Skip to content(if available)orjump to list(if available)

The $10 Payment That Cost Me $43.95 – The Madness of SaaS Chargebacks

ilamont

> What I don’t understand is why some people can’t just reach out and request it — instead of going straight to a chargeback.

Customers don't want to "reach out" if it means hunting deep in their account settings to find the cancel button, or calling a number which may or may not lead them through an endless phone tree to waste 5 minutes talking with someone on the retention team reading from a script.

People don't remember they signed up.

They can't remember how to log in from a different device to cancel.

It's easier to use their credit card app to dispute the charge.

The company name is different than the product name - even a slight difference may indicate a scam, like all of these highway toll scams using a slightly different domain name.

A worker or family member signed up using someone else's card, and that person has no idea what the charge is for.

People expected one thing from your SaaS product, and got something else that they are not willing to pay for.

They rarely check or read their email.

Your account reminders are going straight to spam.

The communications around the product, pricing, or requirements was lacking.

amelius

What I don't understand is why my banking app does not show a "cancel subscription" button with the payment.

When I click that button, the recurring payment is automatically canceled, and the SaaS company can check that and know that I unsubscribed. Or something along these lines.

There is already a power-asymmetry between consumers and companies. This should not extend to unsubscribing. Here, the consumer should have all the power.

sambroner

How would this be tooled? A chargeback, a deep link to the cancel page, an API connection between bank and subscription?

Chargeback is easy because it's under the card co's control. Deep link would require knowing the cancel page of every sub, plus handling auth factors. API connection would two way integration, with scoped auth between every bank and every service. Hopefully managed by an SI or aggregator, but the business model sounds hard (the bank doesn't mind the chargeback, the SaaS doesn't want the cancelation, so who pays?)

madeofpalk

> an API connection between bank and subscription?

This already exists. Mastercard (and Visa?) has an API that lets banks notify subscriptions when your card changes to update the card number https://developer.mastercard.com/product/automatic-billing-u...

pjc50

Integrations are usually one-way (merchant calls bank API), but it's not beyond the bounds of practicality to keep a handle on whatever UID was assigned to the recurring payment in the first place, then send the merchant "by the way this subscription UID requested user cancellation".

amelius

This is another instance where we clearly need a regulator to make things work better for the consumer.

shkkmo

> How would this be tooled? A chargeback, a deep link to the cancel page, an API connection between bank and subscription?

I'd be happy to just have the ability to easily ask the credit card company block further payments with no actual notification to the business besides that the monthly charges stop going through. If you want to be fancy about it, creat a custom industry standard declination reason for that use case.

evermike

Neobanks definitely have this feature. For example Revolut. There’s a “Block future payments” button, and once you click it, no more charges from that merchant will go through.

amelius

Yes, but this is not a correct way to unsubscribe. They might for instance still send a bailiff to collect their money.

What I'm talking about is an official way to unsubscribe. One that the user fully controls, and is free of dark patterns.

re-thc

> Customers don't want to {blah blah blah}

If this is the way it works and the result are chargebacks it just means things cost more in general (cost of business will be factored in).

It's not a good thing.

infecto

If chargebacks are a significant issue for your business then you are doing something wrong.

evermike

As I mentioned in the article, this is extremely rare for us, but it has happened a couple of times. And that’s where I start having questions and frustration about the process itself.

I’ve shared examples in the article.

llm_nerd

Yet the majority of businesses use dark patterns to avoid cancellations because it's hugely profitable to do so. Chargebacks are expensive, but the truth is that the majority of customers never leverage it, and often just endure years of paying for products they don't use. Maybe they tried to cancel to find that while they could sign up in seconds online, cancelling invariably requires a call (to a number that, wouldn't you believe it, has higher than normal call volumes!) into some maze of retention garbage.

What a world we would be if companies didn't want to bill customers that don't use their product. Imagine if companies automatically paused billing if you stopped using their product? Panacea.

Apple is a hugely greedy company, but it's one thing I like about subscribing to things in there -- I can cancel at any time with minimal effort.

fryry

I very rarely refund anything, but when I do, I send a single email that I want a refund and if it isn't done promptly I will chargeback. It's usually the best customer service I get. No security questions, no Indian call centres, no "are you sure" questions. I don't blame people for just hitting the dispute button though. Years of piss poor customer service has conditioned it.

evermike

We always issue a refund if a customer asks, or at least try to find a compromise if the payment was made a very long time ago. In that case, it’s usually more about a pro-rated refund.

But recently I asked for a refund from a very popular project management system, and it was a nightmare, an absolutely terrible experience. After that, I gained a new level of respect for our own support team ))

wiradikusuma

"Banks almost always side with the cardholder, even when we provide clear logs and evidence."

