Chargeback reason codes

The issuer says a counterfeit card was used at a chip-capable terminal that did not read the chip, so the EMV liability shift puts the loss on the merchant. The dispute turns on how the transaction was read, not on what was sold. Visa allows 120 calendar days from the transaction processing date, and the issuer must report the fraud to Visa before disputing.

A card-present payment the cardholder says they did not make, where the card was lost, stolen or never received and the terminal did not complete a chip read. Like 10.1 this is an EMV liability-shift dispute: the answer lives in the terminal data, not the order. 120 calendar days from the transaction processing date.

The cardholder denies authorising or taking part in a key-entered payment made with the card present — a card number typed in rather than read. Evidence that the genuine cardholder was there is what answers it: a signature, an imprint, or a till record tying them to the purchase. 120 calendar days from the transaction processing date.

The cardholder denies authorising or taking part in a payment made without the card present — the most common fraud dispute for an online store. Visa requires the issuer to report the fraud to Visa before it may dispute, so a fraud report always sits behind this code. The answer is evidence tying the cardholder to the order: an earlier undisputed payment on the same card, a device or address match, or proof they received and used what they bought. 120 calendar days from the transaction processing date.

Visa itself flagged the transaction through one of its monitoring programmes and told the issuer, which then disputed it. The trigger is Visa's own report rather than anything the cardholder said, so this code tends to arrive in batches and signals a wider problem with the account. 120 calendar days from the date of the Visa monitoring programme report.

The same purchase was billed twice: one transaction was presented more than once. What answers it is proof that the two charges are separate purchases, or evidence that the duplicate was already refunded. 120 calendar days from the transaction processing date.

The cardholder paid for the same goods or services by another means — cash, another card, or a transfer — and says the card charge should not stand. Visa requires the cardholder to have taken part in one of the two payments. The answer is the record showing the two payments are for different things, or that the other one was refunded. 120 calendar days from the transaction processing date.

The cardholder took part in the purchase but says the merchant was unwilling or unable to deliver the goods or services. Delivery evidence is the whole case: tracking that shows receipt, access logs for a digital product, or the terms the cardholder agreed to about when delivery was due. 120 calendar days from the transaction processing date.

A recurring payment taken after the cardholder withdrew permission, or after the merchant was told the account was closed or the arrangement ended. The answer is the record of consent and of what the cardholder was told about cancelling, plus proof that no cancellation reached the merchant before the charge. 120 calendar days from the transaction processing date.

The goods or services did not match the description on the receipt or in the offer the cardholder accepted. Visa makes the issuer wait 15 calendar days after the cardholder returns the item or raises the problem before disputing, so a merchant who resolves it quickly prevents the dispute outright. The answer is the description as published, and the record of what was actually supplied.

The cardholder says the merchandise is counterfeit, established by a customs seizure, the rights holder, or another recognised authority. Proof of the supply chain and of the goods' authenticity is what answers it. 120 calendar days from the transaction processing date.

The cardholder says the merchant misrepresented what was being sold — the terms, the nature of the offer, or what the price covered. The answer is what the cardholder was shown and agreed to at the moment of purchase. 120 calendar days.

The cardholder was given a credit or a voided receipt that was never processed. The answer is simple when it exists: the refund record, or evidence that the refund policy the cardholder accepted did not entitle them to one. 120 calendar days from the date on the credit receipt.

The cardholder cancelled merchandise or services, or returned them, and the expected refund never arrived. The answer is the cancellation and refund policy the cardholder agreed to, and the record of what was refunded and when. 120 calendar days.

A point-of-interaction error: the cardholder was billed twice for one purchase, or billed the wrong amount. Proof that the charges are separate purchases, or that the error was already corrected, answers it.

The cardholder told their bank they did not authorise the payment. Mastercard requires the issuer to report the transaction as fraud on or before the day it charges back, and to attach either the cardholder's own statement or a completed Dispute Resolution Form-Fraud. A merchant answers with compelling evidence — the rules name airline, recurring, e-commerce and mail or telephone order transactions — or by showing the same account transacted before without dispute.

