What's the point of a chargeback when they just ask the merchant whether they owe money to the buyer?
When you initiate a chargeback, the merchant has the right to dispute the chargeback.  If they can provide proof that the purchase actually took place, the chargeback will fail. We don't know all the details of your situation, of course, but it appears from what you have said that the tax chain probably has documents that you signed agreeing to the charges.  They prepared your return (even if they did a poor job), and so from their perspective, they have decided that they deserve to be paid.  Whether or not they did a good job is a matter of opinion, of course; their position might be that they did it correctly, and the second business did it poorly.   The chargeback is a powerful tool, but it is not a magic button that makes a charge disappear.  If the merchant can show that a sale did indeed take place and show that the proper amount was charged, the chargeback will fail.  For a service, it isn't enough usually to simply state that you were unsatisfied; if you received the service at the agreed-upon price, the charge is valid. A chargeback is sort of a nuclear option when it comes to getting a refund.  There are negative ramifications and expenses every time a merchant gets a chargeback (even if they ultimately win), and so often they will be willing to work something out to avoid a chargeback.  You should go to the merchant first, if you can, and ask for a refund before considering the chargeback option.  If you file a chargeback without even giving them the opportunity to work it out with you, the merchant will usually want to fight back. So, what's the point of a charge-back, if they simply take the word of the merchant? tl;dr: They don't. As both a merchant and a consumer I have been on both ends of credit card chargebacks, and have received what I consider to be mostly fair outcomes in all cases. Here are some examples: Takeaways from this: I strongly urge all consumers who are considering doing a chargeback to try to work with the merchant first, and use the CC dispute as a last resort. In general, you can think of the credit card dispute department like a judge. They hear the arguments presented by both sides, and consider them to the best of their ability. They don't always get it right, but they make their best attempt given the limited information they are provided. The point of a chargeback is to force merchants to do the paperwork. Many merchants don't, and are easy targets for chargebacks, even when they have, in fact, provided the good or service. You used a tax prep service. They may have given you poor (technical) advice, but such firms are usually very good about doing the paperwork. That's why you lost. You may be using the wrong method to get your money back.  As others have said, this is not a valid use for chargeback; that is when a fraudulent charge occurred, or when a merchant charges you incorrectly. However, many cards have various kinds of guarantees, one of which might cover this situation. Particularly in some european countries, such as the United Kingdom which has Section 75 allowing you a recourse, services are included with goods.  Goods are typically the only covered elements in the US, though, but check your credit card agreement to be sure. Second, you can go through the FTC.  They will provide you a sample form letter to request a refund of your money, and if the merchant is not cooperative might choose to help you directly (especially if many others are in your situation).
I would presume this goes entirely through the credit card network rather than the banking network. I am guessing that it's essentially the same operation as if you had returned something purchased on a card to the store for credit, but I'm not sure whether it really looks like a vendor credit to the network or if it is marked as a different type of transaction. "Why would you consider it null and void? It might be that something went wrong and the business ""lost"" the transaction one way or another. It might be something else. It might never appear. It might appear. In one of the questions a while ago someone posted a link of a story where an account was overdrawn because of a forgotten debit card charge that resurfaced months later. Can't find the link right now, but it can definitely happen." "The statement is (in laymans terms - if not in real terms) correct. Most credit cards (I know this to be true for VISA and Mastercard) have dispute processes and will do a chargeback on the merchant - ie take the money back from the supplier in cases where you don't receive the goods or other fraud - Particularly if they can't produce a signature and (for transactions which are not face-to-face) a tracking number. Your exact rights will vary by bank, but mostly they need to follow the guidelines set by the Credit Card company - and you do need to be a bit careful - if you received goods which were fake or a dispute arises you may be up for shipping the goods back to the merchant - and you have a limited - but reasonable time - in which to make the dispute. (The statement ""the money is the banks"" is not technically true, there is no money involved until you pay it, only credit [ they are very different, but almost no-one knows that, I communicated with a Minister of Finance on the topic], but this is quite technical and as a layman not something you need to worry about here)" "Your bank will undoubtedly charge you a fee for the ""chargeback"" and so while you will get your money back faster, you will likely end up with less than you would if you were not so impatient and just waited a few days for the refund to show up. I suppose it depends on whether you consider this a downside or not." Q: Where do you think the money comes from for the cash-back reward? A: The seller is charged a % transaction fee that is higher than the amount of the cash back reward.  So ultimately the seller is paying the cash back award and then some. This plan wouldn't work. Keeping a receipt does allow you to verify that the expected amount was charged/debited it also can help when you need to return an item.  Regarding double charging, the credit card companies look for that. If the same card is used at the same vendor for the same exact amount in a short period of time the credit card company will flag the transaction. They assume either a mistake was made, or fraud is being attempted. The most likely result is that the transaction is denied.  