AUTHORIZENET DOUBLE BILLING PROBLEM

[Cate]

From: xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: AuthorizeNet - Are they good?
Newsgroups: alt.ecommerce
Date: 2002-08-07 07:47:46 PST


I am considering AuthorizeNet for handling my online payment gateway.
I have my own cart, we just need online processing.

Looking for any feedback from people who have or is using this service.


Thanks,

--


From: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: AuthorizeNet - Are they good?
Newsgroups: alt.ecommerce
Date: 2002-08-11 22:08:36 PST


Hi,
We use them and have lately been having a lot of problems.
Every other day it seems that they are timing out transactions
left and right.

***They recently changed their gateway which caused many
double charges to our customers. Our customers were not
amused.***

Other than that they seem fine.

xxxxxxx
Webmaster
xxxxxx

--

From: xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: AuthorizeNet - Are they good?
Newsgroups: alt.ecommerce
Date: 2002-09-01 11:33:05 PST


***Authorize.net has also caused serious headeaches
for our company with problems with double charges.
Some batches of 30 or more people have been processed
twice, yet neither Authorize.net nor the processing
company (Paymentech) would help or assess the problem.
The worst part is, they won't admit it even though it is
happening ALL the time to a LOT of their customers.***

Since I switched over to verisign, all these
issues have gone away. Although that was only 2 months ago
and I guess we are still waiting to see what issues arise via Verisign.


--

From: xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: AuthorizeNet - Are they good?
Newsgroups: alt.ecommerce
Date: 2002-09-04 14:14:12 PST


Our company too has had numerous problem with
authorize.net lately. Today we had to take our cart off-line
due to all the errors coming from Authorize.net today and
yesterday. They are not answering their support
phone calls, instead recommending that you e-mail
their support staff. E-mails are also not being returned,
so we are going to dump them as soon as we can integrate
our cart into a new system.
We are looking at using linkpoint.com, but we have no
experience with them yet so I offer no recommendation.
If you use authorize.net I can only hope you have a better
experience than we did.

--

From: xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: AuthorizeNet - Are they good?
Newsgroups: alt.ecommerce
Date: 2002-09-04 17:21:08 PST


No.

I have had Authorize.net for three years, and I am going to switch.
The worst part of their service is that they simply do not answer
support emails. Problems go unsolved and their silence, to me,
means that they could care less.

Steer clear of Authorize.net.

xxxxxxxxxxx

--


Subject: Re: AuthorizeNet - Are they good?
Newsgroups: alt.ecommerce
Date: 2002-09-05 19:05:15 PST


So which service are you planning to use when you leave
AuthorizeNet. I have just started with them, and don't have
much experience. But I have just received the second or
third notice about a snafu or glitch, this one involving their
brand new interface.

Interestingly, although they admit that part of the new problem
lingers, they thank customers for their patience while they
"resolved" it. The only resolution was, unfortunately, letting
people know that they were still working on it.

I sympathize with them for the terrific complications their
system probably involves, trying to deal with thousands
of web sites and hundreds of different merchant banks
and systems, all while trying to maintain security.
Before I get too disenchanted with them, I would like to
hear more about what other people are using and having
no similar problems with.

Please let us know.

--

From: xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: AuthorizeNet - Are they good?
Newsgroups: alt.ecommerce
Date: 2002-09-06 14:19:36 PST

> So which service are you planning to use when you
> leave AuthorizeNet. I have just started with them,
> and don't have much experience. But I have just
> received the second or third notice about a snafu
> or glitch, this one involving their brand new interface.

We use card services who now have their own gateway,
and through this process discovered that we pay a PREMIUM
to use Authorize.net through cardservices. Authorize.net
takes an aditional percentage from each sale, a monthy
gateway fee, and a transaction for each sale on top of our
normal charges through cardservice which means my
company has been paying out the nose for poor service.
With bbcardservices/linkpoint we will simply pay the gateway
fee, and our rates are being dropped to less than we pay now.

Linkpoint(cardservices gateway) offers an API to use their
gateway, and they also have a "basic" version of their gateway
similar to the authorize.net ADC method, but it seems to have
less features than authorize.net.

