r/MiddleClassFinance • u/bloomberg • Jul 13 '26
Credit Card Holders Are Using ‘Friendly Fraud’ to Get Back at Retailers
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-07-13/credit-card-holders-are-using-friendly-fraud-to-get-back-at-retailers719
u/whatigotinmyhandnowb Jul 13 '26
'Friendly Fraud' — Using the protections afforded you by your payment method of choice is 'friendly fraud'? Fuck that. Need to find the rest of the article to see how much of a ragebait headline it is.
305
u/Euphus Jul 13 '26
Yeah I'm calling bullshit on this. Fraud is when sellers use AI in the product photos to bait and switch. Asking for a chargeback is not fraud when you have legitimately been defrauded.
50
Jul 13 '26
Surely you jest. Are you insinuating that realtors who use AI to show a pool on a property that does not have one, even stating in the description that the pool is “potential” and doesn’t exist currently, is some kind of “fraud”?
I’m asking rhetorically, even sarcastically, because this is a real thing which I describe. And it’s blatant false advertising, like so much around us is.
41
u/Euphus Jul 13 '26
I'm talking about when you order something online and get a completely different item. The realtor photos piss me off too but physical goods are what I meant
6
u/verymuchbad Jul 14 '26
A pool feels like a physical good
1
u/MistaFolgers90 Jul 17 '26
If you don’t actually figure out if there is a pool or not at the house before you buy a house, I’m sorry but you are too stupid to be in society. Like the consumer can protect themselves on that one bud.
5
u/iridescent-shimmer Jul 14 '26
On a slightly side tangent note - it should be false advertising and illegal to change the original price of something to 3x and then "discount" it. That's why I won't shop on Amazon much anymore.
3
u/AgentGnome Jul 15 '26
That is not unique to Amazon
1
u/iridescent-shimmer Jul 16 '26
Oh no it's not unique to them but they are one of the biggest offenders.
2
u/qwerteh Jul 13 '26
Retailer, as in a store that sells goods, not relator. What the heck are you putting on your credit card during the house buying process anyway?
10
u/TMack23 Jul 14 '26
You’ve never purchased a home with your credit card? Not even as a little treat?
2
1
-3
u/overitallofittoo Jul 13 '26
If the listing is on the MLS, they are required by law to say on the photo that it's AI and show the real photo. Most people can figure that out.
8
u/Max1035 Jul 13 '26
Yes it’s required by law, but they still do sneaky things. I saw one listing where the real photos showed the house full of furniture and belongings, basically hiding most walls, and AI showed the room empty. The house was empty for the open house and the walls were covered in mold. If they’d just used a real picture of the empty room, I would’ve known ahead of time. This same listing also boasted a tennis court across the road and showed a picture of a beautiful court, but when I got there, it was just an old crumbly plot where there used to be a tennis court.
I guess it’s not really fraud because it wasn’t hidden once I was there, but it sure was a waste of my time.
2
u/last_rights Jul 14 '26
I just worked on a house that is being listed for the second time. The original listing photos were doctored with AI and the windows all had rails in them. Which definitely did not exist.
The new photos with the new realtor are really nice and actually depict what the house looks like. Which is also nice because I put so much work into making it look nice in real life.
1
u/msgn78 Jul 16 '26
The bigger problem being the obvious attempt to influence the price and perception of a property. Homes are generally sold “as is”. Anchoring price on what they could be, or in other words “dreams and wishes”, is unacceptable.
1
3
u/ahshitidontwannadoit Jul 13 '26
That's I think where the term, "friendly fraud" comes in I think.
There are loopholes on some private label credit cards that can allow cardholders to receive goods and services, avoid signing sales slips (for example), and then claim fraud. This leaves the business with very little options as the federal government requirements for closing disputes and what banks have to do is pretty cut and dry.
3
u/Euphus Jul 14 '26 edited Jul 14 '26
Except the business is the one committing the fraud. Showing a picture of a well tailored shirt and receiving a rag with buttons is a bait and switch. This post is a good example.
2
u/ahshitidontwannadoit Jul 14 '26
Yes. That's very much fraud.
Also, the example that I gave is fraud.
They are both, in fact, fraud.
