How to Reduce Chargebacks: A 2026 Guide for UK Merchants

Reducing Chargebacks

A chargeback is not simply a refund that the merchant did not agree to.

It is a card-scheme dispute process that can allow a cardholder's bank to challenge a transaction and potentially recover the payment through the card-payment chain.

For merchants, occasional legitimate disputes are part of accepting cards.

The problem begins when chargebacks become frequent, poorly understood or concentrated around the same underlying issue.

At that point, chargebacks can affect more than the individual transaction.

They can influence:

• processing costs;
• reserves;
• settlement;
• provider underwriting;
• scheme-monitoring exposure;
• merchant-account renewal;
• future provider applications; and
• in serious cases, whether a provider is willing to continue processing the business.

The most useful question is therefore not:

“How do we win more chargebacks?”

It is:

“Why are customers disputing these transactions, which disputes could have been prevented, and what needs to change in the payment or customer journey?”

This guide explains how UK merchants can reduce chargebacks, analyse root causes, improve dispute evidence and understand when chargeback performance starts to become a wider payment-risk issue.

Quick Summary

• A chargeback is a card-scheme dispute process, not simply another name for a merchant refund.
• Chargebacks can arise from fraud, non-delivery, product/service disputes, cancelled recurring payments, processing errors, unrecognised transactions and other reasons.
• The reason code tells you how the dispute has been categorised; it does not by itself tell you the root cause inside your business.
• The best chargeback strategy normally combines prevention, early resolution, fraud controls and good dispute evidence.
• Merchants should track chargebacks by reason, product, country, payment channel, subscription cohort, fulfilment period and transaction value rather than looking only at one overall ratio.
• Clear billing descriptors, fulfilment evidence, refund processes, subscription communication and customer service can prevent avoidable disputes.
• 3D Secure and fraud tools can help with some fraud-related disputes but do not prevent every type of chargeback.
• High chargebacks can lead to reserves, delayed settlement, additional monitoring or provider review.
• Visa's current VAMP framework measures relevant card-not-present fraud and disputes together, so merchants should not monitor chargebacks in isolation.
• Mastercard operates separate chargeback and fraud monitoring programmes, including ECP and EFM.
• A high chargeback level does not automatically mean a merchant needs a new processor. The first job is to understand what is causing the problem.

Find Your New Processor

What Is a Chargeback?

A chargeback occurs when a card transaction is disputed through the customer's card issuer and the transaction is challenged through the relevant card-scheme process.

GOV.UK gives common examples including:

• goods that never arrived;
• goods that were not as described; and
• a card being used fraudulently without the customer's permission.

Read GOV.UK guidance on disputed card payments.

The Financial Ombudsman Service also identifies examples including:

• transactions the customer says they did not make;
• incorrect transaction amounts;
• duplicate transactions;
• goods or services not supplied;
• defective goods;
• refunds that were promised but not received; and
• cancellations where an expected refund was not made.

See Financial Ombudsman guidance on chargebacks.

Chargeback vs Refund: What Is the Difference?

That does not mean merchants should automatically refund every unhappy customer.

It means a good refund and complaints process can prevent situations where customers feel their only remaining option is to contact their bank.

Chargeback vs Section 75

Chargeback and Section 75 are also different.

Chargeback operates through card-scheme rules and can apply to debit and credit-card transactions in relevant circumstances.

Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 is a statutory consumer protection applying to qualifying credit arrangements.

The Financial Ombudsman explains that the two routes have different legal and procedural bases.

Read the Financial Ombudsman's explanation of Section 75 and chargeback.

MAS View

A merchant should not assume that because it successfully defended a chargeback, every other consumer remedy has disappeared.

Card-scheme disputes, consumer rights and Section 75 can involve different processes.

Why Do Chargebacks Happen?

The reason given to the card scheme is useful, but the underlying business cause may be different.

We would normally group chargebacks into several broader areas.

1. Genuine Payment Fraud

The cardholder says they did not authorise the transaction.

This may involve:

• stolen card details;
• account takeover;
• card testing;
• identity fraud;
• fraudulent ecommerce orders; or
• other unauthorised use.

2. Transaction Not Recognised

The customer may genuinely have made the purchase but does not recognise the merchant descriptor appearing on the card statement.

This can happen where:

• the legal company name is different from the trading brand;
• the descriptor is abbreviated;
• several brands settle under one descriptor;
• a family member made the purchase; or
• the payment appears long after the original interaction.