A dishonest vendor can write down the card number, expiration date and CVV number. Then after you leave make up a new transaction for any amount they want. You of course wouldn't have a paper receipt for this fraudulent transaction. The key is reviewing your transaction history every few days: looking for unexpected amounts, locations, or number of transactions. Note: I am not a lawyer. This is my personal opinion and interpretation. First, your source is European Law, which obviously doesn't apply outside of the EU. The EU cannot make laws that bind entities in other countries; so you cannot claim that the VAT was needed to be mentioned. Second, if you owe something, you owe it; it doesn't matter if it was forgotten to be mentioned. At best, you can say that under those circumstances you don't want the software anymore, and i would assume you can send it back and get your money back (minus a fee for having it used for a while...) - this gets quite difficult to calculate clearly, so it's probably not a good avenue to follow for you. As the company has to send the VAT to your country (they will not be allowed to keep a dime of it, and have to bear the complete cost for the handling), it is a debt you have to your government; they are just the entity responsible for collecting it. Still, if you just ignore them, they will probably suck it up, and your government will also not do a thing to you. If they only have your email address, they have no way of knowing if you even still have/use this address; for all they know, it could be you never got it. They also cannot simply charge your card, as they probably don't have the card data any more (they are not supposed to keep it after the transaction is complete, and they thought it was complete at the time). All in all, you should be safe to ignore it. It's between you and your god/consciousness, if you feel obliged to pay it, as technically you owe it. If there was some contract in place (even a verbal agreement) that he would complete the work you asked for in return for payment, then you don't have to pay him anything. He hasn't completed the work and what he did do was stolen from another person. He hasn't held up his end of the agreement, so you don't owe squat. Because your friend isn't going to like the ~2% charge they have to pay to the credit card company on the $10,000 purchase. Credit card companies make money off of transactions. The cardholder normally doesn't pay any transaction fees (and in fact can make a profit via rewards), but the merchant has to pay a certain amount of money to the credit card company for the transaction. In this case, the apartment owners ate the charge, likely because it was easier for them to send a check than to refund the cost of the fee through the credit card company. If you started doing this a lot to take advantage of this, I would imagine they would get smart and refuse your business (it'll be pretty obvious what you're doing if you're not signing any leases). Visa, Mastercard have very strong consumer protection. I have been wondering about this question for a while but never got around to asking it here: What happens if a retailer knowingly defrauds me? My guess is the first party to ask for help is Visa, Mastercard: a retailer knowingly defrauding you is unlikely to refund you any money. However, slip-ups do happen. If this is a retailer of good repute, they will not only refund you the money but send you a gift card too! Please do followup this post with what helped you in the end, but my guess is, your first (and last) line of defense would be Visa, Mastercard. Anything that would go through the bank would take such a lot of time and effort, that you would be better off writing it off. "I'm going to go with ""ridiculous notion.""  :) The vast majority of businesses are legitimate, run by honest people trying to earn a living for themselves and their employees.  These days, almost all of them accept credit cards.  Crooked businesses are a very small minority. When a bad business over charges you, you dispute the charge, and you get your money back.  But that's not all that happens.  The bad merchant pays penalties for this, and if it happens more than a couple of times, the merchant loses their merchant account with their bank, which means that they lose their ability to accept credit card payments anymore.  A crooked business is not able to rob people via credit card for very long at all. A whitelist would certainly not be able to include every legitimate business.  And a blacklist would never be able to be kept up-to-date, as bad businesses come and go continuously; as soon as a business was added to the blacklist, they would lose their merchant account and would no longer need to be on the list. What you are describing is very rare.  My brother once had a bad experience with a tech support company where they were repeatedly charging him for a service they never performed.  But a credit card chargeback took care of it.  If that company made a habit of that, I'm sure that they got in trouble with their bank. Instead, the most common credit card fraud happens when crooks use your credit card at perfectly legitimate businesses.  But your whitelist/blacklist wouldn't help you with that at all." I imagine the same results would occur as with any other business that is owed money. For a short period the company will try to collect their debts directly from the consumer. If unsuccessful, the company may then sell their right to the debt over to a collections agency. The collection agency will then pursue more aggressive collections tactics and/or legal action to collect. You can't make your bank do a charge back. This function is to assist with straight up fraud, not a customer service mistake. (Think spoofed or stolen card or if a vendor intentionally acted fraudulently.) While you may believe what they did is fraud, your bank will require that you provide the vendor with the opportunity to rectify the situation themselves. Trying to call back and giving up after a long hold time won't meet their standards. If banks started letting anyone unhappy with a vendor start doing charge backs, they would be doing nothing else all day. The issues you're describing has not reached the threshold for the bank to authorize a charge back.  Comcast has local and regional offices, and you could go in person to speak with someone. Maybe there isn't one near you. There are non-peak hours which wait times will be less. You'll just have to grin and bear it if you truly want the money back. Then, take your business elsewhere and post bad reviews online. Always keep in mind that when you eventually speak with someone, they will not be the person that messed up, and you should be overly nice and polite to them. I promise it will yield far better results than being surly and demanding. Another way to get Comcast's attention would be to file a complaint with the BBB. It might take longer, but I've had this work with big companies, usually with good results. Again, be nice to whomever contacts you. In reference to your recent duplicate question: Mastercard won't be able to help at all. They play no part in the transaction at all. That all makes sense, but all of those things are the responsibility of the cardholder.  If you want to pay off your balance, anything quoted would obviously not include any transaction yet to post.  The problem is a creditor refusing to give the balance AND refusing to take a payment for an amount over the previous statement balance. This is essentially forcing the customer to pay more interest after they declare their intent to pay the full amount.  Good points, but I don't believe those were factors in this case. cost of carry is a confusing term to use but this is what i was given to work with   then again, once you factor in interest rate risk and default risk (if you do), what is a better term?  it's not just cost of capital at that pt