COVID-19 Is Leading to More Chargeback Issuances

The following is a guest post by Monica Eaton-Cardone, cofounder and COO of Chargebacks911®.

Millions of consumers have been trapped at home for months due to COVID-19. It’s no surprise, then, that digital shopping channels have seen a surge of activity since the beginning of the outbreak.

E-commerce sales were up 55% year-over-year in July according to Adobe Analytics. That’s actually down from the previous two months, where we saw 78% and 76% surges in YoY activity, respectively.

This is great news for businesses operating in the digital marketplace. Of course, new opportunities mean new challenges. A sudden surge in chargeback issuances, for instance, threatens to take the wind out of our collective sails pretty quickly.

Chargebacks are a kind of forced payment reversal initiated by a cardholder, or by the cardholder’s issuing bank. There are dozens of different reason codes explaining why a customer disputed a charge. However, we can trace all chargebacks to one of three fundamental sources: merchant error, criminal fraud, or friendly fraud.

Friendly fraud occurs when a cardholder disputes a charge without a valid reason to do so. And, while these disputes are nothing new, we’ve observed a spike in this activity since the outbreak of COVID-19. Friendly fraud chargeback issuances were up 25% through the end of March, and the trend doesn’t appear to be dissipating.

A $100 Billion Liability

Friendly fraud was already projected to cost businesses about $50 billion in 2020 before the outbreak began. It’s too early to say how current trends will ultimately impact that figure. However, it’s possible that friendly fraud might result in more than $100 billion in losses this year alone.

This all begs the question: where are these fraudulent chargebacks coming from?

In a way, we can define friendly fraud more effectively by what it isn’t, rather than what it is. With criminal fraud, a bad actor uses stolen information to complete a purchase. With merchant error, the seller failed to live up to the obligations outlined in their terms and conditions. In either case, the buyer would be justified in disputing the charge.

Any chargeback that isn’t caused by criminal activity or by a clear mistake on the part of a merchant, could be considered friendly fraud. Buyer’s remorse is a common cause, as is the customer misunderstanding the merchant’s policies. There are also situations in which a friend or relative made a purchase without the cardholder’s permission (sometimes described as “family fraud”). There are even situations in which buyers knowingly abuse the chargeback process by making a purchase with the intent to dispute it later (“cyber shoplifting”).

In any case, the result remains the same. Friendly fraud means merchants lose revenue and merchandise and are also responsible for paying punitive fees. In the long term, this can lead to higher overhead for businesses, as well as higher prices and fewer options for consumers.

Is Anything Being Done?

Part of the problem is a general atmosphere of inconsistency in the marketplace. New technologies and innovations in sales channels are positive developments, but they need to be matched with industry rule changes. We’ve seen some positive developments; Visa and Mastercard have both implemented short-term changes and clarifications in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. As it stands, though, chargeback practices are hopelessly out of touch with the realities of the market.

Merchants can cut out most criminal fraud attacks by using fraud prevention tools like CVV Verification, address verification, and fraud scoring as part of a larger, multilayer strategy. They can also prevent merchant error chargebacks by addressing common triggers, including:

  • Unrecognizable billing descriptors
  • Inaccessible live customer service
  • Slow response to questions and inquiries
  • Confusing policies and terms
  • Delays in processing transactions

Once a merchant has largely eliminated the prospect of chargebacks caused by errors or criminal fraud, any remaining chargebacks should mostly be friendly fraud. Unfortunately, there’s no way to reliably prevent friendly fraud, as it appears to be a legitimate sale until the point at which a buyer disputes it. There are some practices, though, which can help minimize risk:

  • Notifying buyers before processing recurring payments
  • Maintaining well-organized transaction records
  • Providing tracking information and delivery confirmation
  • Replying to any questions, comments, or refund requests in a timely manner

Fighting Back Against Chargeback Abuse

Whenever friendly fraud does occur, merchants can engage in a process called representment. The term refers to the fact that the merchant literally “re-presents” the transaction to the bank. Of course, the merchant also needs to provide a pile of compelling evidence to refute the buyer’s claim and explain why the original transaction was valid. This evidence can include anything from printouts of email conversations between the merchant and buyer to delivery confirmation or proof of in-store pickup.

Merchants can’t simply fight every chargeback that comes their way, though. No defense is perfect, and even with the best tools and procedures in place, some small portion of chargebacks resulting from errors or criminal activity will still slip through from time to time. As a result, merchants may need to engage in manual review for each chargeback to determine which cases they can fight.