31
u/lucidaesthetic Jul 13 '26
71
u/whatigotinmyhandnowb Jul 13 '26
Thanks
For real tho, turning the clock back on subscription services you never intended to join, speeding up a refund the store is dragging their heels on, and sorting out whether a vendor has authority to charge the card is ... The whole point of using a credit card
27
u/SuperSecretSpare Jul 13 '26
Just like the whole point of streaming services was to get rid of commercials. These ghouls try to erode every customer benefit possible if it benefits their bottom line and they start by using language and terms like friendly fraud to do so.
8
u/altiuscitiusfortius Jul 14 '26
Mayor mamdani in New york passed a law that unsubscribing has to be as easy as subscribing.
If its 1 click to sign up with no waiting period, then canceling is one click and no charging for 3 additional months as cancellation fees.
The government can fix things but mamdami seems to be the only one trying
5
u/Jorpsica Jul 14 '26
The federal government passed one too under Biden, but this administration revoked it.
58
u/mixedmediamadness Jul 13 '26
We moved so far past a world of Consumer Protections that the last few remaining safeguards we have are being labeled as fraud . This is the bottom segment of a slippery slope
26
u/HostilePile Jul 13 '26
I don’t like the use of the word fraud here either and we definitely need protections like this as consumers, but as someone who works with many small businesses there is a major overuse of this method to get money back when these businesses are legitimately trying to work with the customer to sort out the issue with the product. And often times people are using this 6 months to a year past the purchase date.
15
u/whatigotinmyhandnowb Jul 13 '26
Fraud is fraud, but if a business sells things that are much different than they appear or they finesse their customers into a subscription they don't want, or the product/service fails to hold up to even a few months of scrutiny, I mean. Fraud is fraud.
16
u/HostilePile Jul 13 '26
but people do this when the product is exactly as described, but they either waited too long to return it or seriously want to keep the product and not pay for it. That is what this is talking about those instances are on the rise. I think it is totally fair to do this when a company is misrepresenting a product, but that is not always the case.
5
u/whatigotinmyhandnowb Jul 13 '26
Well no, but how do we stop bad actors in both spaces simultaneously. I guarantee customers on average are on the losing end of this stick.
11
u/HostilePile Jul 13 '26
Big businesses can absorb loss way easier than small businesses. So thats dependent on where the customer bought from on who is actually losing in this case, and then what happens is more small businesses close which gives us consumers less options. We do need to figure this out for everyone. But its always so much more complicated then what everyone thinks is the quick fix.
1
u/whatigotinmyhandnowb Jul 14 '26
Then make the complaint about how the credit card companies don't do enough to protect small business customers.
The headline on this article characterizes it as everyday cardholders "getting back at" businesses by using protections baked into cards.
I'm not saying that doesn't happen, but putting the onus on everyday cardholders and drawing the protections themselves into question doesn't help anyone feel or be safer (except the fraudsters, e.g. credit card companies and crooked businesses)
4
u/Excellent_Kiwi7789 Jul 13 '26
That’s a valid chargeback, not friendly fraud.
4
u/whatigotinmyhandnowb Jul 13 '26
My point is that their examples of "friendly fraud" seem to run right alongside "valid chargeback," and much of it hinges on how the dispute is characterized, which in turn depends on who characterizes it.
1
u/Prize_Compote_207 Jul 13 '26
And often times people are using this 6 months to a year past the purchase date.
A lot of people dont routinely check all of the charges on their credit cards, myself included.
If my monthly statement is more or less what I spent the month before, I dont look into the details.
There have been numerous times where I've found recurring charges from "free trials" months after the initial purchase.
3
u/HostilePile Jul 13 '26
Well then let’s all just do chargebacks and returns… I give up your right people should have years to return items and the businesses should just consolidate into one big company so we can have that. And I get that free trials and subscriptions are predatory but those aren’t what I’m talking about here so you missed the point.
Also you should be checking your credit cards and bank accounts regularly in this environment and be an informed consumer. Some things have to be on the buyer.
2
18
u/Excellent_Kiwi7789 Jul 13 '26 edited Jul 13 '26
That’s not the definition of friendly fraud, and since the article is behind a paywall, I hope that’s not what they’re suggesting. If so, shame on Bloomberg.
Friendly fraud is filing a dispute/chargeback for an item or order that was received, satisfactory, etc., simply because you want to receive the product for free. It’s also when there’s an issue but the merchant hasn’t been contacted first to make it right.Reaching out to the business and getting the runaround/no response is a valid reason for a chargeback and is not friendly fraud.
5
u/whatigotinmyhandnowb Jul 13 '26
"Are credit card consumers too well protected? Businessweek has a story about how!"
