To help address potential fraud, it would be nice to trigger an admin email when a customer has different ship-to and bill-to addresses. Even with other tools enabled and a workflow that alerts us when a payment has failed, I think this would really provide next level support to deal with fraudulent orders.
Also need the ability to see if the customer name is different than the billing or ship-to name. We have already saved hundreds of dollars using the fraud alert tools that Automatewoo staff helped me implement. Those rules alert me when a customer has failed at payment processing; this lets me look at the order manually. I have saved hundreds of dollars from this. In the process of using this workflow, one thing has become apparent: fraudulent customers often have a customer name that is different from both the bill-to name and the ship-to name. A workflow that alerted the admin that the customer name is different than the bill-to or ship-to name would be beneficial as some fraudulent orders to go through, so this workflow would provide an extra layer of analysis.
Open
Last updated: July 17, 2019
Log in to comment on this feature request.
Dan Bitzer: Yes, that is exactly it. The idea is that this rule would be a trigger for me to investigate the order for signs of fraud. The fraudsters are now using legitimate cards, which pass through the gateway with the correct CVV and AVS matches. The fraudsters even match the ordering IP to the city of the cardholder. It seems a bit nuts to me but that is the case and this rule would enable a store owner to quickly review any orders that have increased odds of fraud, but also successfully passed through the gateway. Just today had >$220 in attempted fraudulent orders that passed through the gateway; all had divergent billing and shipping addresses.
Thanks for the suggestion JT!
It sounds like you need a new rule to for this that checks whether the "Order shipping and billing addresses match".
Okay one other thing that the workflow: alert admin when ship-to and bill-to names and/or addresses are different
is that such a workflow would let us ship orders "signature required". This may cost more, but if the CVV matches, the billing address and zip code matches, and we get a customer signature, then it is unlikely, would we lose a chargeback claim on the order.
Big advocate here for doing things that reduce downside risk. Surprised no one else likes this workflow idea. One chargeback can wipe out the profits from 2-5 orders depending on circumstances, so reducing fraud is prime importance.