe within which you were supposed to be receiving what you’d paid for.
But I suppose this relates to normal online/mail order etc purchases no?
I’m not sure what this $100 was supposed to guarantee at the beginning. Was it a standard pre-order or some sort of kickstarter deal as the revised terms seem to indicate?
If the latter I suspect the card scheme might reject the chargeback…
I don’t think chargebacks would have been a problem. As we saw they can just change the terms to whatever they want and that should be enough to win cases. Plus I believe if a chargeback were to be raised properly it should take into consideration the promised time of delivery, not the usual 120 days after the day of payment.
If tens of thousands of people started requesting chargebacks for the same product at the same time from a new vendor, I don’t think Visa would be quick to side with the vendor.
What little I know about chargebacks comes from the banking side of things, and usually we see that each claim is investigated separately. Visa and Mastercard however might have some internal process for issues like this, wouldn’t be surprised tbh.
Thing is, I don’t think they would want to go against this particular merchant…
Well after whatever period of time, the option to even request a chargeback on your account portal goes away. Not sure how you’d even proceed at that point, but I imagine it involves an incredible amount of being on hold.
Afaik for normal purchases you have 120 days within which to initiate a chargeback. But there’s exceptions to that, for example if what you paid for was something like say a subscription, then the 120 days can extend to the timeframe within which you were supposed to be receiving what you’d paid for.
16 CFR Part 435 30 days I think
But I suppose this relates to normal online/mail order etc purchases no? I’m not sure what this $100 was supposed to guarantee at the beginning. Was it a standard pre-order or some sort of kickstarter deal as the revised terms seem to indicate? If the latter I suspect the card scheme might reject the chargeback…
Yeah I guess the fact it’s a “preorder” probably does protect them…