-- sigh unfortunately it's the opposite in 3rd world countries like Indonesia. I've had my cards physically stolen on the airplane. Despite having all the evidence and common sense ("I'm in city X airport and the disputed transactions happened in city Y, you're saying I went there immediately after landing and return to the airport just to queue for immigration, all in an hour?"), none of the banks accepted my chargebacks that I filed few hours after incident.

The banks are Bank Mega (national, private), BNI (state-owned) and DBS.

mtmail

We have very few chargebacks, not even 10 in 10 years and we consider us lucky. Stolen credit card happens more often than chargeback. I don't attribute it to better messaging or easier cancellation options, we do the same as many others, I guess it's just the type of product of customer.

Even in HN comments I've seen people saying they use temporary card numbers (valid for one transaction only) or click a button to dispute instead of a single email. That button in the banking interface might be "block future payments" or such. They must've bad experience with companies in the past?

Actively emailing with the customer sometimes helps. It worked for us. Sometimes it didn't. For example if it's a company credit card and the employee left the company. Their accounting team simply doesn't know what our service is for.

At this point the fees are part of "cost of doing business".

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44382686 is an example where a customer was unhappy about merchant charges and seems to contact the banks only, not the merchant.

jddj

> They must've had bad experience with companies in the past?

Ever used a gym, airline, or subscribed to a newspaper? Many businesses are genuinely customer-hostile.

CamelCaseName

I actually find airlines very customer friendly.

Depending on your country / ticket, you have a 24 hour cooling off period, easy to call phone numbers, self serve web platforms and apps, very well documented processes and procedures.

Most of the worst airlines have some of these things, because if they didn't, they wouldn't be allowed to operate in certain regions (Canada/US, EU)

infecto

It just takes one bad experience. For me it was a local kids’ dance studio. I signed up through their portal, but my daughter didn’t like it. I forgot to cancel the recurring charge for a couple of months, no response to my emails. I filed a chargeback. The next month they charged me again, so I did another instant chargeback.

They finally reached out asking why. I told them we hadn’t even shown our faces there for months. But the following month they charged me again, and again I charged it back. This cycle repeated a couple more times.

foofoo12

Add a warning email 24 hours before the transaction. In the subject put "You'll be charged $10 for renewal in 24 hours".

> we also provide a simple, self-service way to cancel the subscription

It's hard to comment without seeing screenshots and description of the process. When people are cancelling under a perceived threat (will be charged otherwise), any inconvenience will become an extreme one.

evermike

Email about an upcoming charge is automatically sent a couple of days in advance, that’s Stripe standard feature. The other question is whether the user actually check their email (or which email they registered with).

As for cancellation, the problem is that even though it’s easy to cancel a subscription, chargebacks usually happen afterwards. It doesn’t matter how simple cancellation is, what matters is that the user first cancel and then still goes and files a chargeback.

miyuru

I just created an account, and the subscription page in the app shows a $50 charge, while the public pricing page shows $10 with 'Minimum 5 seats' in small letters.

Your post says about $10 charge, I am not sure how it happened with current flow.

Be very direct about the pricing, and please use your own product so customers are not confused.

https://beeimg.com/view/d3295639248/

evermike

I appreciate your attention. Let me explain.

In the post I mentioned that we build several products. I didn’t want to list them all, because I always feel a bit awkward about self-promotion. My goal with the post was to spark a dialogue, not to advertise.

RE pricing page: yes, we do state that there’s a minimum of 5 seats. But there are no chargebacks here, since we don’t take a card upfront and we don’t bill in a hidden way. In the worst case, if you missed or didn’t read that detail, you can simply decline and not subscribe after the trial. You’ll see the price in Stripe before giving us your card. And if you prefer, you can stay on the free plan for up to 5 ppl.

shkkmo

> But there are no chargebacks here, since we don’t take a card upfront and we don’t bill in a hidden way. In the worst case, if you missed or didn’t read that detail, you can simply decline and not subscribe after the trial.

This is a dark pattern. You should display the actual minimum monthly charge in text that is at least as large as the price per user.

No, the worst case is the customer gets the $10 price into their head and then doesn't see the actual monthly charge amount when they subscribe. You are now charging the customer 5x what they expected to pay.

mrtksn

This is something good about the Apple AppStore, they handle the chargebacks and no ridiculous fees incurs(When a refund request is initiated, they will send you a consumption info request over API to ask for your opinion but ultimately its their decision and its handled by them). That's why I don't have a problem with Apple's cut as they handle something that's actually quite complicated and annoying. Their control over the content(what's allowed) is another story though, of course.

pjc50

> no ridiculous fees incurs

.. to the user. What do they charge the vendor, or it just the 30% of every transaction (which some might consider ridiculous).

mrtksn

That's the point, I don't subscribe to the idea that %30 is ridiculous if you don't have a full blown department to handle that. Can be argued that Apple should give people that option but for anyone who minds being charged $43.95 for transaction that goes badly will be beter off to pay Apple and have piece of mind as long as their margins allow that.

pjc50

Would you prefer to be charged $43 for 1 in every 100 $10 transactions, or $3 for every $10 transaction?

edit: comment below reminds us that unhappy customers can get you banned entirely https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45248686

ToucanLoucan

As a customer, your business model isn’t my problem. I’ve had numerous frustrating experiences with cancelling these and similar things. If you make it a chore, even in the slightest way, chargeback. Suck it up.