3. Product or Service Dispute

The customer may claim:

• goods were faulty;
• services were not supplied as agreed;
• the product differed from the description;
• quality was unacceptable; or
• the merchant did not honour its terms.

4. Non-Delivery or Future Delivery

The customer paid but says the product or service was not delivered.

This can be particularly important for:

• travel;
• ticketing;
• furniture;
• events;
• custom products;
• courses;
• pre-orders;
• weddings;
• bookings; and
• other future-delivery businesses.

5. Refund Problems

The merchant agrees a refund but:

• processes it too slowly;
• does not clearly communicate the timeframe;
• refunds the wrong amount;
• processes it outside the customer's expectations; or
• fails to process it at all.

6. Subscription and Recurring Payment Disputes

Common issues include:

• customer says they cancelled;
• trial converted unexpectedly;
• renewal was not understood;
• merchant continued charging after cancellation;
• customer did not recognise the recurring descriptor;
• price changed;
• billing frequency was unclear; or
• cancellation was unnecessarily difficult.

7. Processing Errors

These can include:

• duplicate processing;
• incorrect amount;
• credit processed incorrectly;
• technical retry creating multiple transactions;
• incorrect currency; or
• other payment-processing errors.

A Chargeback Reason Code Is Not a Root-Cause Analysis

It is tempting to run a report showing:

Fraud = 40%

Goods not received = 30%

Other = 30%

and stop there.

That is not enough.

A merchant should ask what operational behaviour sits underneath each category.

MAS View

If the merchant only fights chargebacks after they arrive, it is treating the symptom rather than the cause.

What Is Friendly Fraud?

The term friendly fraud is commonly used when a cardholder disputes a transaction they may actually have authorised or benefited from.

This is sometimes also described as first-party misuse.

Examples can include a customer who:

• forgets making a purchase;
• does not recognise the statement descriptor;
• allows another household member to use the card;
• claims an item was not delivered despite evidence of delivery;
• uses a chargeback instead of the merchant's returns process; or
• disputes a subscription after receiving the service.

However, merchants should be careful not to label every customer complaint as friendly fraud.

A genuine service, fulfilment or cancellation problem is not solved by blaming the customer.

How Does the Chargeback Process Work?

The precise process depends on the card scheme, reason and transaction.

At a high level:

1. The cardholder raises a dispute with their card issuer.
2. The issuer assesses the claim under the relevant card-scheme rules.
3. The dispute can be passed through the scheme to the merchant's acquiring side.
4. The merchant is notified and may have an opportunity to provide evidence where permitted.
5. The evidence is considered under the applicable dispute rules.
6. The dispute may be resolved, continue to another stage or ultimately proceed further through the card-scheme process.

Merchants should follow the deadlines and evidence requirements supplied by their acquirer or PSP.

Missing a response deadline can remove the opportunity to challenge an otherwise defendable dispute.

How Long Does a Customer Have to Raise a Chargeback?

There is no single timeframe that safely describes every chargeback scenario.

GOV.UK states that a merchant can potentially be charged back up to 120 days after a transaction is debited or after the date on which goods or services were due to be received.

However, card-scheme rules contain transaction-specific conditions and timeframes.

See GOV.UK chargeback guidance.

Businesses with long future-delivery periods should therefore avoid assuming that their dispute exposure ends shortly after the customer pays.

What Evidence Can Help Defend a Chargeback?

The useful evidence depends on the reason for the dispute.

The Financial Ombudsman notes the importance of evidence such as invoices, correspondence, photographs, contract terms and chargeback submissions when considering disputed transactions.

See Financial Ombudsman dispute evidence guidance.

More Evidence Is Not Always Better Evidence

A 50-page PDF does not necessarily make a strong dispute response.

The evidence should answer the actual reason for the chargeback.

A good response is usually:

• relevant;
• ordered;
• clear;
• consistent;
• within the required deadline; and
• supported by records created during the normal customer journey.

Businesses should avoid manufacturing evidence after a dispute arrives.

The strongest evidence is usually the information the business was already capturing correctly.

Should You Fight Every Chargeback?

No.

Merchants should assess whether the dispute is genuinely defendable.

It may not make commercial sense to contest a dispute where:

• the merchant clearly made an error;
• the promised service was not delivered;
• a refund should have been processed;
• evidence is insufficient;
• the transaction was clearly duplicated; or
• the cost of handling the dispute outweighs the value and there is no wider risk reason to challenge it.

