Understanding Friendly Fraud
The “It Wasn’t Me” chargeback and what it means to eCommerce. If you are selling goods and services online for any length of time, you have probably felt the pain of the “It Wasn’t Me” chargeback. You know the product or service was provided or shipped but then, several weeks later, you receive a chargeback stating that the transaction was fraud. You may have proof of delivery, maybe you even spoke to the end consumer but in the end, there was nothing you could do.
More and more, the “It Wasn’t Me” chargebacks are popping up all over the place as consumers realize the ease of issuing a chargeback with their bank. Don’t have enough money to pay that card? Say, “it wasn’t me.” Didn’t like that service? Just say, “it wasn’t me.” Simply overspent and want to reduce that credit card debt? Again, just say “it wasn’t me.” As more and more banks fight to keep their consumers happy, the process of issuing chargebacks is getting easier and easier. You know all those credit card commercials were the friendly consumer gets a call from their bank and the bank rep says: “Don’t worry about it, we’ll take care of it”? In reality, they are just saying: Don’t worry about it, the merchant will pay the bill.
For those of you not familiar with the process, when a chargeback does occur, regardless of what the merchant did to verify the transaction, the merchant will always be responsible. Some Merchant Service Providers will tell the unfortunate merchant that if you receive an AVS match, you are fine; but in fact, that’s not true. The challenge with “friend fraud” is simply that there is no way to verify the authenticity of the transaction as in fact the transaction itself is legitimate, it’s the consumer who isn’t legit. While “technically” the consumers themselves are committing fraud in this case, law enforcement often views this as a “victimless crime” for no other than the reason than prosecuting these crimes would be too expensive.
There are really good solutions out in the marketplace that are getting much better at keeping records of bad consumers but the reality is that we are a long way off from merchants having the piece of mind that they need here. While many banks promise to have a good track record at preventing these things, the fact is that no solution has made it mainstream that will help prevent such matters.
I say, it’s a hard time to be an ecommerce merchant and my hats off to those who manage to make it through the sludge that is the current face of the payment industry. While the consumers drive the industry, without merchants it just doesn’t exist. So, hopefully next year, as Washington starts it’s only true governing cycle of 18 months of real governance while trying to make symbolic wins for its newly elected officials. maybe they will throw the merchant industry a bone or two.

Comment by Tom Mahoney on 5 January 2008:
Friendly fraud certainly isn’t friendly but there is a way to beat it. Enroll in Payer Authentication! Does it cost money? Yes and no. Most merchants will actually realize a small savings because of the lower discount rates (the rates that you pay.)
Merchant911 recommends Payer Authentication! Learn more at http://www.merchant911.org/resources
Tom Mahoney
Director, Merchant911.org
Developer, PreventChargebacks.com
Comment by Riley Poole on 5 January 2008:
Hi Tom. User Authentication is ok but the offset is in the drop off rate of transactions. If I drop 1% in “it wasn’t me” fraud but lose 5% in user authentication, what’s the point? I’ve seen it happen with many merchants where drop off rates can be as high as 15%, some products just do better with getting the users in and out and while 1% is bad, there has to be another solution than user authentication.
Comment by Bobby on 6 January 2008:
hmm, that is a very good article, congratulations! :)
do these frauds work the same way as paypal chargebacks or am I missing the point?
Comment by Anthony on 6 January 2008:
Sold something on ebay and the same thing happened. UPS left it at the door so had no signature and paypal would not honor the claim :( Double bad when paypal had my account on hold for two weeks while I got the cash to do more.
Comment by Cap88 on 7 January 2008:
Anthony, that sucks, it happened to me once, also because it had no signature, but fortunately it was a cheap thing, but, the money’s gone
Comment by Sanjay on 8 January 2008:
Full disclosure - I work for Vindicia - and we have a hosted software solution that focuses specifically on helping merchants with this issue. But beyond just the ability to recover “lost revenue” for our merchants, we find that one of the biggest value-adds for merchants of going through the chargeback representment process with us is understanding some of the root causes behind the chargebacks in the first place.
Riley - I also agree with your point about tradeoffs between “tightening the fraud screen” and the revenue from increased transactions — this is especially relevant for intangible goods merchants where the cost of goods is minimal.
Comment by Riley Poole on 8 January 2008:
Hi Sanjay! Getting a lot of industry folks, welcome! I must say that chargeback representment is a way to manage fraud. I think the #’s I’ve seen are that recovery rates are as high as 70%. While it really does vary from merchant to merchant with some merchants seeing no recovery, it’s great to see that some merchants do see a good return. While no solution will ever be the silver bullet, it’s a good start.