100 Example Avenue, Suite 200, Sampletown, CA 90001
Re: dispute dp_SAMPLE_fraud3ds — Response to chargeback — fraud, card absent (Visa 10.4 / MC 4837)
The cardholder claims this card-absent transaction was unauthorized. The grounded authentication, transaction and history evidence below places the cardholder at the purchase and defeats this Visa 10.4 / MC 4837 fraud claim.
Primary argument: Formal remedy — 3-D Secure liability shift (§3.1): the transaction authenticated under ECI 05 with a valid CAVV and DS transaction ID; under network liability-shift rules the dispute is invalid and liability rests with the issuer.
| Amount | USD 249.00 |
|---|---|
| Transaction date | 2026-05-02 |
| Transaction ID | ch_SAMPLE_fraud3ds01 |
| ECI | 05 |
| CAVV | SAMPLEcavvAAABBWcSNIAAAAABgJI3dA= |
| DS transaction ID | SAMPLE-ds-0f38e6948-5388-41a6 |
This order for USD 249.00, charge ch_SAMPLE_fraud3ds01 on 2026-05-02, completed full 3-D Secure authentication before it was authorized. The issuer’s access control server returned ECI 05 — the value the card networks define as a fully authenticated cardholder — together with a valid CAVV (SAMPLEcavvAAABBWcSNIAAAAABgJI3dA=) and DS transaction ID SAMPLE-ds-0f38e6948-5388-41a6, timestamped 2026-05-02T14:32:00Z (Exhibit A).
Under the Visa Core Rules a completed 3-D Secure authentication moves fraud liability to the issuer: the cardholder’s own bank verified the cardholder during checkout. No authentication exemption was applied, so the liability shift stands on its own and this 10.4 fraud claim is invalid on the network rules alone — before the supporting authorization, AVS and account-history evidence is even reached.