Equally, automatically accepting every chargeback can create its own problems if legitimate transactions are repeatedly disputed.

The merchant needs a consistent decision process.

The MAS Chargeback Root-Cause Test

For each meaningful group of disputes, ask six questions.

1. Was the Transaction Genuine?

Was the customer or authorised user likely responsible for the payment?

2. Did the Customer Understand the Transaction?

Could the descriptor, price, subscription or product have caused confusion?

3. Was the Product or Service Delivered as Promised?

Check fulfilment, timing, quality and customer communication.

4. Could Customer Service Have Prevented the Dispute?

Was a refund, cancellation or complaint left unresolved long enough for the customer to go to their bank?

5. Do We Have Evidence?

Could the business prove what happened if the issuer asks?

6. Is This an Isolated Event or a Pattern?

One dispute can be noise.

Fifty similar disputes can be a business-process failure.

MAS View

The objective is not zero chargebacks at any cost. It is to remove preventable disputes and understand the remaining risk.

How to Reduce Fraud-Related Chargebacks

Fraud prevention needs to match the merchant's payment channel and risk profile.

Controls can include:

• 3D Secure;
• fraud scoring;
• velocity limits;
• device intelligence;
• IP/geolocation checks;
• card-testing protection;
• CVV checks;
• address data where appropriate;
• manual review for unusual transactions;
• transaction-value controls;
• account-takeover protection; and
• provider-specific fraud tools.

The right strategy balances fraud reduction with payment acceptance and customer friction.

Blocking every transaction that looks slightly unusual can reduce fraud while also declining genuine customers.

3D Secure Helps, but It Is Not a Complete Chargeback Strategy

3D Secure can provide authentication evidence and can affect liability for certain fraud-related disputes where the relevant rules are satisfied.

But it does not solve:

• non-delivery;
• poor service;
• refund failure;
• subscription cancellation disputes;
• product-quality complaints;
• duplicate transactions; or
• many other non-fraud chargeback reasons.

A merchant with excellent 3D Secure coverage can therefore still have a serious chargeback problem.

Billing Descriptors Can Prevent Avoidable Chargebacks

A customer who sees an unfamiliar name on their bank statement may assume the payment is fraudulent.

Review:

• the descriptor customers actually see;
• whether it matches the trading brand;
• whether the descriptor is understandable when abbreviated;
• whether a telephone number can be included where supported;
• whether confirmation emails remind customers what will appear on the statement; and
• whether multiple brands use the same merchant descriptor.

For groups with several brands, the technically correct legal descriptor may still create customer confusion if the trading relationship is not obvious.

Good Customer Service Is a Chargeback Tool

Many disputes begin as ordinary customer-service issues.

The customer:

• cannot find an order;
• wants to cancel;
• is waiting for a refund;
• does not recognise a payment;
• has received the wrong product; or
• needs to rearrange a service.

If contacting the merchant is difficult, the customer's bank can become the easiest route.

Businesses should review:

• response times;
• email visibility;
• telephone support;
• order tracking;
• refund status;
• cancellation processes;
• complaints escalation; and
• how quickly obvious mistakes are corrected.

Refund Speed Can Affect Chargebacks

If a refund has been agreed, tell the customer:

• that it has been authorised;
• when it was submitted;
• how much is being refunded;
• which original payment method will receive it; and
• that banking/card-processing times can affect when it becomes visible.

A customer who believes a refund has disappeared may dispute the original transaction unnecessarily.

Subscriptions Need Their Own Chargeback Strategy

Recurring-payment merchants should pay particular attention to:

• initial consent;
• trial terms;
• renewal date;
• billing frequency;
• price;
• statement descriptor;
• renewal reminders where appropriate or required;
• cancellation method;
• failed-payment retries;
• proof of continued service; and
• customer communications.

A cancellation journey designed purely to make leaving difficult can create more disputes rather than improve retention.

For the payment architecture itself, see our Subscription Payment Processing guide.

Future-Delivery Businesses Need to Monitor Disputes Differently

For a merchant delivering immediately, the risk period can be relatively short.

For a business taking payment months in advance, the picture changes.

Examples include:

• travel;
• events;
• furniture;
• bespoke manufacturing;
• weddings;
• courses;
• membership packages; and
• other advance-purchase services.

