Originally Posted by
bocastephen
That is not the test for bait and switch. They advertise one price, then when you are about to purchase say "oops, we meant THIS price" - that is bait and switch.
Have you ever actually looked at their website or tried it out? It sounds like you haven't. Please do so before criticizing. When you click on a payment type, you are taken to a screen where you select the payee, choose their mailing address, enter your account number and enter the amount of the payment - when that is done, your fee is displayed. In all cases, the fee displayed is $9.95. When you click to submit the payment and are taken to the details page to enter your CC info, only then do you notice the $9.95 is now about 3% of the total payment amount.
I very well understand how banking works - and you're trying to defend them in two conflicting ways. First you say they have a right to recover their costs - namely the credit card processing fee. When I (as did others) pointed out that charging people the fee to use their card violates all merchant agreements, now you're claiming it's a fraud protection fee? We all know it's a fee to cover their expenses and generate a profit - which on its face violates their merchant agreements.
Based on this, along with the bait and switch pricing tactics, their business model is not legitimate, their merchant agreements should be canceled and they should be shut down.
I've already addressed all of your points, and yes, I've used the site. They cannot give you a quote until they have all of your information. They do disclose (I even quoted it for you) that there are additional fees, right in the FAQ, and then they display the total *before* charging you. This is not bait and switch, as they disclose all they can up front, then fully before charging you. If they said "$9.95 is your one and only charge", then charged you more, *that* would be bait and switch.
I didn't assert that they use the fee purely for fraud prevention. I explained that they may call it whatever they want, and use it for whatever they want. Who are you to demand that they justify what the fee is for, or why they collect it?
Originally Posted by
Ritz
WOW, you are nasty. Just nasty and uncalled for. No one here is insulting you're opinions or points of view - why do you see fit doing it to others? How about assuming that some here may actually have the requisite knowledge to form their own opinions AND still disagree with you. If you think that's not possible - then you're posting on the wrong message board.
Further, since some of us actually have a law degree - and actually work with credit card processing companies everyday, some of us might fully understand what ChargeSmart is and isn't doing legally. Notice I
didn't say you didn't understand - thereby getting my point across without hurling personal insults at you in the process.
Now, back to some of OUR issues with ChargeSmart:
BECAUSE MASTERCARD AND VISA EXPRESSLY PROHIBIT PASSING THAT CHARGE ONTO CARDHOLDERS.
THEY AREN'T CLAIMING THIS IS WHAT THE "LARGE PAYMENT FEE" IS FOR. Only you are, sparky. And if you're attributing it to accepting CC's and paying merchant fees therein - then THAT IS CALLED BAIT AND SWITCH.
Its not a statute, sparky, it's the Mastercard and Visa TERMS AND CONDITIONS.
So, which is it? A charge for using a specific merchant OR a charge to combat "all" of the chargebacks and fraud they've experienced?? You can't have it both ways - and neither can ChargeSmart. Why? BECAUSE IT IS A VIOLATION OF MASTERARD AND VISA's MERCHANT TERMS AND CONDITIONS.
Again, wrong. They are legally bound by the Terms & Condition of their agreements with Mastercard and Visa, which prohibit this.
Wrong again, sparky. ChargeSmart is not a bank - they're a payment processing clearinghouse.
Some of us would like that fee disclosed earlier in the process than on the very last page - after inputing not just which vendor we're paying, but ALL of our personal and CREDIT CARD information. If you don't mind being prompted on the very last page of the payment process for a fee that wasn't disclosed at the primary input page - than good for you. Some of us don't like that - good for us. We're not insulting YOU by expressing our issue with the fee disclosure placement. Well, unless you're ChargeSmart - then you're rather MONUMENTAL OVEREACTION to our opinions of ChargeSmart makes alot more sense.
Well said, my friend.
Nothing I said was "nasty". I can take snippets from your post out of context and make you look "nasty", too. I might be blunt, and I am certainly annoyed when people attack a company out of a sense of entitlement, laziness, or ignorance, but I'm certainly not being "nasty". It isn't my opinion that fraud nor bait and switch are present here... they factually are not.
You didn't read what I wrote, or you didn't understand, as your points are off-topic in most cases.
I asked why any company would operate with a business model whereby their expected revenues are smaller than their expected costs. The laws aren't operative here - common sense dictates that Chargesmart wouldn't be charging $9.95 but paying ~2% without recouping costs elsewhere.
I asked why any customer would sign up for a credit card, or otherwise take substantial steps of preparation, before they fully understood if they'd need them or what they were getting into.
I inquired about that statute because of the assertion regarding illegality. Violating T&Cs isn't illegal.
They aren't violating anyone's T&Cs by assessing a fee to cover the incremental fraud risk associated with larger transactional amounts. If you feel otherwise, please be specific in explaining why and how.
Visa & MC do not have any legal authority over Chargesmart.
I understand you may *want* Chargesmart to disclose the fee sooner, elsewhere, etc., but your false assertion that not doing it the way you want amounts to bait & switch and/or fraud is out of line.