Chase Bank 3% Amazon Cashback

Sensory

masonic said:

Sensory said:

masonic said:

Sensory said:

masonic said:

Sensory said:

No one is contradicting the fact that you get the standard 1% cashback, including for Amazon purchases, excepting exclusions; this fact is irrelevant to the promotional 3% cashback (or additional 2% over standard) for Amazon purchases made using your Chase card. The standard offer is essentially a blacklist, cashback by default with exceptions; the promotional offer is a whitelist, cashback only for Amazon purchases made with your Chase card.

It is clearly stated that the 1% cashback depends on the Merchant Category Code. This is passed through by Curve when it charges the transaction to the Chase card, so using Curve has no impact on cashback eligibility.

The additional 2% cashback depends on the Merchant ID, which we've established is re-written by Curve (thanks MrFrugalFever), despite Chase adjusting this on the statement to appear as a direct charge from the original merchant). In fact it depends on both Merchant ID and Merchant Category Code, because some Amazon transactions (gift cards etc) do not qualify.

Therefore it is not whitelist/blacklist based on a single criterion, there are two different aspects of the transaction that are being used to verify eligibility for the two different incentives. I think it is right that Chase gives a similar level of clarity as to how it is judging eligibility for the 2% cashback as it does the 1% cashback.

It was a simplified analogy of the technical implementation. For blacklisting, all MCCs are considered by default, then specific MCCs are excluded thereafter (and listed), i.e. if an MCC is not listed, it is included; a whitelisting implementation includes only specified MCCs, and that's it, i.e. if an MCC is not listed, it is not included.

The standard 1% cashback reward offer is a blacklist implementation.
The 3% promotional offer (or additional 2%) is a whitelist implementation, as only Amazon's Merchant ID is considered, i.e. all other IDs are ignored.

Additional rules can be created for either implementation for specific exceptions, e.g. Amazon gift cards, but these additional rules do not change the overall blacklist/whitelist implementation.

I'm not disputing there is a blacklist for the 1% cashback based on one property of the transaction, and a whitelist for the 2% cashback based on a different property of the transaction, although we do not know this is actually the case. For the 1% cashback they might well have whitelisted all of the categories of transaction they are willing to pay cashback on so that newly created categories are not included by default, only after review. I've queried not being paid cashback for a transaction and Chase have confirmed it fell into a category that was eligible and needed to tweak their rules to include it in the future, so I'm not sure exactly what they are doing behind the scenes.

The precise rules used are not relevant, but Chase does need to adequately explain how the rules work in practice. That means clarifying that they are using the Merchant ID for the 2% cashback and not what appears on the customer's statement, as they are changing the latter to make it appear as if the transaction is made directly with the supplier of the goods/services when a third party payment provider is used. If Curve users see "Amazon" against their Amazon transactions and "crv*Other_Merchant" against other transactions, then they could easily assume their payment method is direct when it is not. Of course it is best practice to double check the payment settings at Amazon and not assume anything, but being crystal clear on this point would allow Chase to avoid making goodwill gestures to people caught out in the future. This may be even more important for future offers as some merchants accept things like Paypal as well as processing direct debit card payments. I see in the other thread that the Chase card can now be added to Google Pay, so that's another avenue where confusion may arise in the future with an offer like this.

Some people might wrongly believe that purchases made using the physical Chase card qualify for the 2% cashback, but Chase have explained in their FAQ that these payments do not qualify and only online payments are eligible for the cashback, so that's an example of where they have been sufficiently clear.

I was elaborating on my analogy, based on Chase’s published criteria (assuming correctly matching programming logic), that you seemingly disputed by reducing it to being based on a single criterion.

Chase's published criterion for the 1% cashback is an eligible MCC (assumed blacklist), which I don't think you dispute. I also surmised from information on this thread that the 2% Amazon cashback "is not whitelist/blacklist based on a single criterion", depending on both Merchant ID (assumed whitelist) and MCC (assumed blacklist), although this isn't explicitly stated by Chase, so I don't see any areas of disagreement.

Not anymore, although as my simplified analogy lacked the mention of exceptions, you appeared to dispute it by stating it was "not a whitelist/blacklist [my terminology] based on a single criterion", hence the reason for my subsequent elaboration (which was not in dispute to your reply).

masonic said:

Sensory said:

Apple/Google Pay require direct and explicit support and authorisation from the card provider for compatibility; a virtual card is just a tokenised representation of its physical counterpart. Curve and PayPal however are third party intermediaries processing transactions on the customer’s behalf, which card providers must explicitly block if they do not wish to support those platforms (e.g. Amex and Curve).

A good barometer would be whether Section 75 could apply if the card were a credit card (assuming it does not match an explicit exception).

Perhaps, although there is precedent for Section 75 claims being accepted for Paypal-funded transactions, and I'd have assumed Paypal and Curve were equivalent because of the way they make a charge on the account using a different Merchant ID than the goods/services provider. If I've learned anything from this thread it's that I should ask Chase if there is any uncertainty about whether a specific type of transaction would qualify for a future incentive.

I wouldn't consider court precedent contrary to the FOS generally applicable to everyday transactions, especially where the retailer hasn't prior entered into a commercial agreement with the intermediary, and I see no evidence of Chase/Amazon having such with Curve.

masonic

Sensory said:

masonic said:

Sensory said:

Apple/Google Pay require direct and explicit support and authorisation from the card provider for compatibility; a virtual card is just a tokenised representation of its physical counterpart. Curve and PayPal however are third party intermediaries processing transactions on the customer’s behalf, which card providers must explicitly block if they do not wish to support those platforms (e.g. Amex and Curve).

