It's not helpful to have a service provider that can renege on commitments when they take issue with them for whatever reason. In this case, it (based admittedly on limited information) feels like Stripe agreed to something and then later unilaterally just decided that they didn't like it and bailed. There is a certain amount of risk in any contract, and what bothers me about this kind of thing is that providers think they are entitled to all of the upside but none of the downside of the contract. As a small business owner myself, if I committed to do something (including for a company like stripe) I would be on the hook for delivery, even if it turned out to be different than I had planned for (within the agreed scope). Stripe should be held to the same standard.
If not the people in the world called these companies and platforms on their shenanigans and actually forced them to engage in a meeting of the minds, most company legal and sales departments would
A) be larger B) be waaay more responsive to customer needs, as you'd not be able to rely on one template to CYA from SLA's from whoever may be calling or reaching out.
Force a meeting of the minds, stop the abuse.
That makes sense but I’m a bit surprised at how many people immediately started the charge back process and said it was fraudulent. I looked at my statement, saw the cost matched up with the amount I was to be charged that same day and put two and two together. Flipper might not have alerted to the different name in a timely way, but they sent out a bunch of emails counting down to the day people would be charged.
If that is the case, the blame falls mostly on the Flipper folks for the lack of clarity of who would be charging backers. I’d say a there’s a bit of blame on the people charging back w/ fraud claims so quickly, too. The likelihood of your card being used fraudulently for the exact amount you were scheduled to be charged on the expected day is incredibly low.