Life is hard enough and I have enough things to do that actually require energy and focus, and I refuse to spend any of it trying to convince you that don’t need your SaaS product.

evermike

Well, I treat other companies and people the way I’d like to be treated myself. Knowing that a chargeback is unpleasant and creates extra costs, I always first write to their support.

daft_pink

This is essentially why everyone is willing to refund these type of payments when customers reach out.

evermike

Sure, and that’s the right approach. We also issue refunds, but for that, the customer needs to write to us and ask.

evermike

TL;DR: We run multiple SaaS products on Stripe. Even with clear renewal reminders, invoices and easy cancellations, some users skip refunds and go straight to chargebacks.

A $10 payment ended up costing us $43.95 recently. Banks almost always side with the cardholder, and the only reliable “win” I’ve seen is when the customer withdraws the dispute themselves.

So here’s my question to the community:

What’s really going on here? Why do banks completely ignore the terms customers agreed to when they subscribed, or even in cases where the claims are obviously false? And why aren’t customers required to provide any proof at all?

What actually prevents someone from using a SaaS product, filing chargebacks every time they cancel, and essentially getting refunded for the last several months of usage?

Would love to hear your thoughts.

Illniyar

I assume if you are running multiple SaaS you already discovered this - but the expectation is that you will amortize the cost of a chargeback into your price if you are a legit business.

Card-not-present (I.E. internet transaction) has a lot more merchant fraud then friendly fraud (what we call these cases) and the incentives for both merchants and banks is to make sure the customer never loses trust in the system. If people were afraid to use their cards on the internet everyone loses.

It doesn't make sense for both the merchants and the banks to arbitrate every 10$ transaction. I doubt your case even reached a human, or if it did they even gave it a minute of thought - you are just someone who does not know the rules to them.

Now if a customer abuses the chargeback mechanism, he'll have is card revoked, probably be blacklisted and his life would be an insane amount of complicated from now on. But you'll never see these cases. Be sure that if someone could abuse the chargeback mechanism to the extent you mentioned, the system would be unusable, the fact you get chargebacks only rarely is a testemant that there is policing going on at the bank side.

It's just not 100%. Like Patio11 says - the optimal amount of fraud is non-zero[1]

If you have a large chargeback (let's say 1000$ and more) you might actually get someone to review it, and there's a slight chance you'll win if the case is good. But the system is not geared for that.

It's geared towards you amortizing the cost of chargeback into your price - and eventually the people who pay it is always the customer, not the merchant.

[1] - https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/optimal-amount-of-fra...

evermike

Thanks for sharing. Appreciate.

blibble

> What’s really going on here? Why do banks completely ignore the terms customers agreed to when they subscribed, or even in cases where the claims are obviously false? And why aren’t customers required to provide any proof at all?

they have a banking relationship with their client, and none whatsoever with you

if they decline the chargeback they then take on a load of risk (they might lose their client, they might get reported to the regulator, they might be sued by their client and then stuck with the bill)

but if they just pass it on then you take all the pain

not surprising at all given the structure of how credit card payments work

arcbyte

The credit card business of banks wants customers to spend money so they earn transaction fees. Everything the bank does is in service of this goal. Making it harder to do chargebacks would measurably reduce the transaction fees they earn in aggregate.

Your SaaS is a dime a dozen to them. They dont care about you. You dont make them any money, especially when the customer is actively trying to stop doing business with you.

whatevaa

Seems like banks and payment networks are incentivized to make it simple to collect all those chargeback fees.

msh

The bank most likely does not ignore them as such, it’s more that they are superseded by the credit card merchant agreement.

giveita

This could also be from fraud. Card testing for example, where they aim to figure out missing card details. Or some other nefarious use of stolen card details.

evermike

Yes, we’ve had a few cases where people tried card testing through us. But we noticed quickly and introduced the proper limits. In general, if you redirect the user to Stripe Checkout after clicking Subscribe button, all of that should be handled by Stripe itself and not affect your account. I guess ))

But this is a slightly different story. With chargebacks, almost every time it was just a customer not wanting to admit fault. What’s strange is that they could have simply written to us and asked for a refund. But I guess they realized they were in the wrong, so instead of contacting us, they went straight to their bank.

giveita

Yep so strange given it is never easy to get a charge back. Doing one now and it is like pulling teeth. I would heavily chase up a traditional refund before doing a charge back. I suspect some banks are making it too easy.

csomar

Just consider it cost of doing business and move on. You can also offer discounts for alternative payment methods but something tells me cards will be more attractive.

evermike

Yes, that’s pretty much how I look at it. And in all of our products I do everything possible to keep chargebacks to an absolute minimum, sometimes even making decisions that aren’t the most profitable from a business perspective.