Roughly 4 in 10 consumers who file a friendly fraud chargeback will do it again within 60 days. And, as COVID-19 continues to reverberate in the market, the existing trend toward increased chargebacks will only deepen.


Interested in writing a guest post for Credit.com? See our guest post guidelines.

Monica Eaton-Cardone is an international entrepreneur, speaker, and author. She possesses more than two decades of experience in the eCommerce space as both a merchant and service provider, and is one of the world’s leading experts on payments and consumer disputes. Monica is the Co-Founder and COO of Chargebacks911®, a global risk mitigation firm helping online merchants optimize their profitability through chargeback management. Chargebacks911 has more than 350 employees globally, with offices in North America and Europe.

Credit.com receives compensation for the financial products and services advertised on this site if our users apply for and sign up for any of them. Compensation is not a factor in the substantive evaluation of any product.

Hello, Reader!

Thanks for checking out Credit.com. We hope you find the site and the journalism we produce useful. We wanted to take some time to tell you a bit about ourselves.

Our People

The Credit.com editorial team is staffed by a team of editors and reporters, each with many years of financial reporting experience. We’ve worked for places like the New York Times, American Banker, Frontline, TheStreet.com, Business Insider, ABC News, NBC News, CNBC and many others. We also employ a few freelancers and more than 50 contributors (these are typically subject matter experts from the worlds of finance, academia, politics, business and elsewhere).

Our Reporting

We take great pains to ensure that the articles, video and graphics you see on Credit.com are thoroughly reported and fact-checked. Each story is read by two separate editors, and we adhere to the highest editorial standards. We’re not perfect, however, and if you see something that you think is wrong, please email us at editorial team [at] credit [dot] com,

The Credit.com editorial team is committed to providing our readers and viewers with sound, well-reported and understandable information designed to inform and empower. We won’t tell you what to do. We will, however, do our best to explain the consequences of various actions, thereby arming you with the information you need to make decisions that are in your best interests. We also write about things relating to money and finance we think are interesting and want to share.

In addition to appearing on Credit.com, our articles are syndicated to dozens of other news sites. We have more than 100 partners, including MSN, ABC News, CBS News, Yahoo, Marketwatch, Scripps, Money Magazine and many others. This network operates similarly to the Associated Press or Reuters, except we focus almost exclusively on issues relating to personal finance. These are not advertorial or paid placements, rather we provide these articles to our partners in most cases for free. These relationships create more awareness of Credit.com in general and they result in more traffic to us as well.

Our Business Model

Credit.com’s journalism is largely supported by an e-commerce business model. Rather than rely on revenue from display ad impressions, Credit.com maintains a financial marketplace separate from its editorial pages. When someone navigates to those pages, and applies for a credit card, for example, Credit.com will get paid what is essentially a finder’s fee if that person ends up getting the card. That doesn’t mean, however, that our editorial decisions are informed by the products available in our marketplace. The editorial team chooses what to write about and how to write about it independently of the decisions and priorities of the business side of the company. In fact, we maintain a strict and important firewall between the editorial and business departments. Our mission as journalists is to serve the reader, not the advertiser. In that sense, we are no different from any other news organization that is supported by ad revenue.

Visitors to Credit.com are also able to register for a free Credit.com account, which gives them access to a tool called The Credit Report Card. This tool provides users with two free credit scores and a breakdown of the information in their Experian credit report, updated twice monthly. Again, this tool is entirely free, and we mention that frequently in our articles, because we think that it’s a good thing for users to have access to data like this. Separate from its educational value, there is also a business angle to the Credit Report Card. Registered users can be matched with products and services for which they are most likely to qualify. In other words, if you register and you find that your credit is less than stellar, Credit.com won’t recommend a high-end platinum credit card that requires an excellent credit score You’d likely get rejected, and that’s no good for you or Credit.com. You’d be no closer to getting a product you need, there’d be a wasted inquiry on your credit report, and Credit.com wouldn’t get paid. These are essentially what are commonly referred to as "targeted ads" in the world of the Internet. Despite all of this, however, even if you never apply for any product, the Credit Report Card will remain free, and none of this will impact how the editorial team reports on credit and credit scores.



Your Stories

Lastly, much of what we do is informed by our own experiences as well as the experiences of our readers. We want to tell your stories if you’re interested in sharing them. Please email us at story ideas [at] credit [dot] com with ideas or visit us on Facebook or Twitter.

Thanks for stopping by.

- The Credit.com Editorial Team