These merchants should monitor:

• forward order book;
• average fulfilment period;
• refund liabilities;
• supplier exposure;
• customer communications;
• cancellations;
• chargebacks by booking month; and
• cash required to fulfil future orders.

High future-delivery exposure can also influence underwriting, reserves and settlement even where current chargeback levels remain manageable.

High-Ticket Merchants Need Transaction-Level Analysis

A business receiving ten £10,000 chargebacks has a different commercial problem from a merchant receiving one hundred £20 chargebacks.

Do not look only at dispute count.

Track:

• chargeback value;
• chargeback count;
• average disputed transaction;
• largest disputed transaction;
• percentage of sales value disputed;
• percentage of transaction count disputed;
• reason category;
• country;
• payment method; and
• merchant ID.

What Is a Chargeback Ratio?

The phrase chargeback ratio can mean different things depending on the scheme, provider or internal merchant calculation.

A merchant might internally calculate:

number of chargebacks ÷ number of transactions

or:

chargeback value ÷ processed value.

But card-scheme monitoring programmes can use their own definitions, timing and eligibility rules.

This distinction has become particularly important under Visa's current VAMP framework.

Visa VAMP: Chargebacks Are No Longer the Only Number to Watch

Visa's Acquirer Monitoring Program, or VAMP, combines relevant card-not-present fraud and disputes within a single core count-based ratio.

Visa publishes the core calculation as:

Count of relevant fraud + disputes ÷ count of settled transactions.

Visa states that certain disputes resolved through qualifying pre-dispute solutions and certain fraud qualified for Compelling Evidence 3.0 can be excluded, subject to the programme conditions and timing.

From 1 April 2026, Visa's published Excessive Merchant VAMP threshold for the EU, AP, Canada and US was reduced to 150 basis points.

Visa's fact sheet also sets a minimum monthly count of 1,500 fraud and disputes for the relevant AP, Canada, EU and US excessive-merchant threshold, and explains how individual merchant thresholds interact with acquirer-level monitoring.

Read Visa's current VAMP fact sheet.

The key commercial lesson is:

Do not manage disputes separately from fraud.

A merchant should know both.

For the specialist rules, see our VAMP guidance for high-risk merchants.

Mastercard Chargeback and Fraud Monitoring

Mastercard also operates monitoring programmes relevant to excessive chargebacks and fraud.

Its published merchant compliance information includes:

• Excessive Chargeback Program (ECP);
• Excessive Fraud Merchant (EFM) Program;
• Business Risk Assessment and Mitigation (BRAM); and
• other merchant-compliance programmes.

See Mastercard's current merchant rules and compliance programmes.

Mastercard also publishes a current Chargeback Guide — Merchant Edition covering dispute rules and processes.

Because scheme rules change, merchants approaching programme thresholds should confirm the current position with their acquirer or processor rather than relying on an old percentage copied from an historic article.

How Does Mastercard SMMP Relate to Chargebacks?

Mastercard's Scam Merchant Monitoring Program is a separate risk programme focused on potentially scam-related merchant activity.

It should not be treated as another name for the Excessive Chargeback Program.

However, disputes, refunds, complaints and merchant behaviour can all form part of the wider risk picture for a payment provider.

See our dedicated Mastercard SMMP Rules 2026 guide.

What Can Happen If Chargebacks Become Too High?

Depending on the merchant, provider and scheme position, possible outcomes can include:

• increased monitoring;
• requests for a remediation plan;
• fraud-rule changes;
• processing limits;
• higher reserves;
• delayed settlement;
• additional fees;
• restrictions on certain payment channels;
• requirement to use additional risk tools;
• review of the merchant's underwriting position; or
• termination in more serious cases.

The exact response is provider- and scheme-specific.

A merchant should therefore act before a threshold breach rather than after an urgent provider notice arrives.

A Rolling Reserve Does Not Reduce Chargebacks

A reserve protects the acquiring/provider side against potential future merchant liabilities.

It does not fix the reason customers are disputing transactions.

If a provider introduces a reserve because chargebacks have increased, the merchant has two separate problems:

1. Cash-flow impact from the reserve.
2. The operational problem causing the disputes.

Negotiating the reserve without addressing the chargebacks is unlikely to be a complete solution.

Should You Change Payment Provider Because of Chargebacks?

Not automatically.

If the merchant's own customer journey is causing the disputes, moving to another acquirer does not remove that problem.

