Chargeback Reason Code Directory

The customer claims a counterfeit chip card was used, and they were not part of the transaction.

The cardholder claims you processed a stolen or used a PIN preferring chip card on a terminal that wasn’t EMV PIN compliant.

The cardholder claims they did not authorize or participate in an unattended or key-entered card transaction.

The cardholder claims they did not authorize or participate in a card-absent transaction.

The Visa Fraud Monitoring Program (VFMP) marked the transaction as fraudulent.

The merchant didn’t request authorization for the transaction. So they didn’t know the account number was listed in the Card Recovery Bulletin (CRB) and that they should have terminated the transaction.

The merchant received a declined or Pick Up Card authorization response but decided to complete the transaction.

The receiving merchant processed a transaction without obtaining authorization, or they sought authorization after processing the transaction.

The merchant completed the transaction past the specified time limits.

The merchant submitted a transaction with the wrong transaction code, i.e., they sent a debit instead of a credit or vice versa.

The merchant processed the wrong currency code, or the cardholder wasn’t notified or didn’t agree to the Dynamic Currency conversion.

The account number authorized is different from the account number used to process the transaction.

The cardholder claims that:

• The transaction amount billed is incorrect.
• A transposition or addition mistake was made during calculations.
• The merchant changed the transaction amount after processing without authorization from the cardholder.

The cardholder claims that the same transaction was processed multiple times.

The cardholder claims that they made payments by other means, i.e., check, cash, or another card.

The merchant obtained authorization using incorrect or invalid data.

The cardholder claims they didn’t receive the merchandise they ordered or canceled their order because they didn’t receive the goods or service on the set delivery date.

The cardholder claims the merchant processed a canceled recurring transaction or after the cardholder closed their account.

The cardholder claims the merchandise received isn’t as it was described (verbally or in the transaction receipt), arrived defective or damaged, or its quality isn’t as expected.

A reliable third party (customs agency, the intellectual property’s owner, an authorized representative, or a law enforcement agency) identified the merchandise as counterfeit.

The cardholder claims the terms of sale were vague, inaccurate, and misleading.

The cardholder claims they received a voided transaction or credit receipt that wasn’t processed.

The cardholder claims they canceled a service or returned merchandise but didn’t receive a refund.

The OCT (Original Credit Transaction) wasn’t processed and the merchant receives the money back from the cardholder. This is a reverse chargeback; however, it is considered like a chargeback for the purpose of determining fees and the merchant’s chargeback ratio.

The cardholder claims they received a partial amount or nothing from an ATM withdrawal.

A card-not-present transaction occurs, and the cardholder claims they didn't authorize or participate in the transaction.

The cardholder acknowledges they authorized a transaction at a specific location but denies knowledge of other extra transactions at the same location.

The merchant is listed on the Global Merchant Audit Program. To file under this reason code, the fraudulent transaction should have occurred in the period listed in the Global Security Bulletin.

The merchant is added to the Questionable Merchant Audit Program. To file under this reason code, the fraudulent transaction should have occurred in the period detailed in the Global Security Bulletin under the QMAP.

Mastercard confirmed that the merchant violated their Integrity of Brand and Network rule (Rule 3.7) more than twice within a case detailed in the noncompliance confirmation letter.

The cardholder claims the purchase was unauthorized. Either the transaction was processed with a forged EMV chip card or the merchant processed a transaction using a counterfeit card on a terminal that would've detected fraud had it been EMV compliant.

The cardholder claims they didn't authorize the transaction because they don't have the card. Or that the merchant processed the transaction without getting the cardholder's PIN.

This reason code is transitioning from the legacy code 4807. A cardholder claims the merchant didn't get authorization for said transaction.

The merchant didn't seek authorization for the transaction processed.

This reason code is transitioning from legacy code 4812. The issuer couldn't find the account number used on file.

The merchant didn't acquire the required authorization.

The transaction was settled after the expiration deadline. At this point, the cardholder's account wasn't active or in good standing.