When I look at some other companies, I often see all kinds of "shady" tricks that clearly boost revenue, but also inevitably increase the number of cases like this.

null

[deleted]

shkkmo

Perhaps this is a question you should be asking yourself. Is your cancellation system working? There was a billing session created the day after the initial charge, are you sure there wasn't an attempt to cancel the that the system failed to register and log due to an error? If I try to cancel and it doesn't work, I'm not gonna waste time trying to figure out how to work around it or filing a bug report. I'm gonna go straight to the charge back.

Is your cancellation mechanism consumer friendly? You don't do proration when people cancel and say you only "meet them halfway" when they go through the effort of requesting a refund in response to this user hostile policy.

There are a lot of very user unfriendly policies and implementations. Sometimes companies that legitimately try to do the right thing get caught in the blowback, but more commonly, companies aren't as user friendly as they like to pretend and have adopted at least some of the pervasive dark patterns.

lotsofpulp

I am curious if Apple Pay has the same chargeback issues for merchants.

evermike

I know for sure that if users start filing complaints against you with Apple, they can simply ban your account entirely and for long. Some companies never recover from that and end up shutting down.

lotsofpulp

Are you sure? I am not referring to Apple’s App Store, I am only referring to the Apple Pay payment mechanism, which presumably is a relationship between the payment processor and Apple.

The bank would still be the one dealing with chargeback and chargeback related costs, I do not see why Apple would care or get involved.

However, I wonder if the biometric verification of Apple Pay merits a different response to chargebacks where the bank will not simply take the buyer’s side.

evermike

Sorry, I probably misunderstood and confused things. I was of course talking about the Apple App Store, when users file complaints about the app itself.

jasonlotito

It boggles my mind that this is a surprise. Let's start with this:

> What’s really going on here?

Reality. You need to prove something: that the card holder made the purchase to the standard the banks set and you can't. It's as simple as that.

> Why do banks completely ignore the terms customers agreed to when they subscribed or in cases where they’re clearly making false claims?

Because your agreement with the customer is not the only agreement in play. You accepted these chargebacks and that process when you accepted credit cards.

> And why aren’t customers required to provide any proof at all?

You can't prove a negative. I can't prove I didn't authorize payment. And, because it's online, you can't prove I did. "logs, screens, terms, full context" are not proof. None of that is useful or proof in any way that the card holder made the purchase.

> What actually prevents someone from using a SaaS product, filing chargebacks every time they cancel their subscription, and essentially getting refunded for the last several months of usage?

Credit card number limitations. Why would you accept a payment from the same credit card number again? Also, repeat offenders can be blocked by payment providers. This is the way a lot of online stores work.

> Would love to hear your thoughts.

A few more points...

> "The Madness of SaaS Chargebacks"

It's not SaaS chargebacks. It's just chargebacks.

> The worst part is that it doesn’t matter whether you win or lose a dispute — the very fact that it was filed still counts against your account.

Yes. The reason it counts is because you are problematic, or at least attract problematic customers. This ends up costing the banks money. I'm sorry, but if you had a problematic customer that cost more money than you made from them, you'd probably stop working with them, too.

> Still, we always submit evidence.

Not the evidence that matters. You need evidence that the card holder authorized the payment. I promise you, nothing you submitted proves that.

> Inside the product, we also provide a simple, self-service way to cancel the subscription without any questions asked.

Do you ask for the username and password? Right... and if I didn't sign up for the service to begin with, I didn't agree to the TOS.

Let's also address one more thing:

Facts:

> Charge was processed August 12 (regular billing cycle). > Subscription canceled August 18 (6 days later). > Dispute created August 19. > The claim is false.

Nope. The problem is when the person requested the subscription be cancelled. Not when your system recognized it.

> the customer doesn’t have to prove anything

The problem is when a customer requests you cancel their subscription, and you say you will, and you don't do it until 6 days later.=

The problem is when a customer goes to request to have their subscription cancelled, and your service is broken and doesn't recognize the cancellation and they don't realize it never cancelled until 6 days later.

I can keep going.

Let's try this: prove to me the customer didn't submit a request to cancel the subscription when they said they did.

That's right, you can't prove a negative.

I can keep going on, but you can find lots of information on this and why it is the way it is. If you don't want to deal with this, there are other options that eliminate or reduce the chance of chargebacks. But you won't find those as popular. Because they aren't customer friendly.