Discover Refuses to Admit Fraudulent Charge

[ksantangelo23]

---

@MarcusCrassus wrote:

Ksantagelo23: Discover investigates whether a charge is considered to be "unauthorized." Discover's own standard is all that's apparently necessary. The temporary credit that Discover issued was reversed. Now if Discover is brazenly violating the law and you can cite the case law to prove it, then I am all ears (eyes).

---

I'm just at a loss why Discover is apparently giving such an issue. Last year I had a fraudulent charge of $244, and I called within seconds since I had text message alerts active. No issue at all for me, and it occurred at an address across the street from my home address.

[Callandra]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Disputing a "card not present" transaction is most often a slamdumk for the cardholder. Something doesn't jibe.

IP address alone doesn't prove anything. Are often shared and transient. And various court rulings recognize this.

Did package tracking show delivery to an address in your zipcode?  That alone generally isn't enough for the merchant to prevail, but could good enough for an unmotivated CS (and/or is familiar with eBay / PayPal, and applying the more lax PayPal dispute rules to a credit card transaction).

Was the package signed for? If no, you should have prevailed. But even if was signed for, if it wasn't a direct signature, the merchant still can lose.

Cancelling the card / closing the account won't affect a disputed charge. If the card issuer rules against the cardholder, they will bill for it and, if not paid timely, report to the bureaus.

Even for fraud under $50, most major credit card and debit card issuers fully cover it. So that's no excuse on Discover's part. Fraud is fraud - and the cardholder should be made whole regardless of whether it's $1 or $1000, etc.

If you have Facebook and/or Twitter, post on Discover's Facebook page and/or under Discover Card hashtag on Twitter about the issue. Many large consumer facing companies contract with social media monitoring services. You'll likely have the money credited back in short order.

---

Signature is sort of useless in disputes; trust me, 99% of our merchandise is sent via signature delivery and we still lose (and this includes running the CVV code & AVS AND shipping to the AVS-matched billing address). You could do restricted signature delivery (where the addressee actually has to show ID and only he/she can sign for it but that's like $8-9 and only worth it for expensive purchases) but even then, doubt it'll make a difference. 

I don't understand how we can never win disputes but I see people here all the time lose disputes. *scratches head* Granted we have never had a Discover one. 

To OP ~ if Discover has the same dispute rules as V/MC, once a dispute is closed, it is closed. Your best bet now is to make a lot of noise on social media to Discover and see if they will cover it as a "courtesy." Sorry this happened to you. 

[Christina_xyt]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Apparently this online merchant didn't require the CVV number to process the transaction? Discover may be different, but with Visa/MC if an online merchant doesn't require the CVV they lose a claim automatically.

---

I don't get this though.. if someone is able to steal your information.. like very information on your card, your billing, wouldn't they also be able to get the info or the CVV as well?

[yfan]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

The thing to remember is that Discover is at its heart a subprime lender no matter what their recent PR moves would have you believe. That comes across in the way they treat their "debtors" as vile creatures that are beneath them. They automatically assume customers are lying if they file a dispute and they think they can blatantly rip people off.

---

Well I have been their "debtor" and while I haven't filed any disputes, I have filed more than one insurance claim (price protection), which all have been promptly approved and I have been treated well. Discover in my experience is nothing whatsoever like a subprime lender. They are independently ranked at the top with customer service for a reason, and a few anecdotal negative experiences does not make them "at heart a subprime lender".

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Example: I, and a bunch of other people in my city, got completely ripped off by a "merchant" who took the money and ran. Several newspapers even picked up the story. I included the articles in my dispute. Discover still found in the "merchant's" favor.

---

Which tells us precisely nothing. If a merchant that you willingly gave money to ripped you off, it's the merchant's fault, not Discover's. A CCC fraud is when your card is used without your authorization, period. If you use your card willingly, and then the merchant stiffs you, you STILL authorized the charge. You need to file a BBB complaint and probably even a criminal complaint, but against the guy who took your money and ran.

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Example 2 (the final straw that made me close my account): I was carrying a 0% balance transfer on my card and they sent me a 0% on purchases offer. I decided to use it for a 5% category. The transaction was mysteriously backdated a month  (1/1/15 instead of 2/1/15) so that it posted as made before the 0% purchase offer and I got hit with interest charges calculated from before I even made the purchase. I sent Discover the receipt and they refused to fix it at first. Finally, after much badgering, they removed the interest charges as a "courtesy."

---

You decided to use what for a 5% category? What did you buy? You can't use a balance transfer for a 5% category - that doesn't even make sense. I am also skeptical of your claim that a charge showed up a month before it was made. Because if it were exactly a month before, it would have been in a previous statement - which you can obviously prove that it wasn't.

[yfan]

---

@MarcusCrassus wrote:

Ksantagelo23: Discover investigates whether a charge is considered to be "unauthorized." Discover's own standard is all that's apparently necessary. The temporary credit that Discover issued was reversed. Now if Discover is brazenly violating the law and you can cite the case law to prove it, then I am all ears (eyes).

---

I don't think you responded to a previous inquery (if you have, please forgive me for overlooking it), but what was the time lapse between the date of the transaction in question and the date on which you reported it as fraud?

[Anonymous]

One thing to remember about IP addresses as well is that thier stated location means very little. My static IP block shows a location that is over 450 miles from my location, a different city and different state. My ISP registers the entire block there and there is nothing I can do to change it. I can set the reverse lookup to my domain but not the physical location.

[MarcusCrassus]

I noticed and reported it 1 week after the charge was made. Because I hadn't had any problems in the past with other credit cards with fraud claims I didn't think there would be any problems. It seemed odd, though, that despite my suggestion, Discover declined to cancel the card at the time I initially reported the transaction. I later adamantly insisted that the card be cancelled.

[jsucool76]

---

@MarcusCrassus wrote:

I noticed and reported it 1 week after the charge was made. Because I hadn't had any problems in the past with other credit cards with fraud claims I didn't think there would be any problems. It seemed odd, though, that despite my suggestion, Discover declined to cancel the card at the time I initially reported the transaction. I later adamiantly insisted that the card be cancelled.

---

#ExecutiveOffice

I had a few fruadulent transactions with chase (never discover) and I got my refunds before a human even got involved. Got a message along the lines of "We value you as a customer, so we're just going to refund the money without an investigation." Most of the time chase calls me when they suspect a fraudulent transaction though. 

This situation with discover sounds weird, and I'd highly suggest moving it up the food chain over there. A card not present transaction shouldn't present this much trouble for you to dispute. 

[Anonymous]

This whole situation is quite horrifying to me. 

I really don't want a Discover card, if I'm going to be treated like this when my card is stolen. And I truly know it's only a matter of time, before it is. 

To the OP - Please keep us updated. I think a lot of members, are now, kinda worried. 

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

This whole situation is quite horrifying to me. 

I really don't want a Discover card, if I'm going to be treated like this when my card is stolen. And I truly know it's only a matter of time, before it is. 

To the OP - Please keep us updated. I think a lot of members, are now, kinda worried. 

---

Ditto. While there's the possibility of there being more to the story or no story at all, if the OPs experience is for real, definitely of concern for sure.

Major company databases being hacked is seemingly more frequent these days, leading to more fraud. More to the point, with chip and signature, some issuers may use that as an excuse to make it more cumbersome to dispute fraudulent charges. Personally, never had any issues disputing charges with any major card issuer so far.