Odd Charge - Baffled

[ericwinters]

I was in Vegas recently and purchased a few shirts at Robert Graham and shorts at G-Star, using Google Wallet to pay.

Today, I noticed a charge for ECCO—a store I’ve never shopped at. I initially thought my Google Wallet might have paid someone else’s tab, but after checking the mall layout, I saw ECCO was on the other side of the property, making that unlikely.

Could this be a case of miscoded business names within a retailer’s credit card processing system? I’m genuinely baffled and figured someone here might have insight into this.

[rvwnsd]

17 hours ago, ericwinters said:

I was in Vegas recently and purchased a few shirts at Robert Graham and shorts at G-Star, using Google Wallet to pay.

Today, I noticed a charge for ECCO—a store I’ve never shopped at. I initially thought my Google Wallet might have paid someone else’s tab, but after checking the mall layout, I saw ECCO was on the other side of the property, making that unlikely.

Could this be a case of miscoded business names within a retailer’s credit card processing system? I’m genuinely baffled and figured someone here might have insight into this.

Does the amount of the charge from ECCO equal one of the legitimate charges? If so, the two store could have mutual ownership and the owner uses the same merchant ID for both. FWIW, credit card processors highly discourage this practice as it leads to confusion and chargebacks.

[ericwinters]

2 hours ago, rvwnsd said:

Does the amount of the charge from ECCO equal one of the legitimate charges? If so, the two store could have mutual ownership and the owner uses the same merchant ID for both. FWIW, credit card processors highly discourage this practice as it leads to confusion and chargebacks.

I bet that might be it. 

[+ PhileasFogg]

4 hours ago, rvwnsd said:

Does the amount of the charge from ECCO equal one of the legitimate charges? If so, the two store could have mutual ownership and the owner uses the same merchant ID for both. FWIW, credit card processors highly discourage this practice as it leads to confusion and chargebacks.

Happens to me all the time. 

[topunderachiever]

There's no corporate connection between any of those 3 retail stores. 

Are you saying there's a possibility one merchant ID (owned by the same entity) can be used for multiple but completely different franchise type stores?  

[rvwnsd]

On 6/3/2025 at 12:26 PM, topunderachiever said:

There's no corporate connection between any of those 3 retail stores. 

Are you saying there's a possibility one merchant ID (owned by the same entity) can be used for multiple but completely different franchise type stores?  

While ECCO, Robert Graham, and G-star are all different companies, we don't know whether the stores at this particular mall are company-owned or franchises. If they are franchises owned by a common entity then it is possible for the common entity to have a single merchant ID that uses one of the three brands as the description. 

Real-life example from my past career at one of the first modern wireless companies back in the 1990's. We sold a line of Motorola phones that, IIRC, had terrible reception in some areas. Motorola's solution was to sell an add-on booster called a Surfboard. (They have since re-used the name as a brand of cable modem). In her infinite wisdom, my successor as the payments and financial transaction program manager decided the descriptor would contain the word "surfboard' to differentiate the add-on sales from regular sales. The descriptor was called "AC Surfboard," which was our company's initials and the word surfboard. Chargebacks doubled because our customers in Minneapolis, Columbus, Pittsburgh, and Kansas City who bought these accessories didn't associate "surfboard" with "wireless phone." We changed that descriptor rather quickly. 

[maninsoma]

On 6/2/2025 at 10:39 AM, rvwnsd said:

Does the amount of the charge from ECCO equal one of the legitimate charges? If so, the two store could have mutual ownership and the owner uses the same merchant ID for both. FWIW, credit card processors highly discourage this practice as it leads to confusion and chargebacks.

Your first sentence is the obvious way to think about this.  If the amount of the charge matches what was purchased at one of the other stores AND there isn't a separate charge on the statement for that store, then there must be some common owner/franchisee of the stores.  I wouldn't worry about it if all of that is true.  If, however, the amount is wrong or there other two transactions were billed under their respective store names, then I'd be concerned that the payment account was compromised.