Chargeback Reason Codes

What it means: The cardholder claims they did not authorize the transaction. This is the most common reason code and covers both actual stolen card fraud and friendly fraud where the cardholder made the purchase but disputes it as unauthorized. Approximately 60–80% of "fraudulent" disputes are actually friendly fraud.

Best evidence: 3D Secure authentication result (liability shifts to issuer), AVS match (billing address verification), CVC match, device fingerprint matching prior undisputed purchases, IP geolocation matching billing address, Visa CE 3.0 qualifying data (two prior undisputed transactions with same card + matching IP or device ID).

Common mistakes: Submitting delivery proof alone without addressing the authorization claim. Delivery proves the product arrived — it does not prove the cardholder authorized the purchase. Without 3DS, AVS, or device data, fraud disputes are extremely difficult to win.

Key strategy: If you have 3DS authentication on the transaction, submit it immediately — this triggers an automatic liability shift. If not, your best defense is Visa CE 3.0 data showing the same device or IP was used for prior undisputed purchases. Without either, focus on IP geolocation, AVS/CVC match, and any customer account activity showing the cardholder's engagement with the purchase.

What it means: The cardholder claims they never received the purchased goods or services. For physical products, this could mean a lost package, porch theft, or a false claim. For digital products, it means the customer claims they could not access what they paid for.

Best evidence: Carrier tracking showing delivery confirmation to the cardholder's address, signature confirmation for high-value orders, delivery photos (some carriers provide these), access logs showing the customer used the digital product after purchase, download timestamps, login activity after the purchase date.

Common mistakes: Providing tracking info without confirming actual delivery status. A tracking number alone is not evidence — the tracking must show "Delivered" status. Also, failing to match the delivery address with the billing address on file.

Key strategy: For physical goods, delivery confirmation with address match is usually sufficient. For digital goods, access logs are your primary defense. Show timestamped records of the customer logging in, viewing content, or downloading files after purchase. The more detailed the activity log, the stronger the defense.

What it means: The cardholder claims the product or service was not as described, defective, or otherwise did not meet expectations. This covers quality complaints, items that arrived damaged, and "not as described" claims. It is also a common vector for buyer's remorse — customers who simply changed their mind.

Best evidence: Product listing screenshots showing accurate descriptions, terms of service the customer agreed to at checkout, refund policy disclosure, any customer communication (or lack thereof) prior to the dispute, proof the customer did not attempt to return the product through your process, refund refusal explanation if applicable.

Common mistakes: Not including your refund policy. If the customer had a return path available and chose not to use it, that is critical evidence. Also, failing to show that the customer never contacted support before filing the dispute.

Key strategy: Focus on proving the product matched its description and the customer had a reasonable return/refund process available. Include your refund policy URL, proof it was shown at checkout, and evidence that no return was requested. If the customer used the product extensively before disputing, include those usage logs.

What it means: The cardholder claims they were charged multiple times for the same product or service. This can result from actual processing errors (double charges) or from the customer not understanding that they placed multiple orders.

Best evidence: Show that each charge corresponds to a separate order with different order IDs, different products or quantities, different dates, or different delivery addresses. Provide the duplicate charge ID and a clear explanation of why each transaction is distinct. If one charge was already refunded, include the refund receipt.

Common mistakes: Not including the transaction IDs for both the disputed charge and the supposedly duplicated charge. Banks need to see both transactions side by side to determine whether they are genuinely separate.

Key strategy: Clearly document that each charge is for a distinct order. Provide separate order confirmations, itemized receipts, and if applicable, separate shipping confirmations. If you did accidentally double-charge the customer, issue a refund immediately rather than fighting the dispute.

What it means: The cardholder claims they canceled their subscription but were still charged. This is one of the most common dispute types for SaaS and subscription businesses. Often, the customer either did not complete the cancellation process or the charge was for a billing period that began before cancellation.

Best evidence: Cancellation policy shown during signup, logs showing the subscription was still active at the time of charge, account activity after the disputed charge date (proving continued use), cancellation flow screenshots showing the steps required, any customer communication about cancellation (or absence thereof).

Common mistakes: Not maintaining detailed subscription status logs with timestamps. Without a clear log showing that no cancellation was processed, banks default to believing the customer.

Key strategy: Show your cancellation policy, prove the customer was informed of it, and provide evidence that no cancellation request was received before the disputed charge. If the customer continued using the service after the charge date, include those access logs — they directly contradict the claim.

What it means: The cardholder claims they were entitled to a refund or credit that was never issued. This can happen when a return was processed but the refund was delayed, when the customer expected a refund but did not qualify under the merchant's return policy, or when the refund was issued but to a different payment method.

Best evidence: Refund transaction receipt if one was issued, refund policy showing the customer did not qualify, evidence that no return was initiated, proof the refund was issued to a different card if applicable, correspondence about the refund request.

Common mistakes: Not checking whether a refund was actually issued. If you did refund the customer, provide the refund transaction ID — this typically resolves the dispute immediately.

Key strategy: If a refund was issued, provide proof immediately. If not, explain why using your refund policy and document that the customer either did not request one or did not meet the policy requirements. Show the policy was disclosed at purchase time.

What it means: The cardholder does not recognize the charge on their statement. This is distinct from "fraudulent" — the customer is not claiming the charge was unauthorized, just that they do not know what it is. This often results from unclear billing descriptors or forgotten purchases.

Best evidence: Order confirmation email sent to the cardholder, your billing descriptor and how it appears on statements, prior successful transactions from the same card, device fingerprint or IP showing the purchase was made from the cardholder's usual device, customer account details matching the cardholder.

Common mistakes: Treating this identically to fraud disputes. Unrecognized charges often stem from genuine confusion and can sometimes be resolved by simply helping the customer identify the purchase — but once a dispute is filed, the formal process must be followed.

Key strategy: Focus on helping the bank connect the charge to the customer. Provide the order details, what was purchased, and evidence that the customer's email, address, or device was used to make the purchase. A clear billing descriptor explanation helps establish recognition.

What it means: A catch-all category for disputes that do not fit neatly into other reason codes. This can include processing errors, authorization issues, or situations where the bank did not provide a specific reason. Because the reason is ambiguous, these disputes require a broader evidence approach.

Best evidence: Comprehensive documentation covering all bases — transaction details, customer verification (AVS, CVC), delivery or access proof, refund policy, and any customer communications. Since you do not know the exact claim, provide evidence addressing the most common dispute reasons.

Key strategy: Submit the broadest possible evidence package. Cover authorization (3DS, AVS, CVC), fulfillment (delivery or access), and policy (terms, refund policy). AI-powered dispute responses excel here because they can tailor a comprehensive narrative that addresses multiple potential objections simultaneously.