A good barometer would be whether Section 75 could apply if the card were a credit card (assuming it does not match an explicit exception).

Perhaps, although there is precedent for Section 75 claims being accepted for Paypal-funded transactions, and I'd have assumed Paypal and Curve were equivalent because of the way they make a charge on the account using a different Merchant ID than the goods/services provider. If I've learned anything from this thread it's that I should ask Chase if there is any uncertainty about whether a specific type of transaction would qualify for a future incentive.

I wouldn't consider court precedent contrary to the FOS generally applicable to everyday transactions, especially where the retailer hasn't prior entered into a commercial agreement with the intermediary, and I see no evidence of Chase/Amazon having such with Curve.

I was not referring to court rulings or the FOS. The point I was making was that Section 75 claims for Paypal transactions have been accepted by card providers in the past and such claims could apply now (see for example https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/regulation/section-75-of-the-consumer-credit-act-aZCUb9i8Kwfa#payments-through-paypal ), whereas S75 cannot apply to Curve transactions (as stated by Curve on its website). However, I don't think it would be safe to assume that Paypal would be treated any differently than Curve if it was the intermediary processing the transaction, with or without a Commercial Entity Agreement with the merchant (a normal customer is unlikely to know whether or not such an agreement is in place). Therefore the test "Could Section 75 apply if the card were a credit card?" may not be such a good barometer in some cases. I'd therefore advocate asking Chase if planning to make such a transaction for an incentive.

Sensory

masonic said:

Sensory said:

masonic said:

Sensory said:

Apple/Google Pay require direct and explicit support and authorisation from the card provider for compatibility; a virtual card is just a tokenised representation of its physical counterpart. Curve and PayPal however are third party intermediaries processing transactions on the customer’s behalf, which card providers must explicitly block if they do not wish to support those platforms (e.g. Amex and Curve).

A good barometer would be whether Section 75 could apply if the card were a credit card (assuming it does not match an explicit exception).

Perhaps, although there is precedent for Section 75 claims being accepted for Paypal-funded transactions, and I'd have assumed Paypal and Curve were equivalent because of the way they make a charge on the account using a different Merchant ID than the goods/services provider. If I've learned anything from this thread it's that I should ask Chase if there is any uncertainty about whether a specific type of transaction would qualify for a future incentive.

I wouldn't consider court precedent contrary to the FOS generally applicable to everyday transactions, especially where the retailer hasn't prior entered into a commercial agreement with the intermediary, and I see no evidence of Chase/Amazon having such with Curve.

I was not referring to court rulings or the FOS. The point I was making was that Section 75 claims for Paypal transactions have been accepted by card providers in the past and such claims could apply now (see for example https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/regulation/section-75-of-the-consumer-credit-act-aZCUb9i8Kwfa#payments-through-paypal ), whereas S75 cannot apply to Curve transactions (as stated by Curve on its website). However, I don't think it would be safe to assume that Paypal would be treated any differently than Curve if it was the intermediary processing the transaction, with or without a Commercial Entity Agreement with the merchant (a normal customer is unlikely to know whether or not such an agreement is in place). Therefore the test "Could Section 75 apply if the card were a credit card?" may not be such a good barometer. I'd therefore advocate asking Chase if planning to make such a transaction for an incentive.

I'm suggesting that if Section 75 did in fact apply, regardless of how or why or what intermediary, it would be very difficult for Chase to justify rejecting cashback regardless of what they may intend with their terms as they are at present.

masonic

Sensory said:

masonic said:

Sensory said:

masonic said:

Sensory said:

Apple/Google Pay require direct and explicit support and authorisation from the card provider for compatibility; a virtual card is just a tokenised representation of its physical counterpart. Curve and PayPal however are third party intermediaries processing transactions on the customer’s behalf, which card providers must explicitly block if they do not wish to support those platforms (e.g. Amex and Curve).

A good barometer would be whether Section 75 could apply if the card were a credit card (assuming it does not match an explicit exception).

Perhaps, although there is precedent for Section 75 claims being accepted for Paypal-funded transactions, and I'd have assumed Paypal and Curve were equivalent because of the way they make a charge on the account using a different Merchant ID than the goods/services provider. If I've learned anything from this thread it's that I should ask Chase if there is any uncertainty about whether a specific type of transaction would qualify for a future incentive.

I wouldn't consider court precedent contrary to the FOS generally applicable to everyday transactions, especially where the retailer hasn't prior entered into a commercial agreement with the intermediary, and I see no evidence of Chase/Amazon having such with Curve.

I was not referring to court rulings or the FOS. The point I was making was that Section 75 claims for Paypal transactions have been accepted by card providers in the past and such claims could apply now (see for example https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/regulation/section-75-of-the-consumer-credit-act-aZCUb9i8Kwfa#payments-through-paypal ), whereas S75 cannot apply to Curve transactions (as stated by Curve on its website). However, I don't think it would be safe to assume that Paypal would be treated any differently than Curve if it was the intermediary processing the transaction, with or without a Commercial Entity Agreement with the merchant (a normal customer is unlikely to know whether or not such an agreement is in place). Therefore the test "Could Section 75 apply if the card were a credit card?" may not be such a good barometer. I'd therefore advocate asking Chase if planning to make such a transaction for an incentive.

I'm suggesting that if Section 75 did in fact apply, regardless of how or why or what intermediary, it would be very difficult for Chase to justify rejecting cashback regardless of what they may intend.

Ah, ok, I understand your point now.