Question:

Customer files a dispute for unauthorized transactions. Most of the transactions are recurring charges for $149.95. We speak with the merchant who we provide with the phone number. The merchant then provides us information on the account that is our customers name, physical address, email address and phone number on file. It's a subscription service for internet games all tied to him.

Can we deny based on this information or would we still be responsible since, technically, it doesn't prove that someone else in the household did the transactions?

ACH? Debit card? How many transactions and how far do they go back? Did they report a stolen card? Not really a lot of information to go on here.

Sorry - it's a debit card dispute. The card was not reported stolen and customer did not lose the card. I'm not sure how far back it goes (I was asked for my opinion on denying the claim). I do know that it wasn't reported timely and that the total claim is for $3300.00. Plus, this customer is known for filing claims but when we investigate, it always comes back to his name/information. And before you ask - No, we did not give him another debit card this time.

I guess I really just wondered if we could deny his claim due to the his information being the information on file with the merchant.

Thanks

Ok...I have more information.

Customer has 28 charges beginning on April 22. Customer told us on the phone that he new about the charges on April 22 but didn't report them until July 10 because he was "ashamed". When asked about one of the charges that was a PIN based transaction, he stated that yes he remembers doing it now. The other transactions was for a gaming website that he says he knows nothing about. When we talked to the merchant, they provided us with our customers name, address, phone number and email address as associated with the transactions (it was a subscription).

I feel like we should be able to deny the claim due to the information provided by the vendor; however, another part of me says someone else in the household could have used his card.

How much information do we need to collect during our investigation to deny a claim. As I said above, he has been known to lie about claims (not sure why he even had another debit card).

Thanks for any help!

If you are certain that he has lied about claims in the past, that's a relevant fact for consideration.

He seems to have lied about at least one of the charges in this case (or had a memory lapse that was cleared up when he was asked about it). That's another relevant fact for consideration.

He reports that he was ashamed. But why would he be ashamed to report the transactions if he didn't do them? That's another relevant fact for consideration.

Merchant has not only name, phone #, and address, but also email address. Did the merchant send any kind of confirmations or have any interaction with the member via phone, text, or email? If so, that would be additional evidence.

The burden of proof is on the bank, but unless he files a lawsuit, you have to make a determination as to when that burden has been met. Is the evidence you have that he did the transactions stronger than the evidence that he did not (which at this point consists solely of his own statement)?

While investigating, make sure you recognize that the names, phone numbers, emails, and addresses of lots of consumers have been leaked through data breaches (including credit bureau data breaches) and are widely available to scammers.

Thank you both so much! I appreciate the help.

Can the merchant identify the IMEI or computer that the subscription was sent to?

We are currently waiting for documentation from the merchant. Hopefully there will be something that ties the customer to these transactions.

If the merchant has an IP address, I like to cross check that to IP addresses that have accessed internet banking or mobile banking. Merchants may be more forthcoming on representing charged back debit card transactions with the IP address associated to the transaction as compelling evidence with some of the more recent changes around representments the card brands have put in place.