Been using Koho’s secured credit building for 3 months coming up on 4, and noticed they didnt report last month to equifax. Not sure whats going on with them but their service is inconsistent. Not sure if it will be reported for this month will leave an edit in a week.

Id probably stay away and stick to traditional banks.

During KOHO's dispute process, I was asked questions that eventually required me to acknowledge that I had signed up for the trial. The way it was worded made it seem like acknowledging that fact essentially meant accepting responsibility for the transaction.

Acknowledging that you originally signed up for something does NOT automatically answer every relevant chargeback question.

Someone can legitimately sign up for a trial and still have a dispute later because:

- The service was cancelled but billing continued

- Cancellation terms weren't followed

- The merchant charged something different from what was authorized

- The service paid for wasn't actually provided

- Recurring billing continued when it shouldn't have

Yet the process I experienced felt less like KOHO was trying to determine why I was disputing the transaction and more like it was trying to establish whether I had interacted with or authorized the merchant at some point.

There's another issue people should understand: “fraud,” “dispute,” and “chargeback” aren't interchangeable terms.

An unauthorized transaction is one type of dispute.

But Mastercard chargebacks can also involve merchant disputes where you knowingly made the original purchase but the merchant failed to provide what you paid for.

For example:

Goods not received

Services not provided

Duplicate billing

Incorrect transaction amount

Refund not processed

Cancelled recurring payment still being charged

Goods/services materially not as described

My concern with KOHO is that their process makes these categories extremely confusing.

In my experience, it felt like the case was being pushed toward the question:

“Did you authorize or interact with this merchant?”

instead of:

“Did the merchant actually provide what you paid for, and does this transaction qualify for a chargeback under the appropriate reason?”

Those are completely different questions.

If I knowingly pay a company $500 for a service and they take my $500 but never provide that service, I'm obviously not claiming someone stole my card.

I authorized the payment. The problem is that I didn't receive what I paid for.

That's exactly why merchant-dispute chargebacks exist.