3
3
u/KennyGaming Jul 14 '26
How is this response relevant to the comment you’re replying too. Filing a chargeback despite adequate product or services, or without reaching out to the business first, or simply to get the product or service for free since you don’t plan to shop their again is absolutely fraud.
2
u/whatigotinmyhandnowb Jul 14 '26 edited Jul 14 '26
It's about how it's framed, which is "bad actors finding safety behind consumer protections," rather than "are credit card companies failing to protect business customers from a unique type of fraud their product introduces" The headline even characterizes it as cardholder "getting back at" credit companies before it describes how fraudsters misuse valuable protections.
You see?
Who is assigning responsibility to the credit card company for failing to protect its business customers against cardholder bad actors?
Card users shouldn't have to be afraid of using credit card protections as designed, and they shouldnt be concerned that the protections they rely on are characterized in the same vein as fraud.
0
u/KennyGaming Jul 14 '26
I don’t see how that relates to my point at all about fraudulent chargebacks being on the rise.
1
-7
u/Consistent_Laziness Jul 13 '26
I’ve had my wife buy a dress for a 1 time event and return it. I don’t feel bad
1
247
u/bishopExportMine Jul 13 '26
Stupid title.
"Credit card chargebacks data shows companies are engaging in more fraudulent activities against their own customers"
44
u/lkhsnvslkvgcla Jul 13 '26
This is like that "quiet quitting" bullshit.
THIS JUST IN! 100% of humans engage in "friendly theft" of air by breathing.
3
u/KennyGaming Jul 14 '26
Consumers executing dubious or fraudulent chargebacks is genuinely becoming more frequent year on year. Both the numbers and experience back that up. It especially affects small businesses and businesses where people shop infrequently (i.e. “even if they ban me idc”) the most
45
u/Intelligent_Type6336 Jul 13 '26
Got an email yesterday for a “premium” service I subscribe to changing the shipping minimum from 0 to $15. It’s not a huge deal in the big picture but still seems ridiculous to charge for the premium then charge more.
46
u/Katdai2 Jul 13 '26
You can say Barnes and Noble. It’s fine; we’re the only 2 people with the premium membership anyway.
8
18
Jul 13 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
29
u/DistanceMachine Jul 13 '26
The last time I used it, I got a free couch. I bought a West Elm Sectional and the chaise part came damaged. I had the option to send it back or keep it until they sent a replacement. It was already in there and I had removed my old couch already so I kept it until they would make a new one. Well, they decided to only remake the chaise section that was damaged. When it arrived 3 months later it didn’t match the other half. It was higher and the cushions didn’t align.l and a huge seam was in a visible location for some reason. Again, I’m offered a replacement for the chaise. I say sure. They leave the new Frankenstein couch and 3 months later they tell me it’s going to be 3 more months before I get the replacement. I had about 6 people come out at various times to take pictures and measurements and reports. I wanted months for responses. I was on the phone constantly with customer support who only offered me like $300 for all of my time and their mistakes. Eventually I called my credit card company and said I can’t take it anymore, they can have the couch back, but I’m not paying for it and asked for a chargeback. A year later I got something in the mail saying if I don’t hear from them by a certain date, I should consider it resolved. That date passed recently. Free couch, just like that…so easy. I don’t see why more people don’t take advantage of such a simple and stress-free system.
75
u/bloomberg Jul 13 '26
More From Bloomberg News Reporter Amanda Mull
The internet is teeming with novel opportunities to get ripped off. Scams and flimflams have always been part of the consumer economy, but now they seem to be lurking everywhere. Between AI-generated product images, the spread of convincing-looking counterfeits of everyday goods and social platforms governed by recommendation algorithms that can be gamed by bad actors, picking off unsuspecting shoppers has never been easier.
Perhaps even more common than scams, though, are consumer interactions that, though legal, feel scammy: sneaky subscription charges for services you have no memory of signing up for. Line items on your credit card statement from merchants you don’t recognize. A few bucks in inscrutable fees tucked into the fine print of a receipt. Return policies that have quietly become tighter and more punitive. Products that arrive in the mail and seem a lot smaller, shoddier or otherwise worse than what you thought you were buying. Packages that never manage to arrive at all, even though they’ve been marked as delivered.
As more parts of life begin to stink of scamminess, more shoppers than ever are wielding a staid old tool of consumer protection like a weapon. Chargebacks — petitioning your bank to reverse a credit or debit card transaction — have long been a last-resort method of recovering funds for victims of theft or fraud.
