Sounds like it's time for a credit card chargeback
this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2024
19 points (100.0% liked)
Smartphone Required (digital exclusion of people without smartphones)
75 readers
2 users here now
This community collects stories, cases and situations where people without smartphones are excluded from society.
Somewhat related:
founded 1 month ago
MODERATORS
That would indeed be the practical answer assuming he has a credit card with those protections. Credit cards not issued in the US or UK often lack chargeback protections in non-fraud situations.
Note as well that even in the US the chargeback merely moves the money back to the consumer and does not affect legal obligations. If AXS were motivated, they could sue the customer in that case and likely point to a contract that indemnifies them from software defects and incompatibilities.
I think most banks have a threshold where they eat the loss. I did a chargeback once for around ~$20 or 30. Then I found out that the bank’s cost of investigating the chargeback exceeds something like $50, so the bank just takes the hit instead of the merchant. I found that a bit disturbing because a malicious or reckless merchant has no risk on small transactions. But in the case at hand for $200, the bank would likely clawback the money from AXS.
Credit cards not issued in the US or UK often lack chargeback protections in non-fraud situations.
This part got me intrigued. Would not honoring a contract (letting you use your ticket) not constitute fraud?
I don’t think so because it would have to involve deliberate deception. (source)
The first customer to enounter the problem could send a registered letter to the vendor and then a second customer could perhaps later use the 1st customer’s letter to prove the vendor knew about the defect. The vendor would then perhaps try to argue that they did not know a particular customer was vulnerable to the defect. I don’t imagine that the debate could unfold in a chargeback dispute. A bank that is less consumer friendly than what you have in the US and UK would probably say it’s not obvious fraud.
Note as well fraud legally requires 5 components to all be present. I think 3 of them are: deception, someone must profit, someone must be damaged, … and I forgot the other two components.
(edit) I should add that when banks refer to “fraud” they may not be using the legal definition. I think it’s simpler for banks. They might ask “do you recognize the charge?” If yes, they likely don’t treat it as fraud. Of course I am speaking speculatively. I’ve not worked in a bank and a banker might have better answers.