According to Ethoca, the value of transactions falsely rejected by US card issuers in 2014 was $118 billion, of this value only $9 billion constituted actual fraud. This is a ratio of 13:1. So why do companies continue along the path of declining and losing legitimate transactions due to suspicions of fraud?
False positives aren’t just detrimental to a merchant’s bottom line, yes, the knock-on effect of a falsely declined transaction is the initial loss of sale, however the long-term effects include damages to their reputation, an unsatisfactory user experience and ultimately, loss of customers.
The issue is that, by nature, false positives are difficult to measure. Getting fraud detection rules right is a delicate balancing act: if merchant rules are too strict, they risk losing legitimate revenue, however, on the other side of the scale, if they are too relaxed, they risk losses due to genuinely fraudulent transactions.
To safe-guard the balance between security and maintaining customer loyalty, fraud detection rules need to be both complex and flexible, analysing object behaviour as well as transaction flow. A layered approach to fraud prevention, detection and monitoring can go along way in protecting both bottom-line and brand.