[cdmoyer]

The OP later clarified that it wasn't a normal transaction. They sold a "cheap company van" using their stripe business account. That seems like a huge liability, since a used car seems extremely likely to cause a chargeback. I don't think dealerships would accept a credit card payment (other than deposit) for this reason.

https://www.reddit.com/r/smallbusiness/comments/wa1zob/dont_...

[SyneRyder]

And one of the comments below that one explains exactly why this is a problem:

"When you sign up for your Stripe account, you had to state what business you were using it for. If you're doing business with your Stripe account that is not related to what you sign up for, then there are reasons why Stripe is now holding your money."

It's listed in Stripe's terms and conditions on Prohibited Items:

"Use of Stripe products to facilitate transactions on behalf of another undisclosed merchant or for products/services that were not disclosed in the merchant's Stripe account application."

https://stripe.com/en-au/legal/restricted-businesses

[notinfuriated]

Makes sense why this would raise a red flag, but it does not explain why Stripe supposedly had extremely shitty customer service where he can't get talk to a person and get this resolved in less than a week or two (let alone 120 days that is actually arbitrarily indefinite).

[Crosseye_Jack]

Most 2nd hand car sales in the US are sold "As-is", so the buyer has very little recurse after the fact. The consensus is when it comes to 2nd hand vehicle sales is buyer beware and you should be taking the vehicle to be checked over by another garage before finalising the purchase.

Last car I purchased (granted a) it was brand new b) I'm in the UK) I purchased the car using my debit card (I kept the recept for ages until it faded cause it was novel to me to have such a large card transaction on a small thermal printed receipt :-P)

So I'm just wondering why a 2nd hand vehicle sale would be a huge liability thats all.

[stetrain]

The issue is that the credit card company doesn’t necessarily run through a full legal analysis of the seller’s rights in a transaction when the buyer requests a chargeback.

Of course it may eventually all get settled in the seller’s favor in court, but in the meantime the buyer has their vehicle and their money back and it’s on the seller to track them down and sue.

So people tend to do person-to-person used vehicle purchases in cash-equivalents (cash, cashier’s check, etc) so that there’s no worry about the money disappearing after the buyer drives over the horizon.

[flak48]

I'd guess that a manual review for the automatically detected out-of-policy transaction wouldn't be prioritized if it's been flagged as a transaction outside the seller's line of business that they mentioned in their agreement with Stripe when onboarding.

I kind of agree - I don't see why manually reviewing a transaction that probably violates their agreement with Stripe should be prioritized by Stripe - even if the transaction would eventually emerge as legit (not fraudulent and not chargeback-able). Because such a manual review would entail a cost to Stripe that is being forced upon Stripe by the seller's actions.

[gnfargbl]

When these stories come up, I would like to hear enough context that enables me to understand whether or not Stripe is behaving reasonably. I understand Stripe takes customer privacy seriously, but even so it would be great to get the missing information in a suitably anonymous form.

In this case, my judgment (as a small business that uses Stripe for similar-sized SaaS payments) is that they acted completely reasonably.

[mindslight]

A paper-titled transaction seems like it should have one of the lowest chargeback risks. A copy of the purchase and sale specifying "as-is", plus signed title should be pretty clear cut evidence against a chargeback.

It's also not terribly surprising that someone who develops familiarity with one tool will then apply that tool to new situations. The main problem here is the ever-growing financial censorship regime / decommodification push that insists companies should be prying into their customers' business.

[flak48]

Why should Stripe take on the cost of investigating / handling a potential chargeback, even though it might be likely to be resolved in the business (and Stripe's) favor?

When it comes to chargebacks it's not just customer experience (reputation damage due to fraud) and liquidity risks that Stripes or other payment providers are protecting themselves against - but also the actual support cost of handling each chargeback too.

[nunez]

and this right here is why I avoid larger subreddits. the truth is always buried underneath hundreds of poorly thought out knee jerk responses

[tomphoolery]

lmao why. why would you do this. just use square cash.

[arwineap]

I enjoy the power of greenbacks, very visceral too.