The issuer declined a transaction, but it was later approved in X-Code or Stand-In. X-code is backup processing serving acquirers when their systems are down and cannot process transactions. In contrast, stand-in processing offers backup authorization to issuers when their main authorization systems cannot respond to authorization requests.

An unauthorized transaction was processed at an unattended terminal (cardholder-activated terminal).

Cardholder claims they were billed multiple times for the same transaction.

This reason code is transitioning from the legacy code 4831. The cardholder claims the transaction amount on the receipt differs from what the cardholder was charged.

This reason code is transitioning from the legacy code 4846. The cardholder claims they  weren't presented with the option to choose a preferred currency or that the merchant implemented the currency conversion wrong.

This reason code is transitioning from the legacy code 4842. The merchant didn't deposit the transaction within the set timelines.

The cardholder claims they were billed multiple times for the same transaction.

The cardholder claims the merchant processed an unauthorized charge of loss, theft, and damage upfront, even before they used their service.

The cardholder claims the ATM dispensed a different amount from what they were actually charged or the ATM withdrawal was debited several times.

The cardholder claims the transaction amount is unreasonable.

The merchant didn't submit the transaction within the specified timeframe, and the cardholder's account is now closed.

The cardholder states they didn't have the opportunity to choose a currency, or the merchant incorrectly applied currency conversions.

The cardholder claims the merchant billed their card even after they canceled a subscription, or they didn't know it was a subscription, to begin with.

The cardholder claims they didn't receive the service or product.

The cardholder claims they were billed a no-show fee despite canceling the reservation within specified timelines or using the facilities. Alternatively, the no-show billed was higher than the rate quoted initially.

The cardholder claims they only authorized one transaction but found multiple transactions they didn't authorize after the initial valid transaction.

This reason code is transitioning from the legacy code 4860. The cardholder claims they expect a credit, but the merchant hasn't processed the request.

The cardholder claims the service or merchandise they received wasn't according to the description they got during the purchase.

This reason code is transitioning from the legacy code 4841. The cardholder claims there were unauthorized purchases due to a lack of purchase controls.

The cardholder claims the merchant delivered counterfeit products.

This reason code is transitioning from the legacy code 4855. The cardholder didn't use the service or merchandise as they thought the transaction didn't process.

This reason code is transitioning from the legacy code 4860. The cardholder claims their account was debited instead of credited.

The cardholder claims that the timeshare or a similar provision was canceled within Mastercard’s timeframe, but the merchant charged them anyway.

The issuer requested you to cancel a subscription bill, but you continued to process it, or a chargeback for a past recurring transaction was filed.

The cardholder tried resolving a dispute with the merchant but was unsuccessful.

The cardholder claims that they didn't get cash from the ATM or it only dispensed part of the requested amount.

The cardholder claims that they received an incorrect installment charge.

Used when a cardholder claims a particular transaction charged as a sale should have been a credit.

The cardholder claims they didn’t participate in the transaction, and the merchant didn’t get an electronic or physical imprint of the card (card-present environment).

The cardholder claims they didn’t participate in or authorize a transaction verified by a signature, nor does the merchant have a copy of a signed receipt to prove otherwise.

The cardholder agrees they’ve transacted with the merchant before but claims they didn’t authorize the particular transaction.

The merchant processed a telephone, mail, or internet order in which the cardholder claims they didn’t authorize or participate.

The merchant processed a transaction using a counterfeit card, and the cardholder denied participating in the transaction. The merchant didn’t flag the counterfeit card because they used a POS system that’s not chip and PIN enabled, or they manually keyed the transaction.

A transaction was made using an actual credit card, but the cardholder claims they didn’t participate in the transaction since their card was stolen, lost, or never received. The merchant didn’t detect the fraud because they manually keyed the transaction or used a terminal that wasn’t PIN and chip-enabled.

The amount the merchant sought approval for was less than the transaction amount.

The merchant processed a declined transaction, or the card was expired.

Your authorization approval expired before you could charge the card.

