On this page

Do not put the phrase on the cover

A reviewer is not grading your theory of the customer. Accusing the cardholder of lying is not evidence. State facts: this card paid two earlier orders that were not disputed; tracking shows delivery to the billing address on this date; the customer emailed about a size exchange on this order.

Visa Compelling Evidence 3.0

Stripe describes CE 3.0 as a Visa framework for certain fraud disputes (commonly 10.4) where prior non-fraudulent history with the same cardholder can support a merchant response. Stripe says it will flag eligible disputes, auto-add qualifying prior transactions when it can, and mark required fields. If your processor does not flag CE 3.0, do not invent the program on the packet. Attach the prior-order records you actually have.

Records that can show involvement

Usually helps

  • Prior undisputed payments. Same card, email, or account, with dates before this dispute.
  • Delivery to a verified address. Especially the AVS-matched billing address.
  • Account use after payment. Login, download, or support messages from the customer about this order.

Usually does not help

  • Calling it friendly fraud in the narrative. That is a label, not a document.
  • AVS alone. A matching zip code does not identify the person who typed it.
  • A refund policy. Policy does not show who authorized the charge.

If the customer simply does not recognize your statement descriptor, start with unrecognized charges rather than a fraud theory.