Can not recommend privacy.com enough.
Can not recommend privacy.com enough.
I emailed support, and here's what I got back:
> Hi, $firstname. I've been reviewing your dispute and wanted to touch base with you to explain what happened.
> It appears that the disputed charge is a "force post" by the merchant. This happens when a merchant cannot collect funds for a transaction after repeated attempts and completes the transaction without an authorization — it's literally an unauthorized transaction that's against payment card network rules. It's a pretty sneaky move used by some merchants, and unfortunately, it's not something Privacy can block.
What's interesting is that they seem to be glossing over the truth. It's not unauthorized, per se, it's using a prior authorization code. And it's intended for processing offline transactions. It seems like 'force' is an industry term and a bit hyperbolic when used in lay discussion.
More discussion here: https://www.tidalcommerce.com/learn/force-sale-credit-card
Have you found a site that does "block" this? Did you communicate with your credit card company about this? I am wondering
I think that might finally allow you to pay for the New York Times on your own terms and not worry about their hounds sniffing you down.
Edit: and the dark Lord surely reserves a particularly unpleasant circle of hell for loan officers who encourage borrowers to consider a 5-1 variant rate because "we know rates will fall next year."
Will they pursue? Do they have enough info to purse? Who knows, but they can if they want to.
For small charges they might just give up because it's not worth it, but when dealing with a $14k bill you should assume that they will at the very least hand the debt off to a collections agency if you try to just ignore it.