I haven't tested out their system yet, but so far they:
1. easy to get on the phone, and answer all my questions in detail.
2. respond to all my e-mail (wow) and actually seem to address my
questions,
instead of giving me canned responses from a FAQ.
3. much cheaper than Authorize.net
4. offer echecks (so does authorize.net,however) without making you
jump through dozens of forms, requesting bank statements, credit
checks, etc.
We wasted so much time trying to get echecks working with
authorize.net, that we finally gave up. cardservices claims that we will have it going
3 days, no extra paperwork.


> Interestingly, although they admit that part of the new problem lingers,
> they thank customers for their patience while they "resolved" it. The only
> resolution was, unfortunately, letting people know that they were still
> working on it.

I have no patience for a company who refuses to answer
their phone, while my company is losing money. We lost
a few thousands thanks to them, and I didn't have anyone
to call and talk about it. Their competitor was happy to talk
to me, and also informed me of how their volume was unusually
high that day. Guess I'm not the only one jumping
ship.

> I sympathize with them for the terrific complications their system probably
> involves, trying to deal with thousands of web sites and hundreds of
> different merchant banks and systems, all while trying to maintain
> security.
> Before I get too disenchanted with them, I would like to hear more
> about what other people are using and having no similar problems with.

Yes, but they should communicate with their customers better.
It was my customers that had to inform me of our cart being down.
If authorize.net had of informed me first, I could have deactivated
our cart, which informs our customers of an ETA for when it will be
back on. They made us look bad as far as I'm concerned.
I understand that nothing works 100% of the time, but you can't leave
your customers hanging, and shut off your phones.

They still haven't responded to my e-mails

Good luck with whoever you find.
xxxxx

--

From: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Stay Away from Authorize.Net if you want to run e-commerce

Newsgroups: alt.ecommerce
Date: 1999/09/20


In article <7s0726$335$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
xxxxxxx@my-deja.com wrote:

> Customer support does NOT exist.

That seems to be the case. We are going through
the same upgrade with ECX and have lost who knows
how many sales. I have called, emailed, and
called again, but nobody is around to answer.

***I should have learned my lesson from dealing with
them on another site. There were many problems
with double charges and then double credits even
though nobody was double clicking, reloading, or
anything. A company as large as this should have
something in place.***

What the hell were they thinking? Didn't they
test the new system before putting it online?

Please email me directly if you know of any
solutions. I can't even log on their virtual
terminal this morning and do things manually.

dave @

--

[Hwel]

Now go find some postings about how AuthorizeNet stopped Ross from paying BMG, G-Whiz, and the company who filmed the Bedford Falls office stuff.

[Hardware]

But what is this supposed to prove? That AU doesn't have a good enough relationship with it's suppliers to deliver a good service to the customer?

I am the customer. I bought from AU - anything that happens after that is AU's problem and they need to sort it out; they can't just say "oh well, it's nothing to do with us" and expect us to just accept it.

[Nostradamus]

Hmm... interesting, but why were the names deleted if this was pulled off a public newsgroup? Maybe this is just my e-ignorance, but I thought that newsgroups like that one constantly deleted their old posts to make room for new ones. Is there an archive for alt.ecommerce?

Those questions aside, this information could open up alternate avenues for reclamation of customers' funds.

[Hwel]

Hmm... interesting, but why were the names deleted if this was pulled off a public newsgroup?

It's just nicer not to drag those people into our little scandal here. The inclusion of names certainly isn't going to change whom I believe the fault lies with.

Maybe this is just my e-ignorance, but I thought that newsgroups like that one constantly deleted their old posts to make room for new ones. Is there an archive for alt.ecommerce?

The news servers do delete old posts, but Google Groups (http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search) archives most of Usenet, including news:alt.ecommerce; I've just checked.

All this doesn't change the fact the Ross lied about having paid BMG and I won't believe a single word I hear from AU until I have the money back on my credit card or the DVDs, bonus disc, and lunchbox in my hands.

[special_k]

perhaps for good measure we can post that to the same group? i'm sure they'd find great charm in this nonsense. oh, and wasn't "someone" supposed to have left recently? too good to be true, i guess. next we might have a flood of posts from another newsgroup - alt.hardheartedhannah - on how victims really deserve to be abused.

-kassandra

[higgy]

Hmm... interesting, but why were the names deleted if this was pulled off a public newsgroup? Maybe this is just my e-ignorance, but I thought that newsgroups like that one constantly deleted their old posts to make room for new ones. Is there an archive for alt.ecommerce?
.

