Why Different Chargeback Reason Codes Require Different Response Templates

Chargebacks are not all the same. Yet one of the most common mistakes merchants make is responding to every dispute with the same generic template.

This approach almost always leads to lost disputes.

Card networks such as Visa, Mastercard, and American Express evaluate disputes based on reason codes. Each reason code represents a different claim, different rules, and different evidence requirements.

Using a one-size-fits-all response is one of the fastest ways to lose chargebacks — even when the merchant is right.

What a chargeback reason code actually means

A chargeback reason code is not just a label. It defines:

• Why the cardholder is disputing the transaction.
• What the bank expects to see as proof.
• Which documents are considered valid evidence.
• Which arguments are completely irrelevant.

For example:

• A fraud dispute is evaluated very differently from a “not received” dispute.
• A “credit not processed” case has nothing in common with “item not as described”.
• Some reason codes require shipping proof, others explicitly ignore it.

When merchants reuse the same template, they often submit evidence that does not match the reason code, which weakens or completely invalidates the response.

Why generic templates fail

Generic chargeback templates usually include:

• Order confirmation.
• Generic transaction details.
• A short merchant statement.
• Sometimes a tracking number.

This may look reasonable, but for many reason codes, it is insufficient or irrelevant.

Banks do not evaluate disputes based on how confident the merchant sounds. They evaluate disputes based on whether the response satisfies the specific rules of the reason code.

If the required evidence is missing — or the wrong type of evidence is submitted — the dispute is lost automatically.

Fraud reason codes require a completely different approach

Fraud-related disputes (for example, card-not-present fraud) focus on transaction legitimacy, not delivery.

What matters most in these cases:

• AVS verification results.
• CVC match.
• IP address consistency.
• Device and browser data.
• Customer history.
• Matching billing and shipping information.

Shipping confirmation alone is often not enough in fraud cases. A proper fraud template must clearly demonstrate that the transaction was authorized by the cardholder and passed industry-standard verification checks.

Using a delivery-focused template for fraud disputes is a guaranteed mistake.

“Merchandise not received” disputes are about delivery proof

For “item not received” disputes, the bank is asking a simple question: Was the product delivered to the correct address?

Here, the strongest evidence includes:

• Carrier name.
• Tracking number.
• Delivery confirmation.
• Delivery date.
• Address match.

Fraud signals or product descriptions usually do not matter in these cases. A template designed for fraud or product quality disputes will miss the core requirement: clear proof of delivery.

“Not as described” disputes focus on expectations vs reality

When a customer claims the item was not as described, banks evaluate:

• Product description shown at checkout.
• Images used on the product page.
• Disclosed specifications.
• Return and refund policy.
• Whether the customer contacted the merchant before disputing.

Shipping proof alone does not resolve these disputes. The response must show that the product matches the description and expectations presented to the customer at the time of purchase.

This requires a dedicated template that references product pages and policies, not logistics data.

“Credit not processed” disputes are policy-driven

For “credit not processed” or refund-related disputes, banks focus on:

• Refund policy terms.
• Refund eligibility.
• Refund timelines.
• Whether the customer followed the required process.
• Whether a refund was already issued or denied correctly.

Submitting fraud data or delivery confirmation in these cases does nothing. The response must clearly explain why a refund was not due, or when and how it was processed, according to the merchant’s policy.

Card networks expect reason-code-specific responses

Visa, Mastercard, and other card networks publish detailed rules that define:

• Which evidence is acceptable per reason code.
• Which arguments are invalid.
• How disputes are evaluated at each stage.

Merchants who align their responses with these rules consistently outperform those who rely on generic templates. Winning chargebacks is less about volume and more about precision.

Why automated, reason-code-based templates work better

Modern chargeback management systems generate responses based on:

• The dispute reason code.
• The transaction data.
• The merchant’s policies.
• The available evidence.

This ensures that only relevant evidence is submitted, the response structure matches card network expectations, and nothing critical is missing.

Automation does not mean generic. It means structured, rule-based responses tailored to each dispute type.

Final takeaway

Different chargeback reason codes represent different legal and procedural claims. Responding to all disputes with the same template ignores how chargebacks actually work — and leads to unnecessary losses.

Merchants who want higher win rates must treat each reason code as a separate scenario, with its own logic, evidence requirements, and response structure.

Different reason codes require different templates — anything else is guesswork.