Compelling Evidence 3.0 is Visa's rule that lets a merchant shift liability for a fraud chargeback by showing the cardholder made two earlier transactions with the same merchant. The two transactions have to be between 120 and 365 days before the disputed one, and they have to match on the card, the device, or the delivery address. It applies to Visa reason codes 10.4 and 13.1, and it turns a lost dispute into a winnable one.
The two-transaction rule
The rule is simple to state and specific to prove. To use Compelling Evidence 3.0, the merchant shows that the cardholder made at least two earlier transactions with the same merchant, between 120 and 365 days before the disputed transaction. The earlier transactions have to match the disputed one on at least two points: the same card, the same device, or the same delivery address.
The window matters. Two transactions from last week do not count, because a stolen card can be used twice in a week. Two transactions from six months ago, on the same device, to the same address, are much harder to fake. The 120-day floor is what makes the evidence compelling, and the 365-day ceiling is what keeps it relevant.
Which disputes it covers
Compelling Evidence 3.0 applies to two Visa reason codes: 10.4, fraud on a card-absent transaction, and 13.1, merchandise or services not received. Those are the two codes where the merchant's best defense is proving the cardholder is who they say they are, and the transaction is one of a pattern of legitimate purchases.
It does not apply to other codes. A dispute about the quality of the goods, a billing error, or a subscription cancellation has different evidence and different rules. Filing Compelling Evidence 3.0 on the wrong code wastes the dispute and the fee, and it tells the issuer the merchant does not understand the reason code system.
What the evidence packet looks like
A winning packet is short and specific. The two prior transactions, with dates, amounts, and the matching identifiers. The delivery confirmations for those transactions, showing the same address. The device fingerprint, if the merchant keeps one, showing the same device. And a one-page summary that states the rule, the facts, and the conclusion: this cardholder has bought from this merchant before, on this device, at this address, and the disputed transaction fits the pattern.
Merchants with strong packets win fraud disputes at rates of 50 to 70 percent. Merchants with weak packets, a screenshot and a hope, win far less. The difference is not the facts. It is the presentation. The issuer reviews hundreds of disputes a day, and the packet that states the rule and proves each element gets accepted. The packet that rambles gets denied.
Why it shifts liability, not just wins a dispute
The value of Compelling Evidence 3.0 is not just the money recovered. It is that a successful defense shifts liability back to the issuer, which means the chargeback does not count against the merchant's ratio under Visa's VAMP program. A merchant with a high chargeback ratio faces fines and the risk of losing the ability to take Visa at all, so every dispute that does not count is worth more than the amount in the dispute.
That is why the rule matters even for small merchants. A $50 dispute is not worth an hour of work on its own. A $50 dispute that keeps the chargeback ratio under the threshold is worth far more than $50. The merchants who treat every fraud dispute as a ratio problem, not a revenue problem, are the ones who stay under the threshold.
Keep reading
Related guides on this site: chargeback windows and the 120-day clock merchants lose track of Visa VAMP thresholds and the chargeback ratio that puts your account at risk chargeback alerts, Ethoca and Verifi, and the warning that costs money to ignore More from Bot Defense For Insurance.
Frequently asked questions
What is Compelling Evidence 3.0?
A Visa rule that lets a merchant fight a fraud chargeback by showing the cardholder made two earlier transactions with the same merchant, proving the card was in the cardholder's hands and the account is legitimate.
What evidence do I need?
Two prior transactions, between 120 and 365 days before the disputed transaction, matching on the card, the device, or the delivery address. They have to be real purchases, not refunds or failed attempts.
Which chargeback codes does it cover?
Visa reason codes 10.4, fraud, card absent, and 13.1, merchandise or services not received. If the dispute is under a different code, Compelling Evidence 3.0 does not apply.
What happens if the evidence is accepted?
It shifts liability back to the issuer, which means the merchant keeps the money and the chargeback does not count against the merchant's ratio. That is the whole point: the evidence proves the cardholder, not the merchant, is the risk.