Methodological Guide to Transaction Disputes in Visa and Mastercard Systems: Issuing Bank Practice (2023–2025)

Citation: Katsyarina Sabaleuskaya, "Methodological Guide to Transaction Disputes in Visa and Mastercard Systems: Issuing Bank Practice (2023–2025)", Universal Library of Multidisciplinary, Volume 02, Issue 02.

Copyright: This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

This methodological guide examines the integrated architecture of transaction disputes in the Visa and Mastercard American ecosystems from the perspective of an issuing bank, against the backdrop of the rapid transformation of the global payments landscape. The study’s relevance is driven by the increasing volume of disputes, tightening regulatory requirements, the dynamic evolution of fraud schemes, and the need for issuers to transition from reactive procedures to proactive, data-driven management of dispute resolution processes. As American-based payment systems that together account for about 63.7% of global purchase transactions and roughly 86.9% of U.S. card purchase volume, Visa and Mastercard also concentrate the bulk of the industry’s dispute activity, with forecasts of approximately 40% growth in losses from invalid chargebacks between 2025-2030. At the same time, the payment card market size is estimated at US$1,500 billion and is projected to reach US$3,000 billion by 2030. At the same time, issuers and payment systems face an acute global shortage of highly qualified Visa and Mastercard dispute specialists, particularly in the United States, because this niche field requires a rare combination of advanced legal expertise and strong interpersonal and psychological skills for dealing with clients in situations of perceived or actual financial loss. The purpose of the guide is to develop a holistic methodological framework that systematizes the chargeback lifecycle, standardizes incident qualification approaches, improves the accuracy of evidentiary analysis, and minimizes financial losses arising from misclassification, missed deadlines, or failure to apply liability-shift mechanisms. The novelty of the work lies in integrating fragmented regulatory requirements for Visa Claims Resolution and Mastercom Collaboration into a single analytical construct, as well as in the detailed treatment of algorithmic models for evaluating evidence, including CE 3.0.

Keywords: Chargeback, Disputes, Visa, Mastercard, VCR, Mastercom, CE 3.0, First-Party Misuse, Fraud.

https://doi.org/10.70315/uloap.ulmdi.2025.0202005