You will be shocked to learn that account updater is extremely popular. The reason is that it keeps subscriptions (and more importantly bills) that people want paid even when the credit card company needs to reissue a card number.
Your card number is not the abstraction for preventing charges you signed up for from getting charged, that’s what cancelling the subscriptions are for. And if you have evidence of that a dispute(usually an email to customer support is enough to do that).
You are using the wrong tool for the job and getting upset that it doesn’t work they way you want it to.
This may not even be a case of Visa Account Updater. Recurrent charges (subscriptions, gyms etc) may not even be sent online, they are just processed in batch. Visa/Mastercard is a dual message system where a real-time auth is followed by an overnight batch which clears the auth and posts the actual transaction to the account. Transactions posted in batch cannot be denied per se, but can generate automatic reversals that would be sent in the next batch.
Under the bonnet, card hosts like Base2000 have an underlying account number for the credit facility, and various PANs (card numbers) are attached to that. Even if a singular card is cancelled, transactions posted in batch can be routed to the appropriate credit facility as the host knows all current and past PANs.
If you have subscriptions that are difficult to cancel, the best path is to ask your bank to block and/or dispute the transactions in question. Getting a new card with a new PAN may not be sufficient.
Some payment systems here failed when banks switched to Visa as their debit card issuer. Some systems were hardcoded to interpret the Visa issuer identifier automatically as a credit card.
Also, sometimes getting a new credit card will still have the same number, just a new expiration date and security code.
Also take note that a recognized payments processor using the bank's api does not need to prove anything when they create a new recurrent payment on your account. They can do so at will. The bank relies solely on you noticing and disputing that claim. Services that consult you in becoming such a processor stress this as a 'feature' accompanied by abundant nudges and winks.
I’ve implemented a few payment processors before. The merchant’s processor implements account updater. you change your card, and the issuer (not visa) sends this information to the network and ends up at the partner bank for the payment processor, which forwards to the processor. So the issuing bank is sending these out, but for everyone, and it may be correct that specific support people don’t know how to turn it off for individuals (this possibility may not even be implemented, it’s just firing events in batch).
This process does not have any protections for card holders. It was designed probably to benefit merchants from customers that change cards with unpaid bills, but is marketed as convenience (you change your card and don’t hav to worry about updating it everywhere).
I think this should be better regulated. Not every merchant type should have access to this. I can see utilities and rent maybe, but there should still be a process to opt out.
I used to work at a different bank, and we were able to disable the auto billing update on a card so that when we went to close the card and send one with a new number, no merchants would be notified of the new account. Some workers didn't know this could be done... I'd be surprised if Wells Fargo didn't have a way to turn this off.
Cancelling a credit card doesn't mean the linked subscriptions just disappear. Plenty of people find that out the hard way when their unpaid bills are sent to collections.
Right. But it's also not the bank (or Visa's) job to act as an arbiter for paying my subscriptions, especially if I'm in dispute with the merchant. If I am advising the bank / issuer that I do not want to authorize these transactions, it's not on them to say "well, we're here to help them continue to be able to authorize them, not for you to keep your money."
That's an issue between me and the merchant. I don't want MY bank acting as an enabler for the merchant over my wishes, with my money.
You're thinking like an engineer. From the perspective of the bank, you (the individual) has given a merchant (gym etc) a standing authority to bill you. That authority is between you and the merchant, not between your specific card number and their payment processor. Having your card reissued is not a withdrawal of that authority.
Based on the brief detail provided, I think OP's mistake was to cancel/reissue the card rather than dispute the charge / block the merchant.
If you are using a credit card you aren’t using “your” money. And it’s absolutely the card issuers business to be an arbiter of who is using their money.
The fact that the our financial system doesn’t provide a centralized control panel (through webbanking and such) to cancel any and manage all auto renewing subscriptions is still insane to me.
I’m really struggling to explain this with anything other than that it’s designed to create situations like OP’s.
For subscriptions, you should use a service like privacy.com or corporate companies like mercury, brex, ramp etc which provides digital cards that you can set limits on.
They also provide ability to pause card after which no transaction would go through.
> Next month, guess what? A bunch of the same charges again
What kind of charges? Did you cancel the subscriptions, disputed them with the bank? Sometimes I read advice to "just cancel the card" instead of proper cancelling a subscription.
Once upon a time, Keybank refused to block a merchant from debiting my account (I can't remember if by card or account number, it was a decade ago), because, they said, "if I hadn't canceled, I had an active subscription". They seemed apathetic to the concept that it wasn't their job to facilitate the merchant's attempt to have payment rendered (if I'm having a hard time canceling a subscription and this is my resort, then that's between me and the merchant. The bank is a neutral party, at worst - ideally they should be supportive of me saying "I don't want this entity to take my money").
You will be shocked to learn that account updater is extremely popular. The reason is that it keeps subscriptions (and more importantly bills) that people want paid even when the credit card company needs to reissue a card number.
Your card number is not the abstraction for preventing charges you signed up for from getting charged, that’s what cancelling the subscriptions are for. And if you have evidence of that a dispute(usually an email to customer support is enough to do that).
