Epoch compliance question

[dantes]

I was trying to set a site over at ccbill and they declined it because I was offering bonus sites on the tour where I was not the merchant or owner of those sites, however I do have a licensing deal with that program, the part of the tour they wanted me to remove is just like the site below (you have to edit the dot com part and paste into browser). I need to get this site up asap and was wondering if this is something you guys would take or are you doing to decline it as well?

Also, they are asking me to change all of the url links on the site, like the 2257 domain and my customer service page, to the same domain as my site, but doing this throughout all of my sites woulod be a pain in the ass, are you guys doing that to???

Let me know asap and ill submit it, thanks



hotwebamateurs dot com/aaa_bonus_sites.shtml

[basschick]

ccbill definitely allows third part bonus sites that are leased from other companies. as a reviewer, i've seen bonus sites from other companies in literally hundreds of ccbill sites. there must be another issue, like the type of the sites or something.

what does the decline email actually say, word for word?

[dantes]

ccbill definitely allows third part bonus sites that are leased from other companies. as a reviewer, i've seen bonus sites from other companies in literally hundreds of ccbill sites. there must be another issue, like the type of the sites or something.

what does the decline email actually say, word for word?

the normal bla bla bla, then the url with those bonus sites on it and

Comment: In the tour there are bonus sites being offered that are not registered sub accounts with CCBill. These accounts must be registered with CCBill or removed from the site.

and i called them and they said i have to take them off. i could not believe it

can anybody from epoch coment? i know rand posts here a lot

[tonysparks]

I had the same problem when I was going through compliance with CCbill for Dirtytony. They claimed their issue was not the fact that we don't own the content--it's that we don't have control over the content. If we market the site as having the bonus content, then the bonus site goes down, it would technically be false advertising.

It's really a ridiculous policy, and I think part of it is CCbill trying to require sites to have them as (at least a secondary) processor. They want the bonus content providers to signup with them for membership services. Not really a great way to go about getting business--imho.

-TS

[dantes]

I had the same problem when I was going through compliance with CCbill for Dirtytony. They claimed their issue was not the fact that we don't own the content--it's that we don't have control over the content. If we market the site as having the bonus content, then the bonus site goes down, it would technically be false advertising.

It's really a ridiculous policy, and I think part of it is CCbill trying to require sites to have them as (at least a secondary) processor. They want the bonus content providers to signup with them for membership services. Not really a great way to go about getting business--imho.

-TS

i just talked to epoch, they say they dont take those as well, wtf?

[gaybucks_chip]

It's possible this is a new Visa regulation.

See if you can skin the site as a plugin with a domain that you own. I realize it's exactly the same thing, but oftentimes doing things like that will make Visa happy, which makes CCBill happy.

[rand]

Dantes - OK - It took me some time to post here as I had to do a little research.

I assume you are processing in the U.S.

The problem that an IPSP would have is that you can't process transactions under your account for access to sites you do not own. That's known as factoring.

I do have two possible solutions for you however. Hit me up and I'll be happy to help you.

My ICQ is 207066243 if that works best for you.