Maybe Google groups.


Dave.

[leerosevere]

Cate.

You promised you'd go away once Robert posted a particular post you were waiting for. You promised! I knew it was too good to be true.

Well now we know what you've been doing during that brief but welcome respite we had.

I find it suspicious that you deleted everyone's names. Oh, you wanted to protect their privacy? That's swell. But I think if people are posting in newsgroups and their messages can be read through search engines, etc, they must know their email addresses aren't exactly classified information.

This so-called "proof" you've offered does not excuse the numerous problems we've had with AU.

Now you can just get back on the phone with your friend Ross and tell him he's gonna have to hire someone else to post here and try to make him look good, because nobody likes you and you're not changing our minds. Better yet, tell him to come here and defend himself, if he has the nerve.

Sorry to be harsh, but I'm so fed up with your poisonous digs at Jason, and attempts to discredit him, while defending Ross.

And yeah I noticed you were careful not to mention Jason directly in this post, because I'm sure you sense you're not getting anywhere and just alienating everyone by attacking him. So, new tactic, right? Whether you spent the time finding those emails or just made them up, you've sure wasted a lot of time working on this!

And I have to wonder why you'd spend so much time and effort trying to improve AU's reputation, and blame others, unless there's something in it for you. There's no way a person would go this far, otherwise.

[Jason R]

Hey Cate,
How is Authorize.net responsible for the FACT that less than 20% of people requesting corrections have received them? Go Google it and report back to me.

Jason

[Lurker1999]

More internet lore. Whatever. Deal with him as you deal with all other internet trolls. Ignore him and he goes away. Unfortunately if the troll was sent by someone he's a bit harder to dislodge.

[phelix]

Cate, you're definately a shill now:

First off, here's the urls for the messages you posted:
link 1
link 2 from 1999

You should read these in context.


These people are complaining about a breakdown in Authorize.net's interface for automated charging. Errors occurring when a charge is submitted to authorize.net, including doublebilling. Think about that for a minute, errors occurring when an order is submitted , not months after the fact.

I cannot think of ANY technical reason on Authorize.Net's end that would cause a rash of doublecharges for one specific product months later with no direct correlation to the time the inital order was placed.

I also cannot think of an technical reason on AU's end for the doublecharges. An error in their shopping cart would have caused double charges only if you used the shopping cart the second time around (placing a second order, checking a current order, etc). Also, any errors would have hit all customers, not just those who preordered the set. Have there been any doublecharges for other merchandise?

No matter who's fault it is, then money ended up in AU's account and they have refused to refund it. That's just plain theft.

(BTW, I got a good laugh when one of the posters recommended Verisign. Nobody in their right mind uses them for anything.)

[dTheater]

Also remember two fairly obvious things:

A) People were not just charged the same amount twice, they were charged higher amounts the second time around. After being charged a $20 deposit and then $79.98 for the rest, I was charged $115 months later. Now I know absolutely nothing about how credit cards are processed, but how could Authorize.net's system mistakingly charge customers different amounts from their previous charges for the same item?

And B) after blaming Authorize.net at first, AU took a drastic turn and then blamed their shopping cart, which is not Authorize.net's responsibility. In the end, AU is not blaming Authorize.net, so their track record really doesn't matter.

I always found it funny when someone at AU refers to the "accounting department." I can't imagine more than 5 people working at that entire company. I've dealt with horrendous customer service (really bad ones, but not like this), and in most cases, they were small companies with maybe 3 to 5 lazy employees who were biting off so much more than they could chew.

[phelix]

A) People were not just charged the same amount twice, they were charged higher amounts the second time around. After being charged a $20 deposit and then $79.98 for the rest, I was charged $115 months later. Now I know absolutely nothing about how credit cards are processed, but how could Authorize.net's system mistakingly charge customers different amounts from their previous charges for the same item?

Now that's interesting. You case pretty much blows apart any theory of autotmated error. Any technical problems would have involved replaying previous transactions. In you case, however, there are three seperate and unique transactions. How could this be anything other than deliberate?

[Jason R]

I can agree with this.

You might have been charged

$20
$79.98
$115
and even $125

they didn't match up from one charge after another.

[brainysmurf]

It's also good to remember that this "problem" only affected people that pre-ordered the MSCL set. It was never a company-wide problem...