It would be a good to block a single merchant by name or by tapping “Block Merchant” on a past transaction. My friend can’t remove his card details from a webshop and they are keep trying to charge his card from time to time (for something he doesn’t want). As far as I know he can only block his card and request a new card but it we could just click the merchant it would be huge help. What do you think?
For what reason they try to charge him?
Wouldn’t be better to contact the merchant and terminate the contract?!
That could also be abused.
Imagine buying something, the shop pre-authorises, ships the goods. Before the definite transaction goes through you block the merchant.
At first it’s always better to sort thing out with the merchant directly. Your friend might also request deletion of his data following GDPR, given that it applies in this case.
You are both right. Blockage -of course- wouldn’t apply to pre-authozations and live subscriptions. I know there are better ways to sort it with the merchant but what if they are unreachable or don’t reply back? It takes a lot of time to report them or wait for a chargeback or go to police etc. It would take just a single tap on screen then problem solved.
Well, in this very case it will be faster anyways.
What’s that shop?
I know that there are software solutions that do not allow removal of a payment method without adding an alternative one.
Note: “Your friend” might have skipped Terms&Conditions and has signed up for services. In that case he is causing legal trouble when refusing payments.
GDPR does not force the shop owner to delete your data. He has to keep it for a certain time anyways. You can get info on what he’s doing with your data.
However, this is not about saving you time but about flagging a phishy shop. This is why I love to use disposable virtual cards.
I agree with you in most of the points but I still think that we should have the right to protect ourselves from problematic merchants when things go wrong. Terms and Confditions are only useful if both parties are following them. I am not going to name the merchant here as it is not my case and I don’t know all the details. I mentioned virtual cards to him. Thank you for all your comments.
The “problem” I see here is that it would allow customers unilaterally to withdraw from a binding contract without allowing due process. If there is a dispute, the network providers need to have the option to investigate if it is a case of fraud. Network providers also have legal obligations to their merchants.
I know, there are plenty cases of fraud where the merchant claims to have a subscription and tries to charge a customer, and then they only offer cancellation via a phone line (like it is – or was – legal in the US), and then the customer simply can’t reach them because no one is answering the phone. But chances are good that the customer can raise a chargeback if he documented that he tried to contact a merchant and that the merchant simply refuses a customer’s right to cancel the subscription.
So what is the difference between this and the disable “Online Transactions” function that we already have?
With blocking online transactions, you’re only blocking new authorizations. Not recurring payments that were allegedly authorized at some point before or manual card not present transactions that are often the backdoor for fraudulent transactions.
Yes. I mentioned this already on the 30th:
“Blockage -of course- wouldn’t apply to pre-authozations and live subscriptions.”
All I am suggesting is a function what works exactly like the one we have for blocking online transactions but instead of blocking all ecommerce it would just block payments from a single merchant without blocking pre-authorised amounts and live subscriptions. Future one-off payments and creation of new subsciptions would be blocked.
Hm, wouldn’t that be a very narrow use case then? It doesn’t improve fraud protection much. It doesn’t make it easier for the customer to recover funds. And since “live” subscriptions wouldn’t be affected, it would not help in cases where the merchant does not accept / can’t be reached for cancellation.
Isn’t that the dispute? The customer claims a subscription isn’t “live”. The merchant says it is.
I can see how this would be useful for parents that could block a certain merchant on their kid’s cards. But how would the average Revolut card holder profit from this?
This could easily be abused and could lead to rejections of Revolut cards, which noone would really like.
I have to agree with David here, we need to be able to protect ourselves! Revolut is very limited in this regard, and I would like to raise a VERY CONCERNING issue that I’m sure most of you have never heard of (I hadn’t until today).
I used my Revolut card in a physical shop in Italy a week ago, but after the transaction something the merchant said raised a red flag, so I decided to freeze my card and report it stolen. And guess what? It didn’t help at all. Not even a little bit. The merchant was still able to charge me €330 after the card was blocked. Customer support says that offline transactions can still go through even if the card is no longer active. They’ll be able to charge me anytime in the future since they have my card details, there is ABSOLUTELY nothing I can do but “try to dispute” every single transaction. But if the merchant does it all the time, I’m sure they’ll find a way around it.
I’ve never had a similar issue with a regular bank before. Revolut needs to do something about this, we can’t just trust them with our money and keep our fingers crossed.
Did they pre-authorize the €330 on your card at the store?