Skip to main content

Winning Evidence

Prerequisites

Before diving into evidence strategy, understand:

Most chargeback responses lose because merchants submit the wrong evidence. You're not arguing with a jury. You're arguing with an issuer analyst who has 30 seconds to review your case and a checklist to follow.

Win rates are 20-30% for typical merchants. Best-in-class hits 40-50%. The difference is knowing what issuers actually look for.

What Matters​

  1. Issuers have checklists. Match the checklist, win the dispute.
  2. Transaction-specific evidence beats boilerplate. Your TOS doesn't prove this customer got this product.
  3. Visa CE 3.0 can exclude fraud disputes from your VAMP ratio. But only if you have the right data.
  4. Less is more. A 15-page PDF gets skimmed. Three strong pieces of evidence get read.
  5. Timing matters. Evidence of usage after the dispute date is gold.

What Issuers Look For​

Issuer analysts evaluate disputes using network reason code requirements. Each reason code has specific evidence that proves or disproves the claim.

Fraud Claims (Reason Code 10.x)​

Customer claims they didn't authorize the transaction. This could be true fraud or friendly fraud.

Winning evidence:

  • Device fingerprint matches prior purchases
  • IP address matches cardholder location
  • Shipping address matches billing address (strong AVS match)
  • Prior successful transactions on same card
  • Customer login after purchase date
  • Customer communication acknowledging purchase

Not helpful:

  • Signed TOS (proves nothing about this transaction)
  • Generic fraud prevention description
  • "We have robust security" statements

Product/Service Issues (Reason Code 13.x)​

Customer claims they didn't receive what was promised.

Winning evidence:

  • Delivery confirmation with signature
  • Tracking showing delivery to billing address
  • Photos of product as shipped
  • Customer communication confirming receipt
  • Customer usage logs after delivery
  • Refund/exchange offer made and declined

Not helpful:

  • Generic shipping policies
  • Average delivery times
  • "Most customers are satisfied" claims

Subscription/Recurring (Reason Code 13.2, 13.7)​

Customer claims they cancelled or didn't authorize recurring billing.

Winning evidence:

  • Original consent with timestamp and IP
  • Terms they agreed to at signup
  • Renewal notification emails (with delivery proof)
  • Account login activity after alleged cancellation
  • No cancellation request in support tickets
  • Continued usage after disputed charge

Not helpful:

  • Pointing to cancellation policy they didn't follow
  • "They should have cancelled properly"
  • Generic subscription terms

Visa Compelling Evidence 3.0​

CE 3.0 is Visa's program that can exclude qualifying fraud disputes from your VAMP ratio. It requires specific data proving the cardholder has a history with you.

CE 3.0 Requirements​

To qualify, you must prove at least two of these match between the disputed transaction and 2+ prior undisputed transactions:

Data ElementWhat It Is
Device fingerprintSame device used for disputed and prior transactions
IP addressSame IP for disputed and prior transactions
Shipping addressSame delivery address
User accountSame logged-in account

Transaction History Requirements​

The prior transactions must be:

  • At least 120 days before the disputed transaction
  • No more than 365 days before the disputed transaction
  • Undisputed (no chargebacks or fraud claims)
  • On the same card number

What CE 3.0 Does​

If you meet CE 3.0 requirements:

Operator Questions for CE 3.0​

Ask Your Dev

"Are we collecting and storing device fingerprints and IP addresses in a way that supports CE 3.0 submission? Can we query prior transactions for matching data elements?"

Most processors now support CE 3.0 data submission. But you need to:

  1. Collect the data at transaction time
  2. Store it accessibly
  3. Query it when disputes arrive
  4. Submit it in the correct format

Digital Goods Evidence​

Digital goods are harder to prove because there's no physical delivery. See digital goods fraud risks for prevention strategies.

What Works for Digital​

Evidence TypeWhy It Helps
IP at purchaseLinks transaction to location
IP at usageProves access after purchase
Account login timestampsShows ongoing usage
In-app activity logsProves they used the product
Download recordsProves they received delivery
License key activationTies specific purchase to usage
Streaming/viewing historyProves content consumption

Digital Evidence Package​

For digital goods disputes, compile:

  1. Purchase timestamp and IP
  2. Account creation date (if before dispute)
  3. Login timestamps after purchase
  4. Usage activity (features used, content accessed)
  5. Download or activation records
  6. Any customer support tickets (especially ones acknowledging the product works)

Evidence Organization​

How you present evidence matters as much as what you present.

Format Guidelines​

DoDon't
Single PDF, clearly labeledMultiple attachments
Page numbers and sectionsWall of text
Key evidence on first pageBury important items
Highlighted relevant sectionsRaw log dumps
Clear timestampsAmbiguous dates

Ideal Response Structure​

Page 1: Summary

  • Transaction details (date, amount, last 4)
  • Customer details (name, address, email)
  • 2-3 sentence summary of why this should be reversed

Page 2-3: Key Evidence

  • The strongest pieces proving your case
  • Screenshots with timestamps
  • Highlighted delivery confirmation

Page 4+: Supporting Documentation

  • Full logs if needed
  • Complete communication history
  • Policies (only if directly relevant)

What Wastes Analyst Time​

  • 30+ page responses
  • Unformatted server logs
  • Irrelevant company history
  • Emotional appeals
  • Legal threats
  • Screenshots of your TOS homepage

Inquiry Deflection​

Many disputes start as inquiries before becoming chargebacks.

