> I'm sure chargeback abuse is a thing, but in aggregate, I'd argue people are still not doing enough chargebacks
But it only adds fees aka an extra tax; you are paying for it. Merchants just up the prices, banks up fees, conversion rates, etc etc. Someone is paying for it and it's always most likely you. The strange idea people have that 'this is free because it is law' is interesting. It is VCs (in neo banks), it is you in established banks. I rather do not pay for any of your chargeback behaviour really.
But I’d rather pay a small tax across everything rather than get stuffed for a much bigger amount.
Ideally, we’d have technical means to prevent people from getting stuffed (the oAuth-style token system I’ve described in other comments on this thread), combined with legal means to ensure businesses are discouraged from doing the stuffing in the first place (and those who do are promptly sued out of existence).
Until this happens, consumers (including me) will keep using chargebacks as their only way to defend their interests.
Also, if we were to magically rewrite the system tomorrow and eliminate card fees and the potential for chargebacks, do you really think businesses worldwide will suddenly lower their prices as a result? The market already demonstrated it is willing to pay the current prices, so the savings from lack of fees/chargebacks will end up in executives’ yachts instead or pissed away in more advertising.
But it only adds fees aka an extra tax; you are paying for it. Merchants just up the prices, banks up fees, conversion rates, etc etc. Someone is paying for it and it's always most likely you. The strange idea people have that 'this is free because it is law' is interesting. It is VCs (in neo banks), it is you in established banks. I rather do not pay for any of your chargeback behaviour really.