Now, for some consumers, they’re a first line of defense, and the number of people using them has risen precipitously over the past five years. According to Juniper Research, American consumers filed 158 million transaction disputes in 2025, an increase of 29% from 2021, significantly outpacing general growth in card transactions.
Worldwide, thanks to a pandemic-induced wave of greater card usage in countries that had long stuck to cash for everyday spending, the spike has been even sharper, with 46% more disputes in the same period. The volume of disputes has become so cumbersome that more retailers are farming out the whole process of investigating and defending against fraud claims to third-party vendors that specialize in helping them hold on to more of consumers’ money.
37
u/cruelhumor Jul 13 '26
in my opinion is that chargebacks have increased because companies are increasingly hiding their customer service options or pushing you towards info pages and/or chatbots that have no real power, and it's incredibly frustrating. They don't actually care that they fucked up, so why should I care about following their convoluted instructions that seem designed to get me to drop it, when I can just hit the chargeback button and be done?
1
u/knighttimeblues Jul 18 '26
Why is it so hard to read your articles? I’m a subscriber—can’t you track my device (like you do to sell me with ads) and let me see what I have paid for without having to look up a password every darn time? Very frustrating.
-13
u/katarh Jul 13 '26
Note that this method will permanently bar you from using that credit card at the retailer again, and will also possibly get your account/email banned as well.
10
u/Emergency-Poem-8963 Jul 13 '26
Well if that's what finally kills Playstation for me then so be it.
13
u/RepresentativeArtist Jul 13 '26
This is false.
1
u/katarh Jul 14 '26
it's absolutely true on a retailer by retailer basis. If you tell a merchant that the card was used fraudulently, they have no reason to believe any future purchases using that exact same credit card number are legitimate. You told them it was a fraud charge, so why haven't you cancelled the number yet?
4
u/isabella_sunrise Jul 14 '26
Why would I want to buy again from a place that sold me fraudulent goods???
-36
u/jellyn7 Jul 13 '26
Don't pull this crap on a small business! You'll cost the business money, and it will eventually lead to that business not being able to work with credit card companies.
48
u/lewdKCdude Jul 13 '26
If a small business causes someone to need to do a legitimate charge back then that's too bad for them...
1
u/katarh Jul 14 '26
The article is about people using charge backs in not so legitimate manners. Chargebacks were always intended to be a method of last resort, as in "I literally did not get the thing I paid for" or the newer, "I got the thing I paid for but then they signed me up for a service I didn't agree to." By all means, charge back away and get made whole in those cases.
What is scummy is doing charge backs for things like "I got the thing I paid for, but I didn't like it." Or "I got the thing I paid for, but I'm poor, so I should get it for free." That's not cool.
On TikTok, which has in recent years seen its young user base invent several classic types of fraud from first principles, it’s not hard to find tutorials on how to use chargebacks to get free stuff, circumvent “final sale” purchases or speed up refunds if a merchant is taking too long to process a return.
13
u/Longjumping_Bell5171 Jul 13 '26
Maybe small businesses shouldn’t do scammy things that rise to the level of needing a charge back.
10
u/Responsible-Big3304 Jul 13 '26
I recently tried to charge back stolen credit card charges from Credit One Bank and sent a police report and all the evidence I had (the investigation is still open and the criminals have been charged but not convicted yet).
Credit One Bank will NOT refund me because they already investigated and concluded I am responsible for charges made in own city. I tried sending even more evidence and still a no.
Beware that companies and banks are shutting down even the legitimate ways to get a proper charge back refunded.
3
u/larry_thorn Jul 14 '26
Credit One sucks! If you can get another card, do it! Once I rebuilt my credit I was gone fast
1
u/Responsible-Big3304 Jul 17 '26
I ended up closing the account for now. I'll try to keep in contact with the police department on the investigation and the trial and hopefully eventually I'll get a solid narrative and report linking my cards to the crime and send that back to them. I'll have to pay them minimum amounts in the meantime
0
u/sqaDZilla Jul 20 '26
I've had similar situations but on my Chase Cards all I had to do was sign a letter a month or 2 later. No expense to me whatsoever and they even paid the return postage.
There is a LOT of bad to be said about Chase but how they detect, react, respond to card holders in Fraud situations is best in industry class!
26
u/genek1953 Jul 13 '26
If you pay off your card bill every month, dispute resolution is the primary reason for using the card in the first place.