Inquiry vs. Chargeback​

StageWhat It IsYour Opportunity
InquiryIssuer asking for informationResolve here, no chargeback filed
First chargebackFormal dispute filedRepresentment required to reverse
Pre-arbitrationSecond reviewHigher stakes, more evidence needed
ArbitrationNetwork decidesExpensive, rarely worth it

Deflecting at Inquiry​

If you can resolve at the inquiry stage:

  • No chargeback hits your ratio
  • No chargeback fee
  • Lower cost of resolution

How to enable inquiry deflection:

  1. Enroll in Order Insight (Visa) and Consumer Clarity (Mastercard)
  2. Provide rich transaction data (product details, images, tracking)
  3. Respond to inquiries within 24 hours
  4. Offer proactive refunds for clear losses

Evidence Templates: Use Carefully​

Templates Are Overrated

Template responses are less effective than you think. Issuers see the same templates repeatedly. Focus on transaction-specific evidence, not boilerplate.

What Templates Can't Do​

  • Prove this specific customer received this specific product
  • Show device or IP matching
  • Demonstrate customer usage
  • Provide unique transaction details

When Templates Help​

Templates are useful for:

  • Consistent formatting
  • Reminder checklists (what evidence to gather)
  • Standard policy language (as supplement, not substitute)

Building Useful Templates​

Instead of boilerplate responses, build evidence checklists by reason code:

Reason CodeEvidence Checklist
10.4 (Fraud CNP)□ 3DS data □ Device fingerprint □ IP match □ Prior transactions □ AVS match
13.1 (Not received)□ Tracking # □ Carrier □ Delivery confirmation □ Signature □ Delivery photo
13.2 (Cancelled recurring)□ Original consent □ IP at signup □ Cancellation policy □ No cancel request □ Usage after dispute
13.3 (Not as described)□ Product description at sale □ Images □ Return policy □ Correspondence □ Refund offered?

Use this checklist before responding. Missing evidence = likely loss.

Template Dos and Don'ts​

DoDon't
Use templates for document formattingCopy-paste the same letter for every dispute
Include evidence collection remindersSubmit generic "we have a fraud prevention system"
Standardize header/transaction infoSkip transaction-specific details
Create reason-code-specific structuresUse one template for all reason codes

Evidence Assembly Workflow​

  1. Receive chargeback notification
  2. Check reason code → pull corresponding checklist
  3. Gather evidence from each checklist item
  4. Identify gaps → decide if worth fighting
  5. Assemble package in standard format
  6. Submit with summary highlighting strongest evidence
Evidence First, Template Second

Gather all your evidence first. Then use a template to format it professionally. Never let the template drive what evidence you include.

Test to Run​

30-day evidence improvement audit:

Week 1: Baseline

  • Pull win rate by reason code for past 90 days
  • Review 10 lost disputes for evidence gaps
  • Identify most common reason codes

Week 2-3: Improve

  • Create evidence checklist by reason code
  • Verify CE 3.0 data is being collected
  • Train team on new evidence standards

Week 4: Measure

  • Compare win rate to baseline
  • Identify remaining gaps

Success criteria: 10-20% improvement in win rate within 60 days.

Scale Callout​

VolumeFocus
Under $100k/moManual evidence collection. Focus on top 2-3 reason codes. Don't over-invest in low-volume disputes.
$100k-$1M/moStandardized evidence packages. CE 3.0 data collection. Track win rates by reason code.
Over $1M/moAutomated evidence assembly. Dedicated representment team or vendor. Real-time win rate optimization.

Where This Breaks​

  1. True fraud. If the transaction was actually fraudulent, no evidence will save you. The card was stolen, the cardholder is the victim. Accept the loss.

  2. Service failures. If you actually failed to deliver, fighting the chargeback is wasted effort. Refund, learn, fix the problem.

  3. Friendly fraud with no data. If you don't collect device fingerprints, IPs, and usage logs, you can't prove legitimate transactions. Prevention (data collection) beats cure (representment).

Analyst Layer: Metrics to Track​

MetricWhat It Tells YouTarget
Overall win rateRepresentment effectiveness> 30%
Win rate by reason codeWhere to focusVaries by code
Response timeMeeting deadlines< 5 days average
CE 3.0 qualification rateData collection health> 50% of fraud disputes
Evidence completeness scoreProcess qualityInternal benchmark

Win Rate Benchmarks by Reason Code​

Reason Code CategoryTypical Win RateGood Win Rate
Fraud (10.x)15-25%30-40%
No merchandise (13.1)40-60%60-80%
Not as described (13.3)20-30%35-45%
Subscription (13.2, 13.7)25-35%40-50%

If your win rate is significantly below typical, you have an evidence or process problem.

Next Steps​

Just getting started with representment?

  1. Review the representment workflow → Step-by-step response process
  2. Pull your last 10 chargebacks → What evidence did you have? What was missing?
  3. Implement device fingerprinting and IP logging → Start collecting CE 3.0 data now

Improving your win rate?

  1. Segment by reason code → Focus on codes where you have evidence advantage
  2. Build evidence templates by reason code → Standardize your response packages
  3. Set up evidence collection at transaction time → You can't gather evidence after the fact

Already fighting chargebacks?

  1. Track win rates by reason code → Find your weak spots
  2. Review lost cases → What evidence would have won?
  3. Prevent chargebacks first → Prevention beats representment every time