However, a provider review may become relevant where:

• the incumbent no longer supports the merchant's risk profile;
• the account has been terminated;
• the provider lacks appropriate fraud tools;
• reporting is too weak to identify root causes;
• the gateway cannot support required risk controls;
• the merchant has outgrown the current infrastructure;
• international expansion has changed the risk profile;
• current reserve or settlement terms have become commercially unsustainable; or
• a more specialist acquiring relationship is genuinely required.

If the provider itself is under review, see our Payment Gateways for High-Risk Merchants guide.

If Your Provider Is Threatening Termination, What Should You Do?

Act quickly, but do not immediately submit applications everywhere.

1. Establish the Numbers

Know current fraud, chargeback count, value, ratios and scheme-monitoring position.

2. Identify the Root Cause

Break disputes down by reason, product, channel, country, fulfilment and customer cohort.

3. Understand the Provider's Concern

Ask whether the issue relates to:

• scheme thresholds;
• provider appetite;
• fraud;
• future delivery;
• financial exposure;
• business-model changes; or
• another compliance issue.

4. Produce a Remediation Plan

Document what the business is changing and how success will be measured.

5. Prepare a Contingency

If provider appetite has genuinely changed, identify alternative routes before processing is interrupted.

See our guide to Terminated Merchant Facilities.

What Should a Chargeback Remediation Plan Include?

A useful plan should be specific.

For example:

A remediation plan should demonstrate that the merchant understands the underlying cause rather than simply promising that chargebacks will fall.

Pre-Dispute Alerts Can Help Some Merchants

Some payment ecosystems support alert or pre-dispute services that allow certain customer disputes to be identified before they become conventional chargebacks.

Depending on the scheme, provider and programme, this can allow the merchant to:

• identify the transaction;
• issue a refund where appropriate;
• stop fulfilment;
• cancel a subscription;
• investigate fraud; or
• respond before the dispute progresses.

They are not a substitute for solving the root cause.

Visa's current VAMP methodology specifically notes that qualifying disputes resolved through pre-dispute solutions can be excluded from the VAMP ratio, subject to timing and programme conditions.

Chargeback Management Tools Should Provide More Than Alerts

When comparing gateways and payment providers, ask whether the system allows the merchant to understand:

• chargeback reason;
• dispute date;
• transaction date;
• response deadline;
• transaction value;
• customer country;
• payment method;
• authentication result;
• fraud score;
• merchant ID;
• product or order;
• refund history;
• evidence submitted;
• outcome; and
• repeat customer behaviour.

The objective should be analysis, not simply administration.

High-Volume Merchants Should Treat Chargebacks as a Data Problem

For a merchant processing substantial transaction volume, individual dispute management is not enough.

Build reporting around:

• chargeback count per 1,000 transactions;
• chargeback value;
• fraud count;
• fraud value;
• reason codes;
• product;
• brand;
• legal entity;
• MID;
• country;
• currency;
• payment channel;
• customer cohort;
• subscription age;
• fulfilment period;
• gateway;
• acquirer; and
• outcome of representment.

This makes it possible to distinguish:

“Our chargebacks are high”

from:

“80% of the increase comes from one product sold to one customer cohort using one payment journey.”

The second statement is actionable.

For broader enterprise payment analysis, see our High-Volume Merchant Processing guide.

Do Not Optimise Chargebacks in Isolation From Authorisation Rates

A fraud rule that blocks more transactions may reduce fraud disputes while also rejecting good customers.

That can damage revenue.

High-volume ecommerce businesses should therefore consider:

• fraud;
• chargebacks;
• 3D Secure;
• false declines;
• authorisation rate;
• customer friction; and
• conversion

as connected metrics.

See our Enterprise Payment Authorisation Rates guide.

When Should You Review Your Payment Provider?

A provider review may make sense if:

• the merchant receives a formal risk warning;
• a reserve is introduced or materially increased;
• settlement is delayed;
• the provider can no longer support the sector;
• the business has substantially reduced its risk but terms have not improved;
• fraud or dispute tooling is inadequate;
• reporting prevents effective management;
• international growth creates a different risk profile; or
• the provider has given notice of termination.

The merchant should still understand whether the issue is genuinely provider-related before switching.

Find Your New Processor

The MAS Chargeback Review

When chargebacks are affecting a merchant's payment position, we would normally look at five areas.

