We have had many discussions on this topic and usually combine several different aspects of it in a single thread. I wonder if that is why we do not every come to a firm conclusion even on the technical aspects.
It seems there are two fundamentally different issues involved and neither issue is one where there is a terribly clear answer: a) moral and b) practical
Moral:
Here the issue is simple in principle: did I get what I was supposed to?
If yes, then a chargeback by definition is immoral and if no, then a chargeback is moral.
The problem is the ToS clearly implied what one was "supposed" to receive as the company understood it and as it expected the member to understand. However, members have interpreted the ToS in different ways and the company has never formally explained them.
So the answer on the moral side would appear to be that if one believes what was supposed to be provided has not been provided one could in good conscience file a chargeback. That does not mean such a chargeback is "moral" because one might be wrong.
For instance, I often see shoppers eating a grape or two from a bag in their shopping cart in the supermarket before reaching the checkout. That is actually shoplifting but many people clearly do not even realize there is anything wrong with doing that.There have been cases where shoppers were arrested for this and were genuinely shocked to learn what they were doing was not simply immoral but a more serious matter entirely.
Practical:
Member Aleo101 is an expert in this field and has explained the process in detail on the forum. In essence, it works as follows. Merchants always pay a fee when there is a chargeback--the exact amount is specified in the merchant services contract. When a customer prevails in a chargeback that amount is withheld from future payments to the merchant. In some cases where the merchant has a record of large numbers of chargebacks, a percentage of all proceeds is held back to provision for future chargebacks. In the event a merchant declares bankruptcy things might become complicated if there are still reserve funds for chargebacks. For instance, the card company might no longer be free to use these funds to provide refunds to customers. Of course, there is nothing to prevent a card company from using its own resources to make a customer whole. There are rare instances where this would be a wise business decision and it probably would be done in those cases.
If a customer is unhappy with the outcome of a chargeback there is always the option to resort to legal remedies. Here again, there are choices. The least expensive would be to avail of the arbitration provision in General Rule 24. The main advantage with that of course is would give the member, in the worst of cases, with a considered interpretation by a qualified independent third party as to the exact meaning of a provision in the ToS. In the best of cases, it would provide the outcome the member wanted. Of course with RingPlus ceasing operations, it is unlikely this process would continue to function.
Beyond that, there are options in the courts and these could range from challenging a specific charge to challenging a charge and the provision under which the charge was incurred. Verdicts, if the customer did not like them, might offer options for appeals if there were grounds on which to question the judge's instructions or rulings.
Other than the chargeback route probably anything else is simply a theoretical discussion. Members who feel aggrieved are simply unsecured creditors and probably positioned very near the end of that group in terms of priority. Unless RingPlus were to prevail in its suit and be awarded compensatory and punitive damages, it would seem unlikely from reading the Complaint that there lots of resources available to compensate unsecured creditors.