The cardholder claims the merchant was to issue a refund, but the amount hasn’t been credited to the card.

The cardholder didn’t accept the delivery of services or goods or returned the products, but the merchant didn’t process a credit.

The cardholder claims they canceled their order, but the merchant failed to issue a refund.

The cardholder claims they didn’t receive the service or product purchased. Or they partially received what was promised.

The cardholder claims you charged their card for a transaction they paid through other methods.

The cardholder claims the merchant billed them for a lodging reservation that they had canceled. Or they didn’t receive a credit for a CARDeposit charge. A CARDeposit is a provision that allows merchants to submit charges for deposits provided the merchant follows the program rules.

The cardholder claims they were still charged even though they canceled their subscription or revoked their permission to the recurrent billing arrangement.

The cardholder claims they received services and merchandise different from what was described.

The customer claims they received defective, damaged, or faulty merchandise.

The merchant processed a transaction with an incorrect or invalid card number.

The merchant debited the cardholder’s account instead of crediting it.

The cardholder claims the merchant should have processed a regular transaction on their card, but instead, the merchant credited their account.

The merchant processed a different amount from what they got authorization for/the cardholder agreed to.

The merchant didn’t submit the transaction in the required time.

The cardholder claims they received a voided transaction or credit receipt that wasn’t processed.

The card number the merchant charged the transaction to isn't assigned to a cardholder or a valid account.

The merchant made multiple transaction currency errors.

American Express requested additional transaction information but the merchant didn’t offer sufficient information.

American Express sent the merchant an inquiry to get more information about a transaction but the merchant didn’t send a reply in good time.

American Express sent a transaction inquiry to the merchant, but the merchant responded by authorizing American Express to process a chargeback for the transaction.

A merchant responds to a retrieval request with a copy of an illegible sales receipt.

The cardholder claims an unauthorized card-present transaction was completed using their credit card.

The cardholder claims that they did not participate in or authorize a card-not-present transaction. It could be a telephone, mail or internet order.

The cardholder claims their chip card was counterfeited, and the merchant processed a transaction with the counterfeit card on a non-EMV-compliant POS terminal that couldn’t detect the fraud. As a result, they claim the transaction was unauthorized.

The cardholder possesses a PIN-preferring credit card, but your POS is either not PIN-enabled or allows the shopper to bypass the PIN entry.

Discover is requesting additional information for a card-present transaction a cardholder claims was unauthorized.

The cardholder claims the transaction was fraudulent and that the merchant didn’t follow the correct authentication procedures or the merchant didn’t obtain their signature.

The merchant didn’t seek authorization for the card transaction.

The merchant completed a transaction even after the authorization request was declined.

The merchant processed a transaction without getting a positive authorization response, or a response came after the card’s expiry.

The cardholder claims the transaction isn't valid because it was processed after the expiry of their credit card.

The merchant processed a transaction against an unassigned, invalid or incorrect card number.

The merchant failed to process the transaction in good time, and now the issuer cannot collect the transaction amount from the cardholder.

Following the retrieval process, the issuer started a good faith investigation, and the merchant accepted liability. A good faith investigation is a dispute that can be initiated well after the standard disputing timeframe has elapsed.

The cardholder claims they don’t recognize the charge on their statement.

The cardholder claims the merchant processed a transaction after their payment plan ended or after they had canceled the subscription.

The cardholder claims the charged amount is different from the authorized amount.

The merchant processed one transaction two or more times.

The merchant debited instead of crediting the cardholder’s account.

The ATM didn’t disburse the full cash withdrawn by the cardholder.

The cardholder paid for merchandise or service with alternative forms of payment, but their card was still charged.

The cardholder claims they didn’t receive the service, merchandise or money as promised.

The cardholder claims the service or goods purchased weren’t as described or were defective.

The cardholder claims the merchant promised a refund, but they haven’t processed it yet.

The merchant has not complied with Discover’s rules.

Refers to any claims of an invalid transaction that doesn’t fall in other code classifications.