You are using the wrong tool for the job and getting upset that it doesn’t work they way you want it to.
This may not even be a case of Visa Account Updater. Recurrent charges (subscriptions, gyms etc) may not even be sent online, they are just processed in batch. Visa/Mastercard is a dual message system where a real-time auth is followed by an overnight batch which clears the auth and posts the actual transaction to the account. Transactions posted in batch cannot be denied per se, but can generate automatic reversals that would be sent in the next batch.
Under the bonnet, card hosts like Base2000 have an underlying account number for the credit facility, and various PANs (card numbers) are attached to that. Even if a singular card is cancelled, transactions posted in batch can be routed to the appropriate credit facility as the host knows all current and past PANs.
If you have subscriptions that are difficult to cancel, the best path is to ask your bank to block and/or dispute the transactions in question. Getting a new card with a new PAN may not be sufficient.
Some payment systems here failed when banks switched to Visa as their debit card issuer. Some systems were hardcoded to interpret the Visa issuer identifier automatically as a credit card.
Also, sometimes getting a new credit card will still have the same number, just a new expiration date and security code.
Also take note that a recognized payments processor using the bank's api does not need to prove anything when they create a new recurrent payment on your account. They can do so at will. The bank relies solely on you noticing and disputing that claim. Services that consult you in becoming such a processor stress this as a 'feature' accompanied by abundant nudges and winks.
Good doc on PANs https://stripe.com/resources/more/primary-account-numbers
I’ve implemented a few payment processors before. The merchant’s processor implements account updater. you change your card, and the issuer (not visa) sends this information to the network and ends up at the partner bank for the payment processor, which forwards to the processor. So the issuing bank is sending these out, but for everyone, and it may be correct that specific support people don’t know how to turn it off for individuals (this possibility may not even be implemented, it’s just firing events in batch).
This process does not have any protections for card holders. It was designed probably to benefit merchants from customers that change cards with unpaid bills, but is marketed as convenience (you change your card and don’t hav to worry about updating it everywhere).
I think this should be better regulated. Not every merchant type should have access to this. I can see utilities and rent maybe, but there should still be a process to opt out.
I used to work at a different bank, and we were able to disable the auto billing update on a card so that when we went to close the card and send one with a new number, no merchants would be notified of the new account. Some workers didn't know this could be done... I'd be surprised if Wells Fargo didn't have a way to turn this off.
Cancelling a credit card doesn't mean the linked subscriptions just disappear. Plenty of people find that out the hard way when their unpaid bills are sent to collections.
Right. But it's also not the bank (or Visa's) job to act as an arbiter for paying my subscriptions, especially if I'm in dispute with the merchant. If I am advising the bank / issuer that I do not want to authorize these transactions, it's not on them to say "well, we're here to help them continue to be able to authorize them, not for you to keep your money."
That's an issue between me and the merchant. I don't want MY bank acting as an enabler for the merchant over my wishes, with my money.
You're thinking like an engineer. From the perspective of the bank, you (the individual) has given a merchant (gym etc) a standing authority to bill you. That authority is between you and the merchant, not between your specific card number and their payment processor. Having your card reissued is not a withdrawal of that authority.
Based on the brief detail provided, I think OP's mistake was to cancel/reissue the card rather than dispute the charge / block the merchant.
If you are using a credit card you aren’t using “your” money. And it’s absolutely the card issuers business to be an arbiter of who is using their money.
The fact that the our financial system doesn’t provide a centralized control panel (through webbanking and such) to cancel any and manage all auto renewing subscriptions is still insane to me.
I’m really struggling to explain this with anything other than that it’s designed to create situations like OP’s.
And this is why I do as many subscriptions as possible through the iPhone App Store…
Amex will issue merchant blocks to prevent future charges; perhaps your issuer can do so? (This is a suggestion to help immediate mitigation only.)
Yeah I did this now, I'm just left without the $500 they stole
For subscriptions, you should use a service like privacy.com or corporate companies like mercury, brex, ramp etc which provides digital cards that you can set limits on.
They also provide ability to pause card after which no transaction would go through.
You have to report your card as lost or stolen to avoid this service from visa.
> Next month, guess what? A bunch of the same charges again
What kind of charges? Did you cancel the subscriptions, disputed them with the bank? Sometimes I read advice to "just cancel the card" instead of proper cancelling a subscription.
Side note: Wells Fargo is a terrible bank, never use them.
>difficult to cancel subscriptions
>magically reroutes to new card numbers no matter how complicated the change
>out $500
I don't need to play 20 Questions to know you're talking about legalzoom
Once upon a time, Keybank refused to block a merchant from debiting my account (I can't remember if by card or account number, it was a decade ago), because, they said, "if I hadn't canceled, I had an active subscription". They seemed apathetic to the concept that it wasn't their job to facilitate the merchant's attempt to have payment rendered (if I'm having a hard time canceling a subscription and this is my resort, then that's between me and the merchant. The bank is a neutral party, at worst - ideally they should be supportive of me saying "I don't want this entity to take my money").
Closed my account and moved on.