> I suspect they were saying something carefully noncommittal and legally compliant to get you to go away

If their total dismissal of the problem is itself deception, that's not a particularly big improvement!

The problem is that, as patio11 once described in detail (https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/optimal-amount-of-fra...), there are genuine tradeoffs here that people get outraged by the mention of. How many legitimate sales should Stripe block in order to more effectively fight this kind of fraud? Merchants don't want to hear it, and consumers don't either. So financial companies invariably conclude that it's better to raise the question only in careful, indirect ways which could not be misinterpreted as a statement that fraud is good or OK or acceptable.

	▲	Dylan16807 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		That's a reasonable argument for general money processing, but it's far weaker when you sell an anti-fraud product and try to get every transaction to give you a cut to use it. And if they had even a little skin in the game they would care about such low-hanging fruit. You don't want a guy that's insulated from the consequences to be in charge of the [anti-]fraud dial.