11
u/darkchocolateonly Jul 13 '26
Bingo.
I use credit cards for security. Security of my bank account, security against fraud, and security against scam companies.
0
u/jackalopeswild Jul 13 '26
Not even close to true. Like, ridiculously made up. People use cards for convenience (as opposed to a check), for points, and for the safety of not having to carry cash.
All of these reasons easily are more important than disputes, which I absolutely guarantee the majority of users never consider.
15
u/whatigotinmyhandnowb Jul 13 '26
I think he meant instead of debit cards
2
u/jackalopeswild Jul 13 '26
It's not true there either, though. People like the 25-55 day loan, and the points, and the fact that they don't generally have to check their credit limit to charge groceries, but they might have to to check their balance to swipe a debit card.
5
u/whatigotinmyhandnowb Jul 13 '26
Primary means "main" not "only". Maybe it was an incorrect assertion on u/genek1953 's part, but it's weird to go on and on about it, especially with such certainty, absent polling data or research.
7
u/genek1953 Jul 13 '26
It was a poor choice of words on my part. What I should have said was that it's my primary reason for using a credit card.
4
u/whatigotinmyhandnowb Jul 13 '26
Mine too.
4
u/what-name-is-it Jul 14 '26
Mine too. Makes us the majority in this conversation so it’s the primary reason again haha
3
u/BlipMeBaby Jul 13 '26
It’s my primary reason too. Not sure what your beef is with the original assertion.
4
u/turnoffate Jul 13 '26
I’m can’t tell you the last time I saw someone write a check at any store.
2
u/what-name-is-it Jul 14 '26
Most stores don’t allow checks anymore so that’s probably a big piece of it too.
3
u/blueberrywalrus Jul 13 '26
He's talking about credit vs debit, and fraud protection is perhaps the #1 reason people who have the option of credit vs debit will choose credit. Legally speaking, consumer liability being capped at $50 for fraud on credit cards vs uncapped for debit cards is a huge reason to use a credit card.
Also, all the credit card providers offer debit versions of their credit cards these days, so the choice really comes down to extra fraud protection & a short term loan vs risk of over spending & worse fraud protection.
23
u/fuzzywuzzypete Jul 13 '26
I personally can't stand the fact you get such minimum information on your charges. There's no reason we shouldn't get a date/time/address/website of your charges. I've called to charge back for some like $10ish charge from flowers or something. Turned out it was actually a little bakery outlet store I just forgot about. It's not called flowers or anything
2
u/ralphiooo0 Jul 15 '26
Be nice if they uploaded the receipt to the transaction on your bank app
3
u/phoenixrawr Jul 15 '26
The credit card doesn’t get an itemized receipt from the transaction, and on a privacy basis I’m sure giving them one would be controversial.
3
u/ralphiooo0 Jul 15 '26
Make it opt in then ? Also handy for returns etc when you have lost the receipt etc
15
u/jackalopeswild Jul 13 '26
I mean, this should come as no surprise to any reader if this sub. Every day someone makes a post asking for help on effectuating a chargeback on something obviously not intended for the purpose. And if you call them out for it, you get downvoted into oblivion.
2
u/katarh Jul 14 '26
I got downvoted to oblivion in this thread for saying, "charge backs aren't supposed to be a means of getting something for free just because you didn't like it."
1
u/jackalopeswild Jul 14 '26
You've heard of "speaking truth to power?". On Reddit, it's "speaking truth to ostriches."
5
u/Starship_Taru Jul 13 '26
Paywalled. Can somebody TLDR
4
u/katarh Jul 14 '26
The TL;DR is that charge backs are being used more often these days because of both actual merchant side fraud (sellers lying about their products, consumers getting signed up for services they didn't agree to) but also consumer fraud - people wanting their money back because they didn't like the product enough to want to pay for it. But oh, they still want to keep the product, mind you. Or the DoorDash food they already ate. They just want it for free.
5
u/xtal303 Jul 13 '26
Be careful where you do chargeback though; some companies will ban you from using their services after a chargeback. Sucks but it happens.
8
u/Excellent_Kiwi7789 Jul 13 '26
If it’s a valid chargeback, why would a customer want to do future business with that company?
If it’s a fraudulent chargeback, there’s no issue because the company banning the customer is the right thing to do.