1. Scale

How many disputes are occurring, what are they worth and how is the trend changing?

2. Root Cause

Are disputes being caused primarily by fraud, fulfilment, refunds, subscriptions, descriptors, customer service or another issue?

3. Scheme and Provider Risk

Is the merchant approaching a card-scheme monitoring threshold or the provider's own risk tolerance?

4. Remediation

What can the merchant change operationally, technically or commercially to reduce future disputes?

5. Provider Fit

Can the incumbent continue supporting the business, or is a specialist/alternative acquiring route genuinely required?

MAS View

A chargeback problem should be diagnosed before it becomes a merchant-account problem.

What Information Should You Review?

How Merchant Advice Service Approaches Chargeback-Related Payment Problems

Merchant Advice Service is not a chargeback arbitrator and does not decide card-scheme disputes.

Our role becomes relevant where chargeback performance is affecting the merchant's wider payment requirements.

This can include businesses that:

• have received a risk warning from their provider;
• have had settlement changed;
• have been placed on a reserve;
• have been declined by another acquirer;
• have had a merchant facility terminated;
• need better fraud or dispute technology;
• operate in a higher-risk sector;
• have future-delivery exposure;
• process high transaction values; or
• need a provider with a different underwriting appetite.

Before considering another provider, we try to understand the chargeback issue and whether changing processor actually addresses it.

The selected payment provider remains responsible for underwriting, scheme compliance, pricing, reserves and final merchant acceptance.

For more about our approach, see How Merchant Advice Service Works and How MAS Researches and Compares Payment Providers.

Sources & Further Reading

GOV.UK — Liability for Disputed Card Payments

UK government guidance covering common reasons for chargebacks and merchant liability for disputed card transactions.

GOV.UK disputed card payment guidance

Financial Ombudsman Service — Disputed Transactions

Guidance explaining chargebacks, common dispute situations and how merchant/acquirer disputes can be assessed.

Financial Ombudsman disputed transactions guidance

Financial Ombudsman Service — Section 75 and Chargeback

Guidance explaining the distinction between card-scheme chargebacks and Section 75 consumer protection.

Financial Ombudsman Section 75 and chargeback guidance

Visa — Visa Acquirer Monitoring Program

Visa's current published VAMP framework covering relevant fraud, disputes, enumeration and programme thresholds.

Visa VAMP fact sheet

Visa — VAMP Program Update

Visa's explanation of the current programme and its approach to fraud and dispute monitoring.

Visa VAMP programme update

Mastercard — Merchant Rules and Compliance Programs

Mastercard's current merchant resources, including its Chargeback Guide and information on the Excessive Chargeback and Excessive Fraud Merchant programmes.

Mastercard merchant rules and compliance programmes

Related Merchant Advice Service Guidance

• VAMP Rules for High-Risk Merchants
• Mastercard SMMP Rules 2026
• Terminated Merchant Facilities
• Payment Gateways for High-Risk Merchants
• High-Risk Merchant Account Applications
• Subscription Payment Processing
• Improving Payment Authorisation Rates
• High-Volume Merchant Processing
• Compare UK Payment Providers
• Payments Strategy Library

Editorial and Commercial Disclosure

Merchant Advice Service is an independent payments information, comparison and provider-matching service.

MAS may receive commission or a referral fee from some payment providers where a business chooses to proceed following an introduction. This does not determine the factual information, chargeback guidance or provider-selection principles included in this article.

Merchant Advice Service is not Visa, Mastercard, a card issuer, acquiring bank or card-scheme dispute arbitrator.

Chargeback rights, reason codes, evidence requirements, response deadlines and outcomes are governed by the relevant payment provider, card scheme and circumstances of the transaction and can change.

References to Visa and Mastercard monitoring programmes describe current published scheme information and should not be treated as a calculation of an individual merchant's programme status.

Merchants concerned about a scheme-monitoring threshold should confirm current figures and requirements with their acquirer or payment processor.

Chargeback-prevention tools, 3D Secure, fraud systems and dispute-management services cannot guarantee that a transaction will not be disputed or that a merchant will win a representment.

Merchant Advice Service does not guarantee payment-provider acceptance, continued processing, reserve removal or a particular chargeback outcome.

Card-scheme and regulatory information last checked: 26 August 2026

Article last reviewed: August 2026

This guide provides general payment information and should not be treated as legal, regulatory, financial or card-scheme dispute advice.