Question about Gambling websites with Curaçao license using incorrect Merchant Category code (page 1,301)

Are any of these Cardaq - Thankyou

SKILLZFUN, TRDMNX, NPLM/NLPM, SKINFOGEU, HUPEIWE/HUPIEWE, SMARTKEYENTRIES, CRAMP, ABC COMPANY, NIKOTPF*GOLDVEILS LTD, DSOLPAY, SWIPEZ1, DIGITLID, COBEA, POLYTEO, LITDDRIVE, Santcorn Shop, THRIVESTORE.CO.UK.

Which email address did you use?

Did anyone end up getting refunds from Cardaq?

Fabulous 👌 thanks for sharing

Ownr wallet

Understood. But.......

1. Mastercard do block chargebacks as they explicitly state in their Chargeback Rules that there is no chargeback right for gambling payments unless the money failed to appear in the users account or staged digital wallet. There is no chargeback code for this. However, they also say gambling payments MUST be coded 7995. Issuing banks have to follow these rules. I simply want an answer, yes or no, that they would allow a chargeback in these circumstances that don't fit exactly in to their rule set. Customer service refuse to be drawn on the matter, so I want to speak to someone with more knowledge or authority.
2. With Visa provided you have a gambling block on your card, the use of chargeback code 12.7 (innacurate data) protects the customer as if the data was accurate, the payment would not have completed due the blocked MCC 7995. No such mechanism exists with Mastercard.
3. We do pay for the use. The merchants simply add the fees to their prices, transparently or not.
4. Yes, it's totally understandable that banks can't block transactions where the MCC is obfuscated. However, that doesn't mean they are defenceless. Mastercard have a database called MATCH (Mastercard Alert to Control High-risk Merchants) that if chargebacks were allowed, would be fully updated with these 'merchants'. Visa have a similar system.
5. Of course transactions coded 7995 should not be elgible for chargebacks. You're right - it would rapidly overwhelm the system. And yes, the system does need to be fixed, I agree 100%
6. With regards to Incorrect MCC coding you are again correct. As they're set by the acquiring banks they are a compliance issue. But again, allowing chargebacks against these merchants on MC network would bring them onto the MATCH database and they would become blocked at acquirer and merchant level. My bank will not raise this as a compliance issue and use the arbitration route with MC due to the total block on gambling chargebacks. This is what I mean, there is no latitude. It's too black and white in a murky world of grey.
7. I disagree partially here. I know in my case, getting my money would have helped break the cycle. I was prepared to stop, and in fact I did, for several months until I lost my complaint with the Ombudsman. Then I relapsed trying to get the money back so I wouldn't get evicted. What is crucial is that society starts to treat ALL addictions as a disease and treats them accordingly. Opinion hasn't changed in this country and a vast majority of people still think addicts choose to be so, that they elect to take heroin, gamble or watch pornography.
8. Chargeback is not a right under UK law, however, in the words of the FCA "Where there is reasonable chance of success we would expect banks to undertake chargebacks on behalf of their customers". The PSR are also of the opinion that this is the case.

Sorry if I sound angry, but it's because I am. These casinos are scams. They don't payout, they aren't licensed in the UK and they deliberately target people with an addiction in the UK. It's the same as buying something online you think is genuine, but when it turns up, it's a fake.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist and I don't believe the banks and card schemes are in on it but they need to do more to protect people from the scam. The same goes for the Gambling commission and UK Governement.

In the UK we can join gamstop, install gamban and block gambling transactions on our cards. If we do all of this and relapse (addicts of all varieties often do on the road to recovery) and are scammed out of our money, shouldn't we be entitled to get it back?