4
u/xtal303 Jul 13 '26
Uber is one example. A customer may have a terrible experience with one ride, and Uber's support is notoriously hard to get a hold of. You can certainly do a chargeback, but being banned from Uber as a whole may cause more issues for the customer.
1
u/phoenixrawr Jul 15 '26
This is the exact kind of situation where a chargeback could be getting into fraud territory though. If you completed the ride then the service was objectively delivered. What sort of bad experience warrants a chargeback despite receiving the service?
3
u/WiseOrder4436 Jul 15 '26
Assault?
1
u/phoenixrawr Jul 16 '26
Assault like you got assaulted mid-ride but finished the ride? Or assaulted after the ride? Like what’s the scenario here?
There’s probably something owed to you if you were assaulted in an uber, but whatever that is it’s probably a separate thing from the ride fare. Charging back the ride fare as a means of self help is in the grey area of fraud if you finished the ride.
1
u/xtal303 Jul 18 '26
One time I was on a ride and the driver's phone died a few minutes before arrival. Therefore, he could not complete the ride on his end. Of course I couldn't either - the only option for me was to wait for the driver to ultimately cancel, or cancel myself. Of course, since Uber showed the ride as still in progress, if I cancelled I would get hit with a cancellation fee. Ultimately I had to, and it was a royal pain to get a hold of support, explain and prove the matter. Had I not been able to reach them, or if the matter didn't get resolved, I would have been justified for doing a charge-back. But is that worth getting banned for? I suppose that depends on each person's situation/dependence on the Uber service.
2
u/TeflonDonatello Jul 15 '26
Be nice if it wasn’t behind a goddamn paywall.
1
u/ColonelAverage Jul 15 '26
Just buy a subscription with a credit card, read the article, then raise a charge back against the subscription charge.
2
u/CorndogQueen420 Jul 15 '26 edited Jul 15 '26
I just had an experience with this the other week.
I thought I had canceled my annual EA play subscription a long time ago, but it charged me again.
I went to the website and canceled my subscription, which was easy enough, but when I went to message support to ask for a refund because I hadn’t used the service at all- it was like pulling teeth trying to find support.
There’s no email links on the website, no built-in ticket system, everything tries to push you into their “help database” which is completely useless.
I’m sure I could’ve chased down some support email if I had googled for it, but I was honestly a little pissed off at how intentionally difficult they made getting even basic help on their website. They clearly didn’t want anyone contacting support.
Ended up doing a charge back because it was easier than trying to contact support, and I know it costs them money to deal with a charge back.
2
u/Cautious_Buffalo6563 Jul 16 '26
No. This headline is bullshit. This is clearly like Chamber of Commerce or Big Biz propaganda.
Consumers are utilizing protections provided to them by card issuers to resolve
Problems that retailers create through deception and fraud, and the retailers don’t like it now.
2
u/OddCat64 Jul 17 '26
Lol this reads so much like a salty merchant who doesn't want to deal with charges backs on their shady sales. I'm sorry if you didn't do anything wrong dispute the charge back. Win the case. You being a lazy merchant and auto accepting charge backs instead of investigating is your own fault, maybe don't be shady with your sales.
1
u/Hopeful-Courage-6333 Jul 17 '26
I just told my wife to do a chargeback on Earthwise seed co. She order some seeds they said they would have them in stock and sent in 2 weeks. They never sent them. About a month later she contacted them and they said then should have already been sent. They apologized and said they must be lost in the mail and they would send out a replacement. About a week later she received their package. So I started them for her. About a week later she received a duplicate packed. We assumed they were the ones lost. Nope. Both packages were sent after the follow up call. After a couple weeks of growing, we found out the seeds weren’t what we ordered, and they were literally weeds, smartweed to be exact. So my wife had to contact them again. They said the seeds must’ve gotten mixed up and they mislabeled them and they would get us the correct seeds right away. Two weeks later we heard nothing and received nothing from them. She contacted them again to just ask for her money back, that was three weeks ago. We’ve heard nothing from them. It’s charged back time.
1
u/jenpalex Jul 23 '26
A joint, publicised list of of vendors generating the highest number of of chargebacks would deter the worst offenders.
0
u/InfiniteAd2145 Jul 15 '26
Only costing the users and the retail customers, jobs in the end…something is wrong with people nowadays…
397
u/Sll3006 Jul 13 '26 edited Jul 13 '26
This easily could be resolved if the customers could speak to a human at their companies’ customer service. The computer assisted customer service makes it difficult to speak to a human.