A white-collar worker, identified only as Mr. A, fell victim to an online shopping scam after purchasing a pair of shoes priced at 160,000 won from a store advertised on Instagram. Lured by numerous positive user reviews, he confidently made the payment. However, days passed without any order confirmation text message, and he was unable to track his order on the website. Attempts to contact the customer service hotline were futile, met only with automated responses in Chinese. It was only after searching online that Mr. A discovered multiple similar accounts of fraud.
Realizing he had been scammed, Mr. A immediately requested a chargeback from his credit card company. However, the card issuer stated that the funds had already been transferred to the electronic payment gateway (PG) and therefore could not be canceled. The PG company, in turn, informed him that they only processed the payment and that refunds had to be requested directly from the seller. Frustrated, Mr. A lamented, "If both the credit card company and the PG company shirk responsibility, how can consumers who have suffered from fraud be protected?"
Concerns are mounting over the increasing number of consumer 피해 involving online shopping malls based overseas, where canceling payments through credit card companies or PG companies proves to be a difficult, if not impossible, task, necessitating the implementation of countermeasures.
PG companies act as "representative merchants," entering into merchant agreements with credit card companies on behalf of small online vendors who lack the resources to establish their own online payment systems. When a consumer requests a chargeback from their credit card company, the card issuer asks the PG company to verify the reason. The PG company then follows a procedure to confirm with the merchant regarding order fulfillment status.
Article 19 of the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act stipulates that "payment gateway companies must comply when credit card members request transaction cancellations or refunds." However, in practice, cancellations are typically only processed in cases where the merchant has switched to illegal businesses, such as gambling sites, or has clearly violated the merchant agreement.
An official from a major PG company explained, "PG companies have a duty to mediate to ensure that neither sellers nor consumers face unreasonable measures. Even before a product is shipped, the seller may have begun preparation, so unilaterally canceling the merchant agreement simply because a complaint of delivery delay has been received is practically difficult."
The core issue is that consumers often find themselves unable to receive refunds even if delivery is delayed for months under the pretext of "product preparation." While some major PG companies may withhold payment until all related transactions are confirmed to be normally delivered when similar complaints are filed, sellers can potentially circumvent this by sending counterfeit products. If the customer service is unreachable and the PG company also refuses to cancel the payment, consumers are left with no recourse.
The situation is further complicated with overseas websites, where foreign PGs like Alipay often act as "agents of payment agents," adding an extra layer of intermediaries. This additional step makes payment cancellation even more challenging. Despite the regulatory gap, authorities admit they lack a "silver bullet" solution. An official from the Financial Supervisory Service stated on April 13th, "With overseas sites, there is ambiguity regarding who is responsible for processing payment cancellations, leading to disputes."
Seo Ji-yong, a professor of business administration at Sangmyung University, argued, "As payment processors who receive fees, PG companies also have a responsibility to actively demand payment cancellations on behalf of consumers." However, he also acknowledged the difficulty for PG companies to independently assess whether individual businesses are operating legitimately and suggested that "authorities should strengthen their efforts to filter out problematic businesses."
[Copyright (c) Global Economic Times. All Rights Reserved.]