A recurring charge taken after the cardholder cancelled, or a digital-goods purchase disputed under the same condition. The answer is the consent record, what the cardholder was told about cancelling, and proof no cancellation arrived before the charge.

The merchant was named in a Mastercard announcement for breaching the Questionable Merchant Audit Programme, or Mastercard determined the transactions were coercive. The trigger is Mastercard's own finding rather than a cardholder complaint, so this code is a symptom of a programme placement and not an ordinary dispute.

The umbrella code for a cardholder's complaint about what they received: goods or services not as described, defective, counterfeit, a credit never processed, a cancelled recurring charge, a transaction that did not complete, and several more. Which sub-condition applies decides the evidence, so the documentation the issuer sends matters more here than with any other code.

The cardholder paid but says the goods or services were never provided. Delivery or fulfilment evidence answers it: tracking showing receipt, access records for a digital product, or the agreed delivery date if it has not yet passed.

A refund the cardholder was promised, or a credit receipt they hold, was never processed. The answer is the refund record, or the policy the cardholder accepted showing no refund was due.

The cardholder did not recognise the charge on their statement, as distinct from claiming outright fraud. **Mastercard has retired this code**: it appears throughout the 2022 Chargeback Guide and nowhere in the current Merchant Edition, its cases having moved to 4837. Older disputes still carry it, which is why it is listed here. The practical answer was always the same — a statement descriptor the cardholder can recognise prevents the dispute far more reliably than winning it does.

A counterfeit card was used where the chip should have been read and was not, so the liability shifts to the merchant's side. The dispute is about how the terminal processed the card, not about the goods.

The cardholder — or the employer of a corporate cardholder who has left — says the card was lost, stolen or never received and the transaction was not theirs, in a case where the chip was not read. As with 4870, the terminal data is the case.

A credit the cardmember was promised was never processed. Amex's answer is the credit record, or the policy the cardmember accepted showing none was due.

The goods or services were returned or refused and the expected credit never appeared. The return policy as presented at purchase, and the record of what was received back, are the case.

The cardmember cancelled the goods or services before receiving them and says the charge should not stand. What answers it is the cancellation terms they agreed to and the record of when the cancellation reached the merchant.

The cardmember says they never received the goods or services, or received only part of them. Proof of delivery or of the service being supplied is the case; for a partial delivery, the record of what was sent and what remained outstanding.

The cardmember says they paid for the same purchase by another means and the Amex charge duplicates it. The answer is evidence that the two payments are for different things, or that the other was refunded.

The cardmember says they cancelled a recurring arrangement and were billed anyway. The consent record, the cancellation terms and proof that no cancellation was received before the charge are what answer it.

The cardmember says what arrived is not what was described. The description as published at the time of purchase, and the record of what was actually supplied, are the case.

The cardmember says the goods or services arrived damaged or defective. Condition evidence at dispatch and the returns handling are what answer it.

A card-present charge submitted without an imprint of the card, which Amex treats as a fraud chargeback because nothing ties the physical card to the sale. Evidence that the card and cardmember were present is the only answer.

The cardmember accepts one transaction with the merchant but denies the additional charges that followed it. Amex is explicit that this is not the remedy for processing the same transaction twice — that is a duplicate charge (P08) — so the case is about whether each further charge was separately authorised.

The cardmember says they did not take part in the charge and Amex finds no valid authorisation behind it. Evidence tying the cardmember to the purchase answers it: an earlier undisputed charge on the same account, a delivery they signed for, or their use of what was bought.

The cardmember denies taking part in a charge made without the card present — the common fraud dispute for an online store. The answer is the same shape as elsewhere: evidence that the genuine cardmember placed and received the order.

A counterfeit card used where the chip was not read, shifting liability to the merchant under the EMV rules. The terminal data decides it, not the goods.

A lost, stolen or never-received card used where the chip was not read. As with F30 the case is how the card was processed.

The same charge was submitted more than once. Proof that the charges are separate purchases, or that the duplicate was already credited, answers it.