Ok, I just got signed up with a merchant bank that charges me $35 for each chargeback.... and I also got setup with Authorize.net, which I just found out has a $25.00 chargeback fee. This equals $60 per chargeback! Now, that is insane.

Anyone here know of a virtual terminal that has low or no chargeback fees? I'm thinking of dumping Authorize.net, even though I just paid $$$ to get setup with them. I already have a merchant account, so I don't need that.... Just a virtual terminal.

Most chargeback fees are about $20-$25 and then you also have a retreival request which is usually free. I guess auth.net charges this fee because it is separate from the processors. Most processors have special arrangements with gateways to circumvent this problem

Something isn't making sense on this... you shouldn't be getting ANY chargeback fees from Authorize.Net whatsoever.

In fact, that is not even a line item on the AuthNet account setup pricing.

Authorize.Net is just a payment gateway and it doesn't handle or have anything to do with your retrieval/chargeback processing.

You may want to check out your online Authorize.Net billing reports and also look at your merchant account statement as something doesn't seem to be adding up.

Thanks Chris :) - it did not make any sense to me either but I did not know all the intricacies of auth.net

I just got the account setup today... and it freaked me out, because the reseller didn't list it on their fees page. I then, contacted authorize.net via their Livesupport system, and they confirmed the charge.

And, yes, it's clearly listed on their "Agreements: Credit Card Fees" page, but didn't appear under the initial agreement page (where you have to click AGREE to get to activiate your account)

Is there anyone else that's using Authorize.net here? If so, can you confirm this charge?

Oh - maybe you are talking about a fee in the event of a bounced check or a billing that comes back declined which they are unable to collect on?

In other words, if they try to bill you for your monthly service fee with them and it comes back bounced, they would tack on whatever fee they list in that event.

However, that is not the same thing as a chargeback fee. The above fee that I think you're referring to would only take place if you bounced a payment owed to Authorize.Net, not if a customer of yours did a chargeback against your merchant account.

I could understand if you're getting a high fee on insufficient funds. I forgot to check my bank balance when I first setup my merchant account, and between auth.net and my bank, and two tries to pull the funds, I had over a hundred dollars in fees.

So insufficient funds seem to be the issue, atleast from my view.

Alright... I just spoke to another support person at Authorize.net. They confirmed what cdgcommerce said (a chargeback due to the credit card on file being rejected or refusing to pay the monthly fee, insuffient funds). But... I can't believe why the first person I spoke to said that it was indeed a chargeback in addition to the chargeback that the merchant bank charges... "So if customer A did a chargeback, I would be charged $35 from my merchant bank + $25 from Authorize.net?" His answer: "correct"


It's even listed on their account page on their Fees Page as this:

Gateway Fee USD 11.00
Credit Card Discount Rate 0%
Credit Card Transaction Fee USD .05
Credit Card Minimum USD .00
Credit Card Exchange Transaction Fee USD .00
Credit Card Statement Fee USD .00
Credit Card Chargeback Fee USD 25.00
Late Payment Fee USD 10.00
Account Reactivation Fee USD 25.00

It is just like any other company. Call again, you might get another answer. Unfortunately this is usually the case in the corporate world. No LOIs or regs to follow or anything.

Sounds to me like maybe you just ran into a newbie customer support rep at the company that you talked to... maybe if you call that same company again and ask the very same question, you'll get a difference answer, just like Corey says. ;)

A solution may be to use a processor that has their own proprietary gateway, that way there's never any redundancy in billing. << removed >>