To hijack my own post, there needs to be way more transparency on how these cases are decided. If merchants are given a set of rules to follow, and are told what information we must gather to prove payments are authorized, then we can go ahead and collect that information. If our customers refuse to provide that information, and we are faced with a dispute, at least we will understand why we have lost.

It's actually quite easy to get customers to provide proof of identity before completing a service. However, after a service is completed, it becomes basically impossible. If we know what to collect before delivery, we can collect it. And if we are confident that we have the appropriate information to win a dispute, then we can sell more confidently and increase our customer purchase limits through Paypal, thereby increasing the amount of revenue we accept through their service. It would be a win/win situation.

I'm definitely in agreement here. It's interesting the point you make about Paypal's dispute process being more "shoot from the hip" than a run-of-the-mill bank. I wonder if that has to do with organizational structure or exemption from some type of regulation.

I'd also appreciate clearer standards, and better due diligence from the disputer's end. It's not fun to get a "won't let me cancel my account" dispute when the 'Cancel Account' button is high visible and the customer never got in touch with anyone in the organization. It's just a mystery. Are they being dumb? Is our UI awful? Accounts are cancelled successfully every day -- what went wrong here?

It's nice to try to keep in mind that we very much live in the future, and although online banking and payments can be frustrating, I'll likely walk into a bank once